• Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

Secession petitions now filed for all 50 states

Teatime said:
Read the bold in each paragraph as if it was one sentence. That is the purpose of the law. It's saying you can't destroy government property or assassinate government officials. And it is certainly very Constitutional. We are by no means allowed to kill people just because they work for the government, or wreak destruction on property.
Click to expand...

So tell me, if the government becomes so corrupt and out of control (and I am not claiming that it is or is not the case now) and it is obvious that the government needs to be replaced, and they simply say NO to peaceful means for the people to take back their country, what are the peoples' options then? By the government merely passing a law stating that it is against the law to remove them, does that neuter all Constitutionally valid means to remove them if they refuse to go willingly? The US Constitution wasn't designed to protect the government from the people, it was designed to protect the people from the government it was creating. Our forefathers KNEW they were creating a potential monster. Read the Constitution with this in mind.

In the phrase "all enemies, foreign and domestic" what defines a "domestic enemy"?
 
They will eventually wall themselves into
what the UN has been pushing since their inception.
When the "New Constitution" is set before us it will then be to late
to opose.
People are sleeping and they are stacking bricks.
 
Tommy, please, go buy an old oil platform and start your own country. I'm sure it will be your version of utopia. I also hear that many countries in Africa have government systems very similar to the one that you seem to covet so highly. Please, have fun, go there if this country is so full of morons. We know that only you and your tin foil hat-wearing buddies are in the know and that the rest of us are all mindless sheep, but some of us are actually trying to make a real difference in our country and working together instead of just ranting about delusional ideas.

I find it funny that you, the supremely intelligent person that you are, are directly working towards the real destruction of the planet by aiding in the drilling of fossil fuels. Washington DC isn't going to be much of a threat if it's 10' underwater. Wait! Maybe that's your master plan! I figured it out!

Chris
 
WebSlave said:
So tell me, if the government becomes so corrupt and out of control (and I am not claiming that it is or is not the case now) and it is obvious that the government needs to be replaced, and they simply say NO to peaceful means for the people to take back their country, what are the peoples' options then? By the government merely passing a law stating that it is against the law to remove them, does that neuter all Constitutionally valid means to remove them if they refuse to go willingly? The US Constitution wasn't designed to protect the government from the people, it was designed to protect the people from the government it was creating. Our forefathers KNEW they were creating a potential monster. Read the Constitution with this in mind.

In the phrase "all enemies, foreign and domestic" what defines a "domestic enemy"?
Click to expand...

Rich, if it ever really gets to that breaking point when Americans are going to come together and remove a corrupt and out of control government, why do you care if what they're doing will legal by the government's terms? :shrug01: The government would be dismantled anyway, so what would it matter? Whoever is leading the Revolution would have to make the new rules.

If MOST Americans wanted to replace their government in a peaceful way, they'd just do it. Vote in different people? If you get enough campaign donations, anyone could become President. The problem is that MOST Americans don't want that drastic of a change.
 
But that's where you miss it, I wish no harm
BUT I do see what has happened and what has a very high percentage of coming to pass.

To scoff at History and how it continually replays itself
is what it is. It doesn't have a thing to do with what hat you choose to wear
 
Teatime said:
Rich, if it ever really gets to that breaking point when Americans are going to come together and remove a corrupt and out of control government, why do you care if what they're doing will legal by the government's terms? :shrug01: The government would be dismantled anyway, so what would it matter? Whoever is leading the Revolution would have to make the new rules.

If MOST Americans wanted to replace their government in a peaceful way, they'd just do it. Vote in different people? If you get enough campaign donations, anyone could become President. The problem is that MOST Americans don't want that drastic of a change.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but I just do not see our government relinquishing it's power without a fight. And it certainly won't be via any sort of "rules" neither.

And certainly I obviously do not have the faith in the power of the ballot box that you do. A corrupt government would be extremely foolish to leave anything to chance via that method. I think anyone analyzing the poor choices we have had to choose from for POTUS might stop to think that perhaps they really aren't "choices" at all. So why is it that someone who would be a bonafide leader to bring this country out of the tailspin it is in can't even make it to the list of viable candidates? Are none of that caliber interested in the job? Purely accidental?

The only reason Obama is still president was because most people thought that Romney was no better choice. So why couldn't the Republicans muster up someone who was a better choice? Stupidity? If so, this is a fearsome attribute for the leaders of our country to be exhibiting. But I can't say that the alternative reasoning that comes to mind is any more reassuring.
 
Beh, it's kind of obvious that Tommy only hears what he wants to hear. All his potentially valid arguments (which are few and far between and smack of fanaticism more than concrete ideas) got thrown out the window when he decided to block me. And to think, all I asked for was evidence backing up his claims! Shame on me for being a sheeple. e_e
 
Warning: If further posts here continue to be personally derogatory to other participants, infractions will be forthcoming. Differences of opinions are welcome, and I believe can be stated without personally derogatory slurs associated with them.
 
I know, I know, sorry Rich. Just can't stand the hypocrisy sometimes. I have no problem with people disagreeing with my points of view if they can just explain why, but I do have a problem with people spouting off rhetoric with absolutely no factual backing.

I'll retreat to my cave of science, evidence, and logic now and call it a day, lol.

(Although... calling people sheeple who disagree with your point of view is pretty offending to me and should warrant a warning too, in my humble opinion. Sheeple is allowed, but in that context it's no different from other derogatory name calling.)
 
WebSlave said:
The only reason Obama is still president was because most people thought that Romney was no better choice. So why couldn't the Republicans muster up someone who was a better choice? Stupidity? If so, this is a fearsome attribute for the leaders of our country to be exhibiting. But I can't say that the alternative reasoning that comes to mind is any more reassuring.
Click to expand...

Romney probably would have won if he had selected a moderate as his Vp. He already had the right wing vote. He should not of catered to teaparty as much either.

snowgyre said:
(Although... calling people sheeple who disagree with your point of view is pretty offending to me and should warrant a warning too, in my humble opinion. Sheeple is allowed, but in that context it's no different from other derogatory name calling.)
Click to expand...


Yes the sheeple bit is old.
 
snowgyre said:
I know, I know, sorry Rich. Just can't stand the hypocrisy sometimes. I have no problem with people disagreeing with my points of view if they can just explain why, but I do have a problem with people spouting off rhetoric with absolutely no factual backing.

I'll retreat to my cave of science, evidence, and logic now and call it a day, lol.

(Although... calling people sheeple who disagree with your point of view is pretty offending to me and should warrant a warning too, in my humble opinion. Sheeple is allowed, but in that context it's no different from other derogatory name calling.)
Click to expand...

There were no names mentioned in my warning. If the shoe seems to fit you, then please consider the warning as applicable.
 
In what post did I ever directly call someone
a sheeple? That close enough BS doesn't fly.
Most often the bell only rings for those it applies to.
Be PERFECTLY CLEAR, I do not fear the US Gov.
I wear no tin foil hat and I do not have to put boxs an labels on every aspect of my life
in order to feel secure in my world.

Understandably it's scary to think for yourself in a codependent
society.
 
Most Excellent,no need to prove the obvious
Those that see, see
Those that fail to see, argue blindly for futile enlightenment.
Carry on ..........
 
I'm sure it will be as simple as giving a thousand lawyers a thousand years to figure it out.
 
Back
Top