Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty Digest™ 

Watch Your Mouth!

August 1, 2012 by  

Last month, a professional British soccer player was arrested and faced charges in an English court for something he said on the pitch during a game.

Celebrated soccer captain John Terry’s fate was in a court’s hands. The question: Would Terry’s 600-game career be forever tainted by a criminal conviction for racially abusing opposing player Anton Ferdinand?

The question was not whether Terry physically assaulted Ferdinand. The question was: Did Terry abuse Ferdinand with three hateful words?

The central fact of Terry’s trial was that he called Ferdinand “black,” couched between vulgar swear words. That was never in dispute.

The Telegraph reported:

The offending words were caught on camera and broadcast live to millions of viewers across the world from Loftus Road, where Chelsea were losing a Premier League game 1-0 to Queens Park Rangers.

 

 

Keep in mind these are not fifth graders, but professional athletes.

The maximum penalty Terry faced was a $4,000 fine. However, a conviction would have enormous implications for Terry’s career.

The prosecution argued that the Chelsea captain intended to offend Ferdinand when he used those words.

Did Terry intend to offend Ferdinand? The answer might depend on how you feel about the policing of words and whether the law can make us more polite even at the highest levels of sporting competition.

Chief magistrate Howard Riddle took the middle ground. While Riddle did not find Terry’s explanation of events persuasive, other misgivings nagged at the magistrate. In his judgment, he wrote:

It is highly unlikely that Mr. Ferdinand accused Mr Terry on the pitch of calling him a black (expletive). However I accept that it is possible that Mr Terry believed at the time, and believes now, that such an accusation was made.

The prosecution evidence as to what was said by Mr Ferdinand at this point is not strong.

It is therefore possible that what he [Mr Terry] said was not intended as an insult, but rather as a challenge to what he believed had been said to him.

In those circumstances, there being a doubt, the only verdict the court can record is one of not guilty.

So Terry was found not guilty. But the verdict was rendered not because it didn’t matter that in the heat of a professional football game that some bad words were exchanged. Instead, it was because there was reasonable doubt as to the exact intent of his words.

Had the magistrate ruled that Terry had “meant” that despicable phrase as an injurious insult to Ferdinand, Terry would now have a criminal record.

I know it’s England. I know it is soccer where a rip-roaring game is 1–0 and, if a player gets a hangnail, the ambulance drives onto the field. But really, as unmanly as this game is, can’t players even utter a bad word? It certainly isn’t the kind of organized sports I played when I was a kid. All kinds of comments were made back and forth discretely out of coaches’ and referees’ earshot.

If you think “So what, that’s England and who cares?” you had better think again. The language police are everywhere and — just like the old KGB — you might not know they are standing behind you.

Twenty years ago, I was in Spokane, Wash., standing outside the Spokane Club. It was pouring rain, and I was thinking of the quickest way to get to my car. Crossing a boulevard from the other side of the club was a man with a white cane and dark sunglasses. Because I sometimes think out loud, I said: “That guy does great for a blind guy.”

Two steps behind me was a woman of whose presence I wasn’t even aware. Indignant, she shouted: “He’s not blind! He is sight-impaired!”

She had no connection to the man navigating across the road. She simply wanted to correct my thinking.

A month later, I got a call from Society for the Blind. While I was on the phone with the gentleman who was asking for a donation, I asked him: “What do you call yourself?”

He said: “I’m blind.”

It made me think that the woman behind me that day — the woman who could see — was wrong in telling me what to say to myself or how to think.

Bad Words Are Bad

I hate the “N” word. I never use it, along with a few other words that upset me. That said, black people use it freely all the time. It is part of the rap culture;for some people, it is part of their everyday life.

Years ago, I was jogging alone in Spokane’s Riverfront Park and a couple of young black men saw me. One of them said to his friend: “Look at the [‘N’ word] run!” I laughed then, but later I wondered what would happen if I used that word. If it is terribly offensive for me to use it, shouldn’t it be offensive for others as well, despite their complexion?

This brings me to the word “black.” I see on the news every day that most white commentators call dark-skinned people African-Americans. That is a longer name for a group of people that not long ago were politely called “black.” And it is strange because on the news I see most dark-skinned people refer to themselves as black. If people of African heritage call themselves black, why can’t the rest of us?

Some Just Can’t Wait To Be Offended

We live in a world of political correctness — so much so that there are two words many people consider offensive but which our Founding Fathers highly respected: “Creator” in the Declaration and “Lord” in the Constitution.

A recent Psychology Today article warned about George Orwell’s classic, 1984, and went on to suggest that some of that nightmare is coming true today. Society and even the courts are telling us what words we can and must never say:

What is not fiction is the way the present day language police have established an elaborate protocol of what is called a beneficent censorship. Politically correct school boards, bias and sensitivity committees now review, abridge, and censor texts which in their opinion contain potentially offensive words, topics, and imagery. The members of sensitivity and bias committees are people with backgrounds in counseling, diversity training, guidance, bilingual education, and so forth.

Diane Ravitch’s book The Language Police laid bare “an elaborate, well-established protocol of beneficent censorship, quietly endorsed and broadly implemented by textbook publishers, testing agencies, professional associations, states, and the federal government” that steadily and stealthily reduces schoolbooks to packages of pabulum. The arbiters of political correctness on the left have joined with the fundamentalist guardians of morality on the right to foster a censorship apparatus that serves the political and social agendas of both, scorns the interests of students, and ensures that students will not be exposed to anything that might bother anyone, anywhere, for any reason.

I have bad news for some people: Some words and phrases are going to bother you. Choose to ignore them.

Words are a key to freely express ourselves. When people and the courts say it is criminal to use certain words, we have taken an irreparable step back from any hope for future liberty.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers
Editor, Myers Energy & Gold Report

John Myers

is editor of Myers’ Energy and Gold Report. The son of C.V. Myers, the original publisher of Oilweek Magazine, John has worked with two of the world’s largest investment publishers, Phillips and Agora. He was the original editor for Outstanding Investments and has more than 20 years experience as an investment writer. John is a graduate of the University of Calgary. He has worked for Prudential Securities in Spokane, Wash., as a registered investment advisor. His office location in Calgary, Alberta, is just minutes away from the headquarters of some of the biggest players in today’s energy markets. This gives him personal access to everyone from oil CEOs to roughnecks, where he learns secrets from oil insiders he passes on to his subscribers. Plus, during his years in Spokane he cultivated a network of relationships with mining insiders in Idaho, Oregon and Washington.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Watch Your Mouth!”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Louis Lemieux

    If you do not want to be affected by people of low consciousness, simply raise your consciousness to a level where you are safe from them.Low consciousness people hold you back from reaching greater heights. These include energy vampires, critical people, dishonest characters, and people with temperament issues. Let them go from your life and send them love as you do that.

  • Louis Lemieux

    There is always something good in everyone – even in the nastiest of people. It’s up to you to recognize that. The nastiest of people are also the unhappiest of people. Be kind to them because they are the ones who need your love the most.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Why?

      • Louis Lemieux

        Why what?

      • Louis Lemieux

        It’s only by changing the heart’s of people towards kindness that we can make this world a better place to live.

      • Karolyn

        Nadzieja – You’re kidding right?
        Louis – I feel the same way. Actually, I feel sorry for people who say and do horrible things, for they are the unhappiest people in the world.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        People often criticized Abraham Lincoln for being to kind to his political opponents. Once an adviser asked him why since these people were his enemies. That he should be trying to destroy them not make them his friends. To that Lincoln said ” Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?”.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Louis L., you do realize that you are advocating “abuse”, that a person is to show love even to the nastiest and unhappiest people. The nastiest and unhappiest people can make people’s lives miserable and the victims are just to “love” them.

      • Karolyn

        Nadzieja – No one can “make” your life anything; just like no one can”hurt” your feelings. We create our responses and have control over our own emotions and responses to what others do or say.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Karolyn, is Louis L., your alter ego?

      • Louis Lemieux

        Nadzieja Batki,

        I thought the Bible was your guide in life! :

        Matt. 5:44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…
        .

      • eddie47d

        Nadzieja and Opal are too busy doing the persecuting!

  • Jonathan Baker

    It seemed to me in watching the very small video clip that had no sound that the situation was between players of a game on the field, one of whom said “something”, possibly to an opposing team member (and not to his team mate), and the action was inadvertently caught on camera. Did that reach the level of slander or libel? I think not. Let’s have some sanity here.

    So, in a nutshell: Sticks and stones my break my bones, but names will never hurt me!

  • http://www.cindynel.co.za peter

    Just trying to figure how many politicians are actually correct, never mind politically so, or is the ‘ politically ‘ part just applied in order to exonerate them from their lies? Also, if a black calls you a ‘ honky ‘ that’s ok, but you call them anything other than ‘ sir ‘ you are a racist. Disrespect either way is a sign of ignorance and poor up-bringing and it always takes two to tango.

  • Dave67

    It works both ways… In this country, you can’t be president unless you prostrate yourself and tell everyone you are a “good Christian” whatever that means…

    The right have their sacred cows as does the left. For the longest time you could not question the motivations of religious leaders because they were somehow above reproach. We have the same deal with the US Military. You can’t question a soldier even one that has not served in war on the front lines… That is also a form of political correctness.

    How about we use direct language for all and judge based on the actions of the individual? That does not mean we need to use language that is derogatory to a group to describe a person or group because we are too lazy to get to know or understand them.

    As a society, we should shame those who engage in bigoted language and actions…. But before anyone goes off half cocked because of what someone says due to someone is looking to be offended, how about a little context?

    • Gary L

      You are right Dave67, it does work both ways. There are lots of people out there that will say that someone shouldn’t be president because he is a “good Christian”.

  • Hedgehog

    Over 100 years ago, in England and many other countries, there was a simple solution to the problem of verbal offense, dueling. Ah for the good old days! An armed society is a polite society. But in such a society many persons who could be called N words, such as; nitwits, no accounts, and numbskulls, would be endangered species. It would be so satisfying to invite some Loudmouthed, Liberal, Leftist (Oh! Dear!, I’ve used offensive L words 3 times!) to pistols at dawn.

    • Flashy

      ” It would be so satisfying to invite some Loudmouthed, Liberal, Leftist (Oh! Dear!, I’ve used offensive L words 3 times!) to pistols at dawn.”

      And it would be just as satisfying to be there as you didn’t show to man up and walk your talk….

    • Vigilant

      The 3 Ls are redundant. The term “leftist” is already defined by the other two words.

      • Vicki

        Only because leftests stole liberal. That is why we most often say classical liberal (not well defined) or libertarian. Well defined. http://www.lp.org

    • Doc Sarvis

      It would not matter much if they showed up or not; conservatives are pretty poor shots.

      • Vicki

        And liberals hate and fear guns so accurate shooting is not really required. In fact you can save ammo by not even being there. Liberals are so afraid of guns that they think the gun itself will jump up and shoot them and will thus run away.

  • eddie47d

    There wasn’t any reason that Mr Meyers even brought up the word black and it was irrelevant to what was said. It’s the other words that went with it that were offensive. Black,White ,Brown are just colors to describe what you seen nothing more. I’m white and Louis Armstrong is black, so what! Few people are offended by Lord or Creator either. Now when the word damn is thrown in with the word God it can rile up a few folks as is not easily accepted just like the N word. I don’t like the term “political correctness” because it has little to do with politics when using language. It all depends in how uncivil you want to be and how much of our language you want to trash. Personal responsibility is how we communicate with each other so if you want to win the battle with salty words then that is your problem. You rather deserve your reputation! I have a sneaky feeling a few of you feel that Freedom equals the privilege to insult and get away with it. When you are caught you shout out that you are loosing your freedoms to be insulting.

    • Flashy

      i’ve noticed i his last few articles Myers is veering off and becoming less factual and knowledgeable and more emotional in appeal. For instance “as unmanly as this game is”…shows a true ignorance of the game. His insistence the words “Creator’ as in “their Creator” means …in usage and intent, a christian deity and the use of “Lord’ in the Constitution where it recites the date in the terms of the times…is another indication of being somewhat unprepared and slapdash..as well as stretching reality to make some point which otherwise could not be made.

      He has used examples from Spokane from decades ago (before he showed his patriotism and fled to Canada.) to ‘prove” a point about today …

      John Myers used to write articles which, though one may have strong disagreement with, usually were solidly written and though wrong in proposition…were strong as debate. hopefully, he’ll get back to his former quality.

      • Vigilant

        “His insistence [sic] the words “Creator’ as in “their Creator” means …in usage and intent, a christian [sic] deity…”

        Sorry, Flashy, Mr. Myers insisted on no such thing, and your attempt to decipher his intent is presumptuous.

        Nor did he say “their Creator.”

      • Flashy

        Vig…ya think Mr. Myers meant Bhuddism? And what does ‘many people” mean?

        Just pointing out…John’s writing quality is slipping of late.

        “We live in a world of political correctness — so much so that there are two words many people consider offensive but which our Founding Fathers highly respected: “Creator” in the Declaration and “Lord” in the Constitution.”

      • Vigilant

        Mr. Myers knows full well what the term “Creator” meant to Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. It has obviously eluded your superficial thinking.

        Terms such as “Creator” and “Nature’s God” were clearly Deist terms, not even used by pastors in the Christian pulpits of the day. Jefferson himself did not subscribe to Christianity as a revealed supernatural religion. He even excised all references to the supernatural assertions in the New Testament and published his “Jefferson Bible.” Washington, Franklin and Thomas Paine were Deists, Madison had the leanings. Only Adams stands out as a devout Christian amongst the leading Founders.

        The Deist term is best described as “ultimate reality” and applies to whatever deity in which you may believe. It conforms perfectly to Christian belifs, but is not mutually exclusive.

        The use of the word “Lord” in the Constitution was following date conventions, as in “Year of Our Lord.”

      • Vigilant

        “And what does ‘many people” mean?”

        He’s clearly talking about the atheist condemnation of the words in our daily life and with respect to civic functions. Does that answer your question?

      • Vicki

        I use the term Creator rather than God or Allah or YWAH, or nothing? or whatever in this paragraph

        “First Principle. Your Creator gifted you with life and free will.
        How you use those 2 gifts and how you honor these gifts in others,
        is how you shall be judged.”

        specifically because I have yet to meet or know of anyone or anything that was not created. I capitalize the word as a courtesy to those for whom it does mean the God of their belief.

  • http://Walker Richard

    I grew up in Mobile, AL, and as I tell people, if you go any further south you are in the water. In the fifties it was the land of Jim Crow and prejudice. Well, I have never had a prejudiced bone in my body and could never understand why most people I grew up with did. I always felt that because we are all human beings, we deserve equal treatment under the law regardless of skin color. However, I also always felt that no one should be telling anyone who they must associate with socially, because that is an individual choice.

    Using the “N” word back then, as it were, was generally used to describe black people and at the same time could be construed to be an insult depending on the context. There have always been those that were lazy, shiftless, dirty, and generally no-good of both races, and there have always been the normal, hard working, dependable, responsible folk. I grew up knowing this, and when I used words to describe people of either sort I was not worried about what any of the “discriptees” thought of the words I was using to describe them. There was no such animal as “political correctness” back then. “Political correctness” is something recently invented by the liberal progressive statists to further erode our American freedom to express ourselves and is an abomination, as I see it. I also disagree with the term “African American”, since as citizens of this country we are all simply Americans.

    Words we use to describe something are just that – descriptors, and whereas they can hurt your feelings, they don’t hurt you physically. Remember “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me”? If I had been as sensitive and taken offense so quickly as those that nowadays get called the “N” word, I would have never made it through Parris Island or become a fighter pilot (USMC F-4J), since I was called many things way worse than “(expletive deleted)”.

    In my opinion, to prosecute someone because they have used words describing something they dislike (or even hate) is the height of absurdity. As human beings we discriminate against and like or hate things (and people) every day, it is our nature. I hate lazy people, should the lazy people then be able to accuse and prosecute and convict me for saying that I hate them? To those that tell me I am insensitive I say that I am not sorry for the fact that I am a human being and say what I think (and believe) to anyone listening when I feel it is appropriate to do so. Like most normal people I self censor what I say when I am “out in society”, but I also call a spade a spade. In this country I am entitled to have my opinion and I have the right to voice it. Anyone who wants to take that right away from me should be careful, because when the pendulum swings the other way (as it always does), they might find themselves on the receiving end of the very “law” they enacted.

    MAP, you are spot on.

    • Louis Lemieux

      Richard,

      Interesting to read. What a contrast to where I was raised! I was brought up in a small town near the Canadian border where people were all white. My mom would talk to us about people of color because she worked many years in New York City. I was about six or seven when I saw one for the first time, he came from far away to load Christmas trees on a big truck and soon disappeared when the truck was loaded.The poor guy, so many people starring at him! I believe way down deep we are all racist to a certain degree, it’s up to each and everyone of us do our best to become less and less of it. Self improvement never really ends. Every human being deserves respect. I don’t hate lazy people, but I do hate the fact they’re lazy. The less we judge others, the happier we are.

    • DaveH

      Good comment, Richard.
      Freedom of Speech can be sometimes be brutal, but what better way is there to steer people in the right direction than to allow them to speak freely so that their misconceptions may be addressed rather than having them bottle up their negative feelings until some day they explode in rage?

    • JohnQ from MS

      Richard, I absolutely agree with you. Two other comments: one of my favorite novels is “To Kill a Mockingbird” which was written just “a hop, skip, and jump” from Mobile. And, I made a career of the navy (confound it, is that swabby badmouthing this jarhead?). I think that you and I think enough alike that you will understand both these comments.

  • TML

    Yeah, I’m still going to say, so what… it’s England. Perhaps the language police are everywhere, but if that’s so, then I’m sure there should be plenty of examples here in this country, right? Seriously, if your best example in America is some chick getting upset about your use of the word “blind”, then it’s not convincing there is a major problem in this country.

    The ‘N’ word being used by blacks, and not by whites, is not only for obvious reasons… but there is also a difference in there way the word is said, and if you know the person you’re saying it to. The slang version of the word ends with an ‘a’, while the offensive derogatory version of the word ends with ‘er’.

    As for “Creator” and “Lord”… those are quite generic terms that can be applied to nearly every religion or philosophy, even pantheism. Most atheists do not find these terms offensive for this reason.

    Still there is often words and phrases that may be offensive, and I’ve seen censorship even on this site where the comment was replaced with “[Offensive comment removed]“. Although I understand that this may be due to the more widely accepted curse words, who gets to decide what will be included? The answer is obvious… the organization that monitors the language… whether it be this site, or a school.

    People should be able to express themselves respecting general edicate…. but there will always be those who get upset about something whether its the person getting upset about saying “blind”, or those that get upset about that person saying “sight-impaired”.

    • Vicki

      TML writes:
      “…..I’ve seen censorship even on this site where the comment was replaced with “[Offensive comment removed]“. ”

      That is because this site is private property and not government. The 1st amendment restricts CONGRESS not private individuals/property owners. Now what is your ability as a property owner to deal with someone who refuses your lawful demand?

      This site even tells you at the beginning of the comments section.
      -
      -
      What is your ability as a property owner to deal with someone who is standing on your property and refuses your lawful demand?

      You tell him to leave your property.
      -
      -
      Now for a really tough one. Public places. What is your ability as an individual to deal with someone who refuses your lawful demand (to stop speaking freely say on a soap box for instance, Or street corner)?

      You exercise another part of the 1st amendment and WALK AWAY.

      It’s really that simple.

      • TML

        Vicki says, “That is because this site is private property and not government. The 1st amendment restricts CONGRESS not private individuals/property owners.”

        Then you repeat what I’m saying really… when I said, “who gets to decide what will be included? The answer is obvious… the organization that monitors the language… whether it be this site, or a school”… of course, I should add, owners of private property.

        Vicki says, “Now for a really tough one. Public places.”

        That’s not really tough… the obvious and most reasonable thing to do is of course, to walk away… if you can. But as the saying goes, you can’t yell fire in the middle of a crowded theater either. However, the provocation should become a legal issue if an assault occurs.

      • Vicki

        TML writes:
        “However, the provocation should become a legal issue if an assault occurs.”

        Everything related to an assault becomes a legal issue.

  • Ted

    I grew up in an ethnically mixed neighborhood. I learned the hard way not to use the terms “wop”, polack”, “hunkie”, “frog”, “hillbilly”, etc, when referring to my classmates. Even now, I live in a neighborhood with people of Portuguese persuasion. I don’t use the term “portagee”. I’ve never been called a “Kraut” even by people I’ve offended, and I’m thankful for that.

    It’s a matter of being polite and considerate of others. And of considering another person’s actions as being more important than his ancestry.

    There are thousands of words in the English language. Feeling deprived or discriminated against because it is frowned upon to use a handful of words is really pretty silly.

    • Karolyn

      Some time ago, maybe 12 years or so, a politician came under attack for using the term “Polack.” I was working with a woman who said her husband was highly insulted by the word. We had a nice little discussion, with me telling her even though all my grandparents were Polish, I had no problem with the term. We were raised that way. I have no need to defend my heritage because of someone’s use of a word that’s supposed to be derogatory. It’s just a word. i’ve always loved Polack jokes.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I can respect that Karolyn. I guess my only issue is why have the word at all. I admit it can be used in a joking manner but why have it at all. Why is there a need to tell polack jokes.

  • Zed

    I knew the situation had gotten out of hand years ago when I heard someone referred to as “metabolically challenged” because calling him “dead” was considered politically incorrect.

    • TML

      “Metabolically challenged” is just stupid and actually sounds as bad as saying ‘dead’ because of it. “Dead” can be considered very rude, especially when your talking to someone who was close to the “deceased”. Or depending on the way it’s used in a sentence… someone who has “passed away”.

      • DaveH

        Dead, deceased, departed, passed away, or whatever. They all mean the same thing.

      • TML

        Yes, but the topic of discussion is more about general etiquette than the definition of words.

        It about how and where you might say it.

        Attending a funeral, it’s generally considered more respectful to relatives to say “passed away” or “deceased”, than to use the word “dead”.

        Of course, I think it’s rather stupid to have any legal issues over these issues unless the language was meant to provoke an assault. Thus the intent does make a difference, but stories like the soccer player in England is rather ridiculous.

      • Vicki

        TML writes:
        ‘Of course, I think it’s rather stupid to have any legal issues over these issues unless the language was meant to provoke an assault.”

        You still CHOOSE to be provoked. Thus the one committing the assault has committed a crime (assault) and not the one trying to provoke the assault.

      • TML

        No, one doesn’t choose to be provoked, but they do choose to commit the assault.
        However, those proven to provoke the assault are not innocent in the matter and should be taken into consideration, and the provocateur reprimanded by the court.

      • Vicki

        TML says:
        “hose proven to provoke the assault are not innocent in the matter and should be taken into consideration, and the provocateur reprimanded by the court.”

        Lawyers and Judges love that attitude. I prefer a simpler and easier to prove approach.

      • TML

        It’s not easy to prove, especially when it’s mere words, but for example… a person carry a concealed hand gun can not verbally nor physically provoke an attack. Giving someone the bird, or saying F you to provoke someone can and should be a legal issue for example.

      • TML

        “Giving someone the bird, or saying F you to provoke someone can and should be a legal issue for example.”

        to clarify, this is meant concerning someone who carrys a gun.

  • Ray Kennedy

    To threaten one here in Panama is a serious problem – it is not allowed. You can quickly go to jail and it is much more difficult to get out than it is to get in. You may have divergent opinions in any language or words you wish – but you may not threaten him or his.

    • Jefferson Thomas

      There is no longer a government in the area called Panama? They are existing by the very thing you say is against their law… coercion. They threaten the use of force if you threaten the use of force. What constitutes a threat by their law? Does this law apply to the tax collector? Police?

      What if I look at you in a way you dislike or find offensive?

      • Vicki

        Which you can then claim to “feel” threatened by.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      So does everyone go around Panama with their heads bowed down and their eyes cast down in case they offend someone?

  • FreedomFighter

    Very Non-Politically Correct speech:

    Shocking: The Alaskan Island Tradeoff / Alert From Listener

    July 31, 2012

    Hi Steve,

    I read the article about Odumbo supposedly giving away 7 Alaskan islands to the Russians back in February. A high up inside source says the leak for those 7 islands are payment for the 350,000 Russian troops here that will disarm and kill Americans when the collapse comes! It includes their training, wages, guns, ammo, tanks, assault weapons and housing in underground bunkers. So in reality Odumbo, gave away our land as payment to kill most of us, while all our troops are overseas and wouldn’t dare attack the American people! Back in February the deal was made just like the article says about the giving away of the 7 islands. So they say no money in the article was given because there wasn’t no US dollars paid! Instead they made a deal for the slaughter of our blood and lives for the rich oil based islands, and will let their Russian troops do the dirty work! Besides, how could they afford to pay the Russian troops you ask to attack the American people? They can’t! We are already 16 trillion in debt. In reality it is over 200 trillion! They don’t want our soon to be useless dollars anyways. So payment was made with the oil rich 7 islands for the Russian troops. It all fits the puzzle and the mystery behind what the payoff was. You may post or do what you want with this information. Pass this along to everyone you know……..
    Keep up your great Watchman work and God bless,
    GRP

    Webisite

    http://stevequayle.com/index.html

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

    • eddie47d

      You are becoming more whacked each day Freedom Fighter. Way off topic so the only puzzle is your insane conspiracy theories and fear mongering.

      • Gary L

        Maybe it is off topic…but ignoring truths won’t make them go away.
        Sometimes fear helps self preservation.

      • Dave67

        Gary L,

        Which “truths” is eddie ignoring again?

        Its just FF with another nutty conspiracy theory post…Nothing new here from him.

      • DaveH

        Neither you, Dave67, nor Eddie, knows whether FF’s post is true or not.
        Yet, you have the gall to put him down. Typical Progressive behavior.

      • FreedomFighter

        Noticed none of you even checked this, if you had, you would be afraid, Obama seals the island deal in Feb, in March Russian troops begin to arrive in America from a deal cut with DHS J. Nap., the troops from Russia continue to arrive.

        The Russian Troops train to disarm Americans, all the while Obama sends American troops and forces to the other side of the world. Huge push to disarm Americans. World wide crop failures, jobs non-existent, mobs robbing stores…

        These kind of deals have been made by wanna be dictators in the past, oh and what about Obama’s slip on the open microphone promising the russians…

        Americans are being played for fools, using political correctness, media blackout, manipulation and propaganda, you dont even know the truth when its in front of you.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        If nothing else, eddie & dave67, you should, at the very least, recognize FF’s contributions, as a expression of care and concern for his fellow Americans.

      • eddie47d

        Not if he is using distortions and fear to present his view. Some of you should have the courage to call his nonsense out.

    • Louis Lemieux

      A look at the map will give the reader some notion of the frozen “Alaskan” islands under discussion. All are far closer to the Russian mainland than to the Alaskan mainland. All lie on the Russian side of the U.S.-Russia maritime boundary set by a treaty that the U.S. Senate ratified overwhelmingly more than two decades ago, after being signed by President George H.W. Bush, and with the support of both of Alaska’s senators. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/alaskan-island-giveaway/

    • Dave67

      And DaveH

      You engage in typical conservative behavior in not challenging “supposed” (thats in the post) conspiracy theories because you hate Obama that much.

      If Obama tried to sell US territory to the Russians, that might make the mainstream news… You THINK?

      Oh, I forgot… you have a track record of not thinking.

      • Dave67

        FF, once again… your Tin hat is ready and waiting for you…

        http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/alaskan-island-giveaway/

        Q: Is President Obama giving away several Alaskan islands to Russia?

        A: No. The U.S. has never claimed ownership of the islands identified in viral emails and websites. They lie far closer to the coast of Siberia than to Alaska.

        Read… if you can stomach another delusional conspiracy theory getting shot down in flames…

      • FreedomFighter

        Yes comrade, because its closer that proximity gives ownership, so how come Obama had to give it back?

        Because they didnt own it.

        You make no sense comrade.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Dave67

        FF,

        How can Obama give back something we did not claim in the first place? Did you read?

        No.. of course you did not…

        “The whole business was raised anew in an opinion piece published Feb. 16 on the conservative site World Net Daily (notable for promoting dubious claims about the president’s birthplace). It was written by Joe Miller, the Tea Party favorite who defeated Sen. Lisa Murkowski (daughter of former Sen. Frank Murkowski) in the 2010 Republican Senate primary, only to see Lisa Murkowski go on to win the general election handily as a write-in candidate.

        “Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians,” Miller wrote. “We won the Cold War and should start acting like it.” The following day, Miller posted an addendum to his piece conceding that he was raising “an old issue” and that he had been “assisted with this article” by Olson’s State Department Watch.

        It is an old issue indeed. In fact, World Net Daily itself published a July 29, 2008, article critical of the State Department for the “island giveaway.” Of course, George W. Bush — not Obama — was president at the time. (The Bush administration’s official Arctic Region Policy stated that the U.S. would abide by the 1990 maritime agreement and would continue to urge the Russian Federation to ratify it.)

        And we’re not sure why Miller mentions only seven islands when Olson always has insisted the U.S. has a claim to eight. But whatever the count, it is simply false to claim that Obama is “giving away” islands to which no U.S. president has asserted a claim for more than 85 years, if ever.”

        Oops… not back into your conspiracy cage… The tea party corporatism will release you soon enough to put forth more BS the soft heads on the right will eat up.

      • FreedomFighter

        You are giving missleading informationcomrade Dave, the islands were part of the original purchase.

        Only Obama for some “unknown” reason settled with the Russians and got what in return?

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • FreedomFighter

        ” Being an
        executive agreement, it can be rescinded at any time by either party unilaterally. It is currently
        being enforced by the State Department on various federal agencies.

        1990 U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Agreement–

        Executive Agreement

        http://statedepartmentwatch.org/1990ExecAgreement.htm

        Obama gave it away, its afact.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Dave67

        FF,

        I am giving misleading info? Pot meet kettle….

        Your site is so choc full of good info… LOL…

        Size 10 on your tin hat? careful of the Gov mind rays when you go outside. Stay off the black streets… its all a way for Obama to control your mind.

      • Vicki

        When you actually look into it the island controversy is far messier than did obama give away or not.

        http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2012/02/alaskan-islands-belong-to-russia-a-conversation-with-joe-miller/

        and factcheck gives a lot of info to tiptoe thru.

      • Dave67

        Vicki,

        Land disputes between nations rarely are neat and tiddy…But the facts remain… The United States has not claimed these islands…Unless you have the president that did claim them. Obama has nothing to give the Russians since they were not ours in the first place.

        Its more conservative led BS trying to paint Obama as UnAmerican and not having this country’s best interest at heart and somehow Romney does.

        Its straws they are grasping at here…

      • Average Joe

        FreedomFighter,
        I belive that Dave67 is on the game show…”Trolling For Dollars”

        Don’t feed the Troll……If it is ignored enough…it will go away…keep feeding it …and we’ll never get rid of it…just saying.

        Best Wishes,
        AJ

      • Vicki

        Dave67 writes
        “Obama has nothing to give the Russians since they were not ours in the first place.”

        So what was he giving away? As to the islands, if you read the contents of your link and mine you will find that some of the islands do belong to Alaska and they are still a part of the country that obama claims to be president of.

        http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/staterights/islands.htm
        Here again we find that there IS something for obama to give away. Notice that the giveaway was started long before he took the office so don’t blame just him. The treaty was never actually signed by a nation that no longer exists so the islands were never ceded to the USSR let alone Russia in the early 1990s. Thus they must still belong to Alaska and thus under the jurisdiction of the US.

        Obama DID give away something that was ours.

        Or was there quid pro quo “under the radar”.

      • DaveH

        When do you ever challenge the board Progressives, Dave67 (probably several of which are your different personalities)?
        As far as my non-thinking goes, you should lay low on that nonsense because I regularly make you look like the fool you are. Having a non-thinker upstage you so much doesn’t put you in a very flattering light.

    • Karolyn

      You have got to be kidding me. Some people believe everything they read or see on the internet when it suits their agenda.

      • Vicki

        Some people believe everything they read in the newspaper. What was your point again?

      • Average Joe

        Karolyn,

        The intelligent thing to do….research the assertions and either learn something new in the process…or disprove the initial assertion.

        Simply pointing out that “Some people believe everything they read or see on the internet when it suits their agenda.” , does nothing to prove or disprove the original assertion….it simply points out the obvious. Since something is obvious…it serves no purpose nor does it find any truths.

        It is a rare mind indeed that can render the hitherto non-existent blindingly obvious. The cry ‘I could have thought of that’ is a very popular and misleading one, for the fact is that they didn’t, and a very significant and revealing fact it is too.
        Douglas Adams

        Best Wishes,
        AJ

      • Vicki

        Average Joe says:
        “The intelligent thing to do….research the assertions and either learn something new in the process…or disprove the initial assertion.”

        Or ignore the assertion as proof by bald assertion. (Presumes there was no cite to back up the assertion.)

  • arlo

    Who gives a Ratsa** what people think, I am going to say what I want, when I want. We are becoming a nation of little girlyboys supported by a socialist, communist, marxist group of misfits. Can I say that? I just did, so kiss my a**

  • dcjdavis

    PC stinks anyway you look at it. Mostly it just gives reason for taking offense to those who are looking for it.

  • angelwannabe

    Ah yes PC, another money maker from slanderous lawsuits and wild attempts at controlling content of language, can anyone say Hilter?___

    I FEEL A BIG FAT “BITE ME” TO THE PC POLICE COMING ON…..

  • http://freelarrysinclair.wordpress.com/ freelarrysinclair

    England? You have to go to England now?

    Some day you’ll live in a world that is free of fear and terror. Until then, stock up on guns and shoot everyone who doesn’t agree with you.

    • Michael J.

      Even someone who is cross-eyed can see plainly through cross-hairs by closing one iota. Duck-n-cover, dweeb.

  • dan

    I don’t care what color you are…although green and orange make me uneasy…
    I’ll be t your a$$ is brown. PC is for commie pinko’s who speak the dialectic.
    on another note:
    I had an akkk attack when I saw the banner this AM…I thought it was a PERSONAL warning from Bob :)

    • http://realsustainability.wordpress.com realsustainability

      Long live the First Ammendment! By todays measures the founding fathers would ALL be gagged and jailed. There probably would be no Constitution as we know it. Perfect for the liberal thought pattern of ignoring it anyway.

      • Michael J.

        realsustainability,
        Right, and Archie Bunker would have been executed.

  • Doc Sarvis

    Society has ALWAYS had words that are more or less “in favor”. These change over time and over geographies to some extent. And society has always judged people on their use of language. If one is going to use “bad language” (as so often happens on this site – and others), usually to intimidate another, then they better be prepared for the intimidation/judgement of others. It goes both ways. If you are going to curse at someone it says more than you think about your character and therefore you will be judged by those words you heap on someone else.
    Our Founding Fathers were wise to use the terms “Creator” and “Lord” as they are more generic terms for a higher being and apply to most religions. For a diverse country, and even world those terms work for most peoples.

    • MAP

      Doc, your post just offended me. It should be deleted.

    • Michael J.

      Doc Sarvis,
      The word “people”, when spelled “peoples” is an acknowldged derogatory term which is offensive to certain ethnic minority groups. Where is your sensitivity?

    • Robert Smith

      Doc posted: “And society has always judged people on their use of language.”

      At the risk of being stereotyped because of a knowledge of Broadway musicals…

      Professor Henry Higgins was an expert at such. The show “My Fair Lady” revolves around the very notion that social status is determined by the way one talks.

      Rob

      • momo

        You’re stereotyped alright, buit not because of your knowledge of broadway musicals!

      • TIME

        Dear Robert,

        Point quite well taken!

        Peace and Love

    • Vigilant

      Sarvis says, “Society has ALWAYS had words that are more or less “in favor”. These change over time and over geographies to some extent. And society has always judged people on their use of language.”

      But American society until recently did not always make it a punishable offense. Alien and Sedition Acts and Lincoln’s/Jefferson Davis’s suspension of habeas corpus aside, the rule was usually “sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Even newspapers can claim absence of malice to successfully defend slander in court.

      Courts of law now unconstitutionally convict persons of “hate crimes” simply because they were known to use politically incorrect speech at one time or another. That’s quite a shade of difference, Sarvis, compared to the innocuous judgment of society sans legal action.

      • Doc Sarvis

        How about yelling “fire” in a theater? How about plotting against the government in a serious way?

      • Flashy

        Vigilant…you made a point, as has Doc, that language is used to judge. Informally in a social setting and formally in legal. And has always been such. During the Inquisistion, the righteous Christians tortured and burned folks at the stake because words. One instance has a priest broken on the rack to confess companionship with Satan…the initial proof? He misspoke a Latin phrase incorrectly in conversation. Speak against the King usually was rewarded by removing the offending organ…most often this being the head.

        So it has been, so it will be. We judge people without thinking based upon words. DaveH says nothing, then directs to a Mises link which contains an article he has never read and is off topic (or contradicts what he was saying it was about). MAP is worthless unless one wants to read insults with no substance. i could recite the position of a Conservative Supreme Court Justice and be crucified (as occurred yesterday), and then called a liar because i point out the obvious with reasoning. The well read and fluent on the site are taken with more weight than those who are challenged above two syllables.

        Taking both of your stances melded together, you are correct.

      • Vigilant

        “How about yelling “fire” in a theater? How about plotting against the government in a serious way?”

        Non sequitur, Sarvis.

        You’re talking about (1) irresponsible and legally proscribed behavior that can do serious damage to life and limb on the one hand, and (2) actions (plotting), not politically incorrect speech.

        Your thinking is muddled; you would do well to avail yourself of some introductory courses on logic and the English language.

      • DaveH

        I didn’t say your comment was a lie, Flashman. I said that You are a liar, so you can’t be trusted.
        Ask me, Flashman, to prove to the readers that you can’t be trusted.

      • DaveH

        “I would like to take this opportunity, once and for all, to set the record straight on the famous old cliché: “after all, no man has a right falsely to shout fire in a crowded threatre.” This formula of that old cynic, Justice Holmes, has been used time and again as an excuse for all manner of tyranny. Just exactly why does no man have this right? Is this really a case where libertarian principle must give way to a diluting “prudence”? There are two possibilities: either the shouter is the owner of the theatre or he is not. If he is the owner, then he is clearly violating the evident contract which he made with the patrons: to put on a play which the patrons can watch – a contract which they executed in cash. By disturbing this performance, he is violating the contract. If the shouter is not the owner, then he is clearly trespassing on the owner’s property. He was permitted on that property on the ground that he would peacefully watch the play, a contract which he is obviously violating. The false shouter of “fire,” therefore, is punishable not because free speech should be restricted, but because he is violating the property right of others. And property right, in libertarian principle, is one of the basic natural rights of man” — Murray Rothbard.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        DaveH, common sense would dictate that the “person” who yelled Fire in a crowded theater when there was no fire would be endangering and possibly murdering people when a stampede would occur.

      • vicki

        Nadzieja Batki says:
        “common sense would dictate that the “person” who yelled Fire in a crowded theater when there was no fire would be endangering and possibly murdering people when a stampede would occur.”

        Some would say that Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is not protected speech. However FALSELY yelling fire in a crowded theater does result in direct harm to the property owner and to the RIGHT of the patrons to assemble peaceably. Thus it is not enfulllyough to observe that the word “fire” was yelled but that the circumstances would cause the reasonable person to flee perhaps in panic and perhaps injuring others on the way.

        The crime is in telling a lie that did cause direct physical harm to others.

        Now you will oft find that those who would try and control every thing you say would try and link this effect in ways to fully protected speech such as is done to people who are accused of inciting a riot. Yes a reasonable person might surmise that a ethnically sensitive group of people (most noted by their really good suntans) might be encouraged to flash mob some “evil rich merchant” but where is the actual crime. There is no natural tendency to panic in a flash mob (unless you are not part of the mob but surrounded by it :) )

        Thus the individuals of the mob (or riot) chose to participate and are individually at fault.
        The instigator(s), though despicable, is/are still not the cause of the damage.

      • Vicki

        Oh and I almost forgot. Most of my discussion about yelling fire in a theater also covers yelling fire in other crowded places. With respect to free speech including yelling fire you have to remember the full circumstances. The theater as DaveH mentioned is PRIVATE property and the owner CAN restrict any and ALL speech. In fact with respect to theaters the ones I go to will even throw you out (that trespass thing) if you speak or make noise and the owner chooses to.

        Actually I am glad someone brought up the false fire thing. Now I realize that it is irrelevant since the private property owner is the one who controls speech in the theater and it can be reasonably assumed that the owner would not want someone to falsely shout fire in the theater. Thanks DaveH for reminding us of simple libertarian principles.

      • DaveH

        Nad,
        First of all I have no empathy for people stupid enough to “stampede” when there is no smoke or other evidence of fire.
        But even if there were, that would be no excuse to act like fools and harm others in the process of trying desperately to hang on to your own life.

  • Keith

    Britain is the greatest social dictatorship the world has ever known. They just can’t help themselves. They really think they can legislate a peaceful society.

    • eddie47d

      What kind of society then would you legislate?

      • Vigilant

        Read his words again, eddie. He’s saying that legislation should NOT be used to mold the tenor of society.

      • eddie47d

        Yes the British were prim and proper colonialists all over the world taking much from the countries they took over and being polite while doing it. May I please take your land before I enslave you to our ways. I was trying to see if Keith approves of countries (including ours) should legislate wars and conquest under the guise of helping them out. Now let Keith speak for himself .

      • Gary L

        The emphasis is on LEGISLATE eddie. Why can’t you be peaceful?

      • vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “What kind of society then would you legislate?”

        A free one. With just enough government to keep honest people honest. Kinda like the Founders of the US created. A thing called a Republic. Here is a ~10 min description
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY

  • MAP

    The statement, “I am offended”, means what? Just because someone makes this statement doesn’t necessarily make the statement true. How does one test for the truthfulness of it? People can say anything and not always for honest reasons. The truth lies between someone’s ears and is forever a mystery. What the entire pathetic and oppressive purpose really about is to silence the opposition, just as Trotsky intended it. As DaveH states above, it’s all about power. My advice: Arrest me when I have committed an ACTUAL crime; otherwise, leave me ALONE! The evil and sinister left created this silly game and sets the childish rules as they go along. But I refuse to play. I fly a Confederate flag off my front porch, I go to church routinely, and I support certain right-wing organizations. And if the Stalin-wannabes don’t like it, they can jump off a cliff. The radical left offends me daily with their incoherent stupidity and tyranny already. So what? Who will come to my aid? No one!. You’ll notice how the radical fanatics are posting in an attempt to make light of something that is pathetically childish, stupid and oppressive. No surprises from that band of habitual liars and dictators.

    • Chester

      MAP, simply stated, I AM OFFENDED means something has been done or said that upsets ME. Does not mean any sort of a crime has been committed, regardless of what fifty dozen lawyers, and a few judges, might say. Again, offenses against a person or a thing, that is, offenses actually committed are in a totally different category, again, regardless of what is being screamed and yelled into our ears every day.

    • Flashy

      ” People can say anything and not always for honest reasons.” <–MAP

      Wow..you did look int he mirror this morning eh ? The rest of your post amply proved your practicing your above statement

      • MAP

        Words of wisdom from a communist liar. How many other names are you posting under today, Jeremy?

  • Michael J.

    Dear Mr. Myers,
    All this tip-toeing around Political Correctness makes me nauseous, seeing as how I am privy to it’s original intent and stated goals. I believe a full-blown expose of the origins of “Political Correctness” would be beneficial in understanding the events unfolding today and over the last century. It’s effects have entwined our culture like a terminal disease, which is of course what Karl Marx’s desciples had in mind when they created it. Time to shine a light on the teachings of The Frankfurt School and it’s migration and influence on the hippie generation after they set up shop at Columbia University.

    Last thought, exactly where in the Constitution is it stated that people have an unalienable right not to be offended?

    • vicki

      Michael J. writes:
      “exactly where in the Constitution is it stated that people have an unalienable right not to be offended?”

      It is hidden in the 9th amendment. But here is the key. Each individual has the full and infinite power to exercise his/her right to be NOT offended. No law need be created nor could any law be created to force him/her to be or be NOT offended. Our forefathers didn’t bother to point that out cause they expected intelligence to increase over time.

      They knew and the actual English makes it clear that I must TAKE offense from what others say. You can not give me offense. You can say something you HOPE I will take as offensive but I have the full power of Creation to NOT TAKE offense. It is, of course, why I laugh at liberals ad-hominem attacks.

      Now our forefathers DID notice that people (Dictators and Tyrants in particular) might want to use the claim of offense to suppress speech. It is one of the of the reasons they created that amendment that liberals so love to cite when their ox is being gored but are more than happy to ignore when it is the conservative ox.

    • Michael J.

      Vicki,
      That’s the problem with setting traps, you never know who will set foot in them. I surely did not intend it be you.

      To my knowledge, the 9th ammendment has never successfully been used to proclaim a person, or a groups right to not be offended. Ask Ward Churchill.

      • Vicki

        If you are saying you set a trap then you will notice by my answer that I did NOT fall in but instead built a structure around it. That structure shows that though you have the right to not be offended (see amendment 9 for un-enumerated rights) you have the full and complete unabridged, undiluted, inalienable power to CHOOSE to NOT be offended. Thus it is one of those things that you have NO need of government as you have the power and CAN NOT delegate it to anyone.

        See Amendment 10.

  • GALT

    No Mr. Myers the question is: Where are the ( common ) law and equity courts?

    Then the question would be: Where is the corpus delicti?

    [Latin, The body of the crime.] The foundation or material substance of a crime.

    The phrase corpus delicti might be used to mean the physical object upon which the crime was committed, such as a dead body or the charred remains of a house, or it might signify the act itself, that is, the murder or Arson.

    The corpus delicti is also used to describe the evidence that proves that a crime has been committed.

    Of course, by not really knowing what the right question is: You get to hold forth on this
    “symptom” while disease continues to ravage what has been and ongoing process for
    70+ and 50+ years, respectively………..( Federal and Federal Districts )

    One might ponder if this would rise to the level of a potential “suit in common law” and this would bring up the possibility of “jury nullification”, an established principle of same.
    ( Georgia v. Brailsford ) BTW This would be where juries judge both fact and law, and where raising this DEFENSE is NOT subject to a contempt citation.

    The thought is almost laughable that this would merit any attention……..at all.

    Anyway, let the games begin……..IGNORANCE is STRENGTH

    “To conquer, first DIVIDE!”

    • Michael J.

      galt,
      Off subject,repetitive and worst of all, boring.

      • GALT

        What subject would that be? As you aptly demonstrate below “unalienable” is to the constitution……as anything intelligent or relevant is to this topic.

        Of course, you would actually need to know what the word “unalienable” means?

        But thanks for sharing…….

      • Michael J.

        gallt,
        Anyone so adept at dribbling should try out for the L.A. Lakers.

      • Michael J.

        Galt,
        BTW, unalienable is synonomous with inseparable.

      • DaveH

        Galt in his ignorance and attempted condescension says — “Of course, you would actually need to know what the word “unalienable” means?”.
        As if anybody on this board can’t easily look any words up that they don’t understand.
        And, as Michael said, he keeps repeating the same boring unrelated arcane mantra as if that is going to convince readers that he is superior.

      • GALT

        So, then Michael J. if “unalienable” is synonymous with “inseparable”, then you should not
        have any difficulty proceeding to demonstrate in what sense this would apply…….provided you actually understand the question?

        Say for those “unalienable rights”, among which are “life, liberty, and the etc.”

        History would seem to suggest that “separating” these things from your “fellows” is quite easy……..in fact, isn’t that what you all come to kvetch about everyday here……on cue,
        as the bell is rung………I shall do you the courtesy of ignoring your irrelevant remark, just to see if you can continue down the path you have started in an intelligent manner…..

        As for the contributions of the w.i.A.L.F. aka “talking monkeys” which is an insult to monkey’s since at least they know what they are about………..any conversation, regarding
        the constitution…….and the current “situation” is essentially a waste of time, unless you actually understand the “legal jurisdiction” to which you are subject………

        The privileges and benefits you do have are NOT SYNONYMOUS with the RIGHTS you used to have……..

        Where are those ( common ) law and equity courts?

        http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/freeman/freeman4.htm

        FREEDOM is SLAVERY……..bye now.

      • Michael J.

        galt dribbles,

        “if “unalienable” is synonymous with “inseparable”, then you should not
        have any difficulty proceeding to demonstrate in what sense this would apply…”

        It means that our God given rights to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness can not be taken away by a man or any group of men.

        That’s enough questions for now. Go find squiggy and take your nap before you get cranky.

    • Vigilant

      “The thought is almost laughable that this would merit any attention……..at all.”

      At least little GALTY knows how to describe his usual disjointed, stream-of-consciousness babble.

    • Vigilant

      We have here a cretin named GALT
      who speaks nonsense here without halt
      His words are so boring
      They set us to snoring
      Says GALT, “it’s my brain that’s at fault.”

      • DaveH
      • Vigilant

        LOL! Thanks, Dave!

      • Mike in MI

        MJ – good limerick
        could you change the last stanza to:
        “…’It’s my brain that’s a fault.”? “a fault” as in: an immense crevasse in the earth, a dirty crack, etc

      • Mike in MI

        OOPS! that might not be politically correct.

    • Average Joe

      Guys,

      Please lay off of Galt.
      While some of you may not like what he says, you may want to listen a little more carefully to “what” he is saying.
      If you don’t understand who and what you are (in reality) then you can’t win the game of life. It’s kind of like playing golf…while using football rules…your game is not going to end well.
      You can’t walk into a court room and win..if you don’t know the rules. Does anyone here believe that the purpose of Courts to to mete out justice? If so, you are deluded. The courtroom is all about procedure…not justice. If Lawyers follow the procedures, they win…if they don’t follow them…they lose…which is why it is a bad idea to be your own lawyer…you don’t know the rules…and they are quite complicated procedural rules.

      What Galt is trying to explain is jurisdiction..you can’t claim Constitutional “rights” if you are not in a Constitutional court system. You cannot assert rights that are not within the jurisdiction of the venue that you are placing yourselves in.
      Constitution = Common Law, In 1938 we lost our Common Law and therefore…we lost the ability to claim Constitutional “rights”.

      Erie Railroad v. Tompkins 1938.
      Individual subject to
      the political commerce under
      the private law merchant.

      There are three types of jurisdiction listed in the Constitution:

      Common Law
      Equity Law
      Admiralty Law

      With the single case Erie Railroad v. Tompkins 1938, our Supreme Court decided that they had the authority to combine Equity and Admiralty and create a new kind of court that isn’t recognized by the Constitution…this perversion of the law is called Private Merchant Law…AKA….Statutory Law, which operates completely outside of Constitutional Authority.

      To understand more clearly, I will give you some links …read them if you want to know how we got here…or don’t read them if you wish to remain uninformed. I suggest reading them..but that decision is entirely up to you.

      http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Citizenship/USARepublic/usa.htm

      http://teamlaw.org/

      On team law, I recomend that you start by reading “Historical outline”

      This morning, I got this vid from the Josh Tolley program and would like to share it as well (since it pertains to this subject):

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2ysd8sXc4I&feature=em-uploademail

      Knowledge is power!

      Best Wishes,
      AJ

      • Mike in MI

        Thanks, AJ !!

      • TIME

        Dear AJ,

        First off; Thank You so much for your Beautiful post.

        Saddly the very root of the problems with many is their ego’s.
        Yet as frail as some are here I do quite well understand its nearly impossible for many to grasp the REAL state of confusion we are in today. Of what was started in 1861 – long before we were born.

        You know Oddly the word {Babylon means Confusion} of what the ego tends to make some feel as if they know whats real and whats not based on twisted intel, of what is the standard format avaliable, its been designed to confuse and confound.

        So it’s with a very heavy heart that I say our nation has become the “Whore of Babylon.”
        I am sure many will be angered by that statment, but saddly its TRUE.

        Of what brings me to the next point; To some of us; obviously yourself, Galt, myself its very clear that the issues we all face are far deeper and darker than most here let alone around this nation can fathom.
        The fact that we have been lied to for our whole life, let alone our fathers and their fathers as well – its really nearly impossible for many to get their heads around what we face today.
        Thats the very reason why games like Political Correctnes exist.
        “TO DIVIDE and DIVIDE again and again until they CONQUER.”

        As we see daily by some here the simple points of light are highly contested due to Ego as well Ignorance – of what we are all at some point.
        I do pray that more will open their minds to the fact that not all is black and white.

        Perhaps some here can gain some wisdon with the YOUTUBE feed below.
        If you really do give a damm about this nation, please look up this youtube feed.
        Kelby Smith, youtube feed; Video for the people of the United States.
        This will explain the root of this nations ills.
        How to fix it is yet a differant animal, but it can be done.

        Joe Again, I thank you for your beautiful post. All the Best to you and your family,

        Peace and Love Brother

      • GALT

        Gentlemen…….thank you for your efforts……

        I find myself pondering what would actually happen if they actually got their rights back?

      • GALT

        BTW Joe, if you are going to learn to play this game, lawyers have no purpose…..nor are they necessary……after all…..if you employ the reservation of rights correctly…..lacking corpus delicti….there is no available jurisdiction to try you…..nor any “lawful money” available to pay any fine, fee, tax, etc.

        Lawyer’s are useless…..in common law and equity……so unfortunately, you have no choice but to act as your own “legal counsel”…….clever these TYRANTS….are they NOT?

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        Nice work, AJ!!!

      • Average Joe

        GALT,

        I understand completely. The key is learning how to properly avoid being within thier jurisdiction in the first place. Knowing how and when you must assert your “Rights” in order to avoid thier jurisdiction and leave them scratching thier heads….always fun.
        I am hoping that my links posted above educate at least a couple of people here…because then…they in turn will spread the message to others….waking up is a wondeful thing. I woke up about 22 years ago when a friend asked me to read a small book called ” The Miricle on Mainstreet” and I have been searching for the “Truth” ever since.

        Thnx for all of the Kudo’s…. Kudo’s to you all as well…for trying to spread knowledge to the sleeping masses!

        Best Wishes,
        AJ

      • DaveH

        When Galt makes those comments, Average Joe, they are completely out of context and, no doubt in my mind, solely an effort to feign superiority to those he addresses. Now, it happens that this time the author actually mentioned courts of law, but usually when Galt spouts off with his Common Law crap there is no relation to the article or comments at all.
        And he makes no effort to explain what he’s talking about, and lots of effort to denigrate others.
        You need to search through some of his comments on other articles to see what I mean.

      • DaveH

        I don’t doubt a lick that Government is overstepping their legal bounds in courts, just like I don’t doubt a bit that they have overstepped their bounds in Income Tax law. But I have enough problems in my life without going up against the biggest gang in the land. I’ll leave that to you folks.

      • DaveH

        Also, Average Joe, I think before you admonish those of us who’ve put up with Galt’s annoying comments over the months, you need to stick around and do more reading of his comments.

      • GALT

        See your problem my little liberal DavidH is that you can’t comprehend that we are a nation of laws……which you not only don’t get, but seem to be clueless about……..

        Now as hard or impossible as this task might be…….to “guide” you…..start where Michael J. left off……..he got to inseparable equals unalienable……..

        How are life, liberty and etc. inseparable…….

        Your vehemence toward me suggests that if you had the opportunity, separating me from
        any of my “unalienable” rights would be………..?

        If the foundational principles are flawed, how can the conclusion be valid?

        BTW……since your host has been challenged with the current QUESTION…how do you explain the deafening silence?

      • TIME

        Dear Galt,

        Yes indeed I do fear what may happen if a lot of people do wake up and find they have been made “Sub Human Slaves” to a gang of criminals Zionest who have taken them to the cleaners in all respects.

        But none the less I will keep on keeping on, perhaps more get it, then again perhaps its all for not.
        Whats that old saying; “No good deed goes un-punished.”

        God knows I am far from being totaly awake myself at this time, BUT I at least try to let go of my ego and let me tell you its not easy being an Artist / Musician to do that.

        What I can’t understand and what makes me crazy is that so few will even look up anything!
        They want you do their work for them and then they complain about people on public aid!!!!!!!!! Hello!!!!!!!!!!!
        With WW III about to unfold before our very eyes, how many Americans will be oh so happy to join in on the BLOOD LUST that their De Facto Gov started by way of proxy puppets.

        Yet daily someone post that “Common Sense” is missing, wow – thats the understatment of all TIME. The Con fused are Con founded.
        Yet even when told when the flat tire happened they would rather beat up the messenger, then get a old copy of Blacks Law, and watch a few hours of Youtube feeds where all they have to do is sit and watch.

        I have posted the Season of Treason 1 -3 how many times, yet so few get it. How simple can one make it? My GOD Kurt has made it so simple its bloody absurd.
        Let alone Kelby Smith’s Youtube feed; For the people of the United States.

        I sure don’t tell these folks the apples are ripe for my own benifit as I have had no per diem for my efforts.
        I only do it for the possibility that someone may wake up, But -perhaps Its all in vein.

        Peace and Love Brother

      • GALT

        Dear Time…..these are such amazing times……I never would have imagined that I would see the extinction of a planet, self induced, in my life time……..

        For me, life is about helping, seeing, solving……..and from what I can tell, this doesn’t pay well…….tell me……..is there any escape from this IDIOCY?

        Forget that self indulgent crap……what do we DO now?

      • Average Joe

        DaveH,

        All of us have gone “off subject” on this site at one time or another…hell, I was gonna go into Ron Paul campaign mode today ( simply because no one has mentioned him in a while)…and post Ron Paul links…just to support my canditate. Thank goodness for me…there is the Gary Johnson link for me to support Ron Paul today…lol
        As for Galt, I have had my own run ins with him in the past, but sometimes we must recognize that sometimes…folks are just trying to give us a message …that we really should look into…because it truly is important information.
        If I know something about the info… and others try to beat down the messenger….then I tend to speak up and say…step back for a moment and listen to what is being said. Don’t kill the messenger! (he’s simply delivering the message).
        If you don’t agree…or feel that he is off topic…simply refuse to respond…that ends everything…he delivered the message… you agreed or didn’t…and we all go about our business. But berrating the messenger serves no purpose…other than both parties…pissing each other off….Where is the gain in that? Does anyone benefit from sour grapes? If we want others to listen to us…we must remain somewhat civil….Yes, we all get snippy from time to time…and yes, there are a few folks that get under our skin so bad that we wish we could reach through the computer and slap the stupid out of them…but that wouldn’t be productive either.

        Please don’t take offense…. I was just trying to nip an argument in the butt…and maybe spread a little info in the process.

        Best Wishes,
        AJ

      • TIME

        Dear Galt,

        Stronger words could not have been written. Many of us see the Dark Large Handwiting on the wall. Its very scary that so many still insist on BLOOD LUST, rather than thinking about the Why’s, Whats, When’s and Where’s and WHO’S.

        Fear has gripped the material world – that leads to Frustration and Hate of their fellow humans for no other reason than the Twisted Logic their Masters tell them by way of the Mass Media.

        Yet daily the same people post the same Twisted Logic that the masters expel for the mass’s to consume like tainted pearls of Wisdom. Of what begs the question; why are they so angry when given the TRUTH by people like you and I?

        When will these people just stop being TOOLS and start to open their minds? Humans EGO’s are so fractured that they can’t admit they are wrong as that would expose a weekiness / a flaw as it were, let alone their FEARS exposed to others.
        God Forbid that would happen!

        Yet we as a world all face “self destruction on a massive scale.”
        And it will all be done by ourselves to ourselves.
        It will be people like you and I or AJ that will be rounded up first to the very applause of these people who think they are somehow Patriots, and we who tell them the TRUTH are not.
        If thats not CON-founding, I am at a loss for words.

        How can it be stopped?
        Its not going to be easy nor will it be fun in any way shape or form.
        If everyone who wants to be truly FREE would reach out to the Christ and ask that he open their minds, eyes and most important their hearts.
        The Christ will grant them that power, to see, to hear, to FEEL.

        Walk away from the Corporation known as the United States, stop supporting their criminal behavior, stop paying TAX’S. Pull the Plug and just say NO!
        Get mad at the right people not each other, get mad at the real CRIMINALS of the 13 bloodlines and all their TOOLS; who BTW – number in the hundreds of millions world wide.

        I saddly fear that the “material” world is now far more value to the mass’s. I do understand that mind set, afterall I lived it for years, and YES – I was then just as mindless as many here are.

        Yet – there is HOPE, if I can change – so to can others.

        Peace and Love, Brother

      • TIME

        Dear AJ,

        You SIR, are one very WISE man!

        Again I thank You for not only a Beautiful post that was so well presented that I am in awe.

        Have a Blessed day my Brother.

        Peace and Love

    • GALT

      Well Michael J…….since it was already stated that they are EASILY taken away, and are being taken away as we speak and that is what you come to salivate for EVERYDAY when the bell is rung here……you have now joined the rest of the w.i.A.L.F. talking monkey’s here…….actually you were already there, I just wanted to make it official and see if you could actually follow a “line of reasoning”……..DUH!!!!!!!

      So where are those ( common ) law and equity courts?

      Bob, staph writers, and associates……..feel free to save these salivating dogs at any time?

      Oh, and that would include Ron, Rand and that Judge dude……

      BTW anyone know what the word INTEGRITY means?

      IGNORANCE is STRENGTH…..and if you play your cards right, you may find a little extra-personal liberty or ( freedom ) at the expense of someone else……

      Is the TRUTH really good for business?

      ” Cry havoc…….and slip loose the salivating doggy sycophants…..”

  • Jeremy Leochner

    It is a tricky issue. Mr. Myers brought up the N word. I have always tried to bring logic to the issue of political correctness. So far as my understanding goes, the n word is a caricature of a black person that was created based on a stereotype. Basically the n word describes a fictional character. Saying someone is the n word is not only politically incorrect it is also just incorrect. When I think of political correctness one of the first things that pops into my head is slander. Websters defines slander as a noun as “the making of false statements that damage another’s reputation”. I had a communications professor who taught me a class about reporting and writing news. She went in depth in discussing slander and libel as relates to the law. The key words she always mentioned were “verification” and “proof”. Basically if you say or write something about someone in an attempt to damage their reputation or even simply to insult them and you write or say it without proof or verification it is considered slander or libel depending on how you presented it. This comes to me when I think of political correctness or rather what is considered politically incorrect. Things like racial slurs or derogatory names, racist comments, broad generalizations and basically expressions of prejudice and or discrimination. These are almost universally regarded as politically incorrect. Yet what I have so often found is what is considered politically incorrect is often just plain incorrect. Discrimination and prejudice are wrong both in the moral and actual sense. Racial slurs are not simply insulting they have no basis in reality. And racism itself is founded on the idea of judging people for something other than their actions. Such an idea is very unreasonable in my opinion. So when it comes to political correctness I tend to be in favor of it. Of course sometimes it can go to far. Though people can say hurtful and sometimes nonsensical things it is their right to do so. And sometimes people act in ways that warrant politically incorrect language. To me in such cases what matters is verification and proof. So if you feel you must say something politically incorrect at least take the time to get evidence to back up your case. If you must say something unkind or uncensored make sure such harsh comments are warranted. And make sure you can verify that it is.

    • Michael J.

      Jeremy Loechner,
      Why is it that you do not demand verification and proof of “Political Correctness’s” origins and intents before blindly living by it’s mandates?

      • Mike in MI

        OO-OO-Oo-oo, MJ, approve, a-ahp-prove!

      • Jeremy Leochner

        I do not blindly accept it Mike. I just believe that things like racism and prejudice are both politically incorrect and just plain incorrect. Judging people by something other then their actions is wrong. It was not something Martin Luther King came up with. We need to judge people based on the content of their character. I believe statements made out of judging someone by something other then the conduct of their character is wrong. As I said all I desire is truth in judgement. If you want to say something a little off the collar go ahead. Just be sure you are telling the truth. The problem I have is when people say things that are politically incorrect as well as incorrect.

    • DaveH

      Funny, Jeremy (Flashman), that I don’t ever see you admonishing your fellow Progressive commenters for their relentless personal attacks.

      • Mike in MI

        Dave H -
        That’s probably because it would be kind of out of character for him to do it in the “Jeremy Loechner” incarnation. You know, if you’re going to go to the trouble of producing various characters in a well written novel you’ve got to keep the personalities separated.
        He’ll take care of doing that as Flashy or another of his split self-incriminations.
        Oh, BTW your “fear” discussion with Kinetic 1 above was somewhat off-center. If you interpret and understand the meaning of a word used in the Bible as being only what you know of that word’s usages during our day and time you may end up with error.
        Also, bad interpretations arise when two or more Greek words (With divergent meanings) are translated into one English word (or the other way around also) people fall into deep misunderstandings about God. The words in the Bible, unlike other books of human derivation, are used with great accuracy and continuity. The problem has been that people have usually brought their sloppy confusion and injected it along with their prejudice and opinions into the Word. Then, they wonder why God doesn’t answer their prayers.
        Well, maybe it happens that God has His own opinions about things and isn’t about to change to please people who are dopey, sloppy or down right devilish on purpose.

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Perhaps I should Dave. But is it not more fun to criticize people you mostly disagree with then with those you agree with. I kid of course. You do have a point. I will try to do that more often. And thank you for at least trying to have an honest conversation with me.

      • DaveH

        I wasn’t referring to the Bible at all, Mike. And the reference to Kinetic was a mistake on my part.

      • DaveH

        There is no dishonesty on my part, Jeremy (Flashman).
        However there is on yours. I refer people to this thread (follow it to Bob Livingston’s remarks):
        http://personalliberty.com/2011/05/16/what-now/#comment-341930

      • Jeremy Leochner

        Come on Dave, We were on a roll. We were finally having a real discussion. That post you have shown is not about me. Its about someone else. My name is Jeremy and Jeremy only. Please try to understand that. You and I were finally talking and now we are back to square one. It hurts Dave

  • DaveH

    It has more to do with Power than with being offended.

    • http://naver samurai

      You are probably right Dave H. Look at how quickly someone becomes offended as soon as someone mentions God, Jesus, or the Bible. FOR GOD AND COUNTRY!

      You need both love of country and fear of God to be a patriot.

      • Kinetic1

        smaurai,
        Am I insulted by your comments? No, but I question your logic. Why must I posses the “fear of God” to be a patriot? In my church we do not view God as vengeful, though I realize many of the more traditional and fundamental christian churches do. Are you suggesting that only those of us who subscribe to the beliefs of churches like yours can be “true patriots”?

      • FreedomFighter

        I dont do political correctness, never have, never will, it is just a thought control mechanism created by communist/socialists to further the agenda and control the public conbersation.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Bill

        Unfortunately, many people have construed the “love of country” to mean “love of government”. including the supporting of foreign wars.

      • Robert Smith

        from samurai: “You need both love of country and fear of God to be a patriot.”

        Must be really awful to constantly live in fear.

        Even dog training has pretty much given up on punishment for bad behavior and shifted to immediate rewards for good behavior.

        Can’t get any rewards from your brutal god? Either you ain’t doing anything right or they just ain’t there. Pretty “powerful” god that can only rule through fear. (NOT) ROFL.

        Rob

      • FreedomFighter

        Robert if God were as brutal as you claim Im sure your kind would have been eliminated a long time ago…

        Your simplistic attacks on others beliefs show your ignorance of the subject, and display a gross amount of stupidity, you thinking you have all the answers about God and his ways.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Louis Lemieux

        God, if You exist, save my soul…if it exists!

      • 2centsworth

        FOR GOD AND COUNTRY………”Erasmus of America/Omni Law”

      • DaveH

        It’s interesting that so many of the Progressive commenters have been using the “fear” card lately. Could it be that is the latest tactic taught to them in their Propaganda war room?
        At any rate, Kinetic, Robert, what is it that you Progressives use when you want to relieve people of their money using Big Government as your enforcers? Could it be the threat of punishment — Fear?

      • DaveH

        I don’t believe a god really exists, but I do certainly believe that evil exists in the world, and it is embodied in the Progressive movement. Note that the Progressive Welfare Statists aren’t the only Progressives that we must deal with. We must also deal with the Progressive Military Statists. They are just two sides of the same Progressive coin. Their common goal is the enrichment of themselves at the rest of our expense. And both sides have Propagandized their followers into accepting their evil machinations (theft, murder) as being for “our own good”.

      • Dave67

        Well DaveH

        Your side lives and trades in fear… Bob sends me stuff telling me that the dollar is about to collapse! This was last year mind you…

        OBAMA is coming for my guns!!! (oh the horror) Not happening….

        Conservatives love the fear, its what brings your side together… If you didn’t have a conspiracy theory to fester over, you would have nothing to talk about…

        Do you have a mises.org link for that one?

        The left in this country does the same thing…. We live in a very fearful country… We are sold it everyday… your side does it, my side does it…

        Any ideas of your own (that would be a nice change of pace) on how to get rid of living iin fear as you do?

      • DaveH

        While I’m on that subject, I would like to say that I believe that we can be our own worst enemies if we don’t consistently follow our own moral code. If, for instance, we are religious but turn a blind eye to the killing or the theft of Government, we can fool other people about our lack of consistency, but we can’t fool ourselves. I believe that people not consistently following their own moral code leads to guilt, then to forms of suppressing that guilt (drinking, drug use, etc.). The most important thing in anybody’s life is that they Like themselves, and you can’t truly Like yourself when you don’t apply the same moral standards to yourself that you expect other people to obey.
        That goes for non-religious people also who have a moral code they expect others to obey.
        We need to regroup as citizens and rigorously embrace the morality that drove our Founders to rebel against the abuses of King George and establish one of the Freest Societies ever on this Earth. It’s not just the Moral thing to do; it’s also the prosperous thing to do.

      • DaveH

        Dave67 says — “Do you have a mises.org link for that one?”. Then “Any ideas of your own?”.
        Then the other Progressive shill, Flashman (maybe the same person, different personality) says something remarkably similar — “DaveH says nothing, then directs to a Mises link which contains an article he has never read and is off topic”.
        Is it Coincidence that both Progressive shills have the same message today? I’ll leave the Readers to determine that one.
        The Progressive attempts to put me down are comical. They are like adolescents desperately seeking some way, any manipulative way, to suppress my message of Freedom.

      • Dave67

        DaveH,

        The founders were rich white guys who did not want to pay taxes…That is what we should get back to? Don’t look back too fondly on the founders… these were the same people who thought is was our “Christian” duty to kill or convert every native person on the continent so we as Americans can make tons of money

        We do have a moral code in this country, money makes right….We hate when people lie to us, (except for politicians… we just seem to accept that) and because money is our god in this country, when someone wrongs us or commits a crime, we are more likely to sue them or hit them with a fine unless they can’t pay, then we put them in jail.

        Here is an idea…

        Would I want the behavior I am indulging in done to me? We could get rid of all the religious hocus pokus crap, the corporatism in Gov and have a better society if everyone could embrace that idea.

        But we love to categorize, simplfy people into easy definitions that we don’t have to think too much about which is why you blame “progressives” and “liberals” for everything without any real proof of your assertions. (Newsflash: I read mises.org and it is your propaganda, not fact)

        Maybe a deeper understanding of those you disagree with is warranted here to help you become a better moral person?

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Robert Smith, define “fear” properly. It was not meant to stand trembling and jump every time a leaf rustled. To come to that conclusion people must have/or had some disgusting parents or caregivers to paint God as being a rotter.

      • DaveH

        Dave67 says — “Newsflash: I read mises.org and it is your propaganda, not fact”.
        Feel free to refute anything they say, Dave67 — If you can.

        Dave67 says — “We could get rid of all the religious hocus pokus crap, the corporatism in Gov and have a better society if everyone could embrace that idea”.
        And how would we do that, Dave67? By Force?

      • Dave67

        DaveH says:
        August 1, 2012 at 10:30 am
        Dave67 says — “Newsflash: I read mises.org and it is your propaganda, not fact”.
        Feel free to refute anything they say, Dave67 — If you can.

        ———————————————–

        Give me a discussion context and the link to what you cite as fact and I will refute it…
        ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
        Dave67 says — “We could get rid of all the religious hocus pokus crap, the corporatism in Gov and have a better society if everyone could embrace that idea”.
        And how would we do that, Dave67? By Force?
        ————————————————–

        Yes DaveH, by force…. You caught me again… Dang you are Wile E Coyote super-genius.

        I said to have everyone embrace “would I want this done to me” so I can force people to not believe in religion or stop corporations from lobbying congress at gunpoint….

        Sharp as a bowling ball you are…

      • DaveH

        Dave67 says — “The founders were rich white guys who did not want to pay taxes…That is what we should get back to? Don’t look back too fondly on the founders… these were the same people who thought is was our “Christian” duty to kill or convert every native person on the continent so we as Americans can make tons of money”.
        Then he later says — “But we love to categorize, simplfy people into easy definitions that we don’t have to think too much about which is why you blame “progressives” and “liberals” for everything without any real proof of your assertions”.
        Do you even read your own comments before you submit them, Dave67?
        First you lump the Founders all together in an amorphous group, and then you admonish me to not lump Progressives and Liberals (same thing to me) in the same group.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Dave67, you do have a choice not to come to this site,to unsuscribe to this site. You do know how choices are made? Thugs and Tyrants not unlike yourself always want someone under their thumbs.

      • DaveH

        Your desperation is showing, Dave67. First you accuse me of having no thoughts of my own and always falling back on Mises.org. Then you say — “Give me a discussion context and the link to what you cite as fact and I will refute it”.
        Duh, Dave67, that shouldn’t be hard for you since, as you say, I use them as references so often.
        Am I flustering your gang of shills, Dave67? Can’t they come up with anything better than that?

      • DaveH

        Isn’t it interesting that both Dave67 and Flashman have used the accusation that I have no thoughts of my own? Hmm.
        Dave67 (Flashman?) says — “Yes DaveH, by force…. You caught me again… Dang you are Wile E Coyote super-genius”.
        and then — “Sharp as a bowling ball you are”.
        You might have more credibility with the readers, Dave67, if so much of your content didn’t involve personal attacks.

      • Dave67

        Nadzieja Batki says:
        August 1, 2012 at 10:41 am
        Dave67, you do have a choice not to come to this site,to unsuscribe to this site. You do know how choices are made? Thugs and Tyrants not unlike yourself always want someone under their thumbs.
        ———————–

        Careful there… thats a lot of words for you…

        Yes, because I disagree with many of the theorists, corporatists, conspiracy theorists and conservatives here, I am a tyrant and a thug…

        So because you want everyone to agree with DaveH’s or your point of view and hate distention in the ranks on this site, what does that make you?

      • Dave67

        DaveH,

        Ok, what part of the US Constitution to you let go of to prevent companies from lobbying Congress since mises.org want the Gov out of the “free market”?

        If you believe in the “free market” with no Gov interference, then that being said, you support the middle class and poor making less in this country because of the market (See China, Mexico, India) that has downward pressure on working people’s salary. Yes?
        How does the wealth gap get closed with that reality in mind.

        Who should make environmental regs? Worker’s safety regs? Should we have a minimum wage?

        We have a capitalist/ socialist hybrid system in this country, how does free trade policies which is part of the free market reconcile with dealing with countries like China that have strict Gov controls over currency, unions are not allowed, trade etc…

        Give me specific answers…

        Since you know what you are talking about.

      • Average Joe

        Dave67 says:

        August 1, 2012 at 9:41 am

        “DaveH,

        The founders were rich white guys who did not want to pay taxes…That is what we should get back to? ”

        Prove it… Prove that they were “all white guys” and next prove that they were all “rich’ and then prove that they all “just didn’t want to pay taxes”.

        You’ve made three acusations in one sentence without proving any of those assertions….and then you go on to say:

        “But we love to categorize, simplfy people into easy definitions that we don’t have to think too much about which is why you blame “progressives” and “liberals” for everything without any real proof of your assertions.”

        I would say that you may want to look up the hypocracy and then take a good long look into a mirror….
        I guess it’s cool to make accusations about others…to deflect the irony of your own statements?

        OK Dave67, it is time for you to open mouth…switch feet….

        Before you spout off Dave67…those were your words…not mine..I simply pointed out “your” double standard..deal with it…

        Best Wishes,
        AJ

      • Kinetic1

        DaveH,
        “It’s interesting that so many of the Progressive commenters have been using the “fear” card lately. Could it be that is the latest tactic taught to them in their Propaganda war room?”
        Ooooh, you cut me to the quick! Now, let’s play a game. First, you read the post that I was responding to, the one where samurai said,
        “You need both love of country and fear of God to be a patriot.”
        Now, you read my response and see that the reason I mentioned fear is that it was an appropriate response to a statement about fear of God being a requirement if one wishes to be a patriot. In other words, I didn’t bring it up, samurai did.

        Thanks for playing!

      • JeffH

        Dave H says “It’s interesting that so many of the Progressive commenters have been using the “fear” card lately.”

        Oh yes indeed. That has rapidly become the latest fad with some of the progressive/liberal shills and trolls hat have been frequenting PLD the last few months.

        Speaking of fear, and the framers got it right, the Obamaphiles, progressives and liberals fear these words “natural born citizen” ,which clearly Obama and Marco Rubio are not. This same fear of the mob, or social movements, has stifled SCOTUS on hearing on the merits legitimate questions of Obama’s Article II eligibility.

        The Supreme Court got it right in their MINOR V. HAPPERSETT opinion defining “natural born citizen” and the framers got it right.

      • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing Jay

        For the unbeliever, the fear of God is the fear of the judgment of God and eternal death, which is eternal separation from God.

        For the believer, the fear of God is something much different.

        The believer’s fear is reverence of God. Hebrews 12:28-29 is a good description of this: “Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our ’God is a consuming fire.’” This reverence and awe is exactly what the fear of God means for Christians.

        This is the motivating factor for us to surrender to the Creator of the Universe.

      • DaveH

        Dave67 says — “If you believe in the “free market” with no Gov interference, then that being said, you support the middle class and poor making less in this country because of the market (See China, Mexico, India) that has downward pressure on working people’s salary. Yes?”
        Are you saying China, Mexico, and India have Free Markets, Dave67? It sure looks like you are. But before I get to that, I will answer your question about the middle class and poor. Free Markets, without Government meddling to support their Crony Capitalists, are much more Productive and Efficient than UnFree Markets where businesses are hobbled with ridiculous regulatory burdens that don’t insure better or safer products, but instead insure more costly products, as those businesses must hire people just to negotiate the Government hoops. That of course is beneficial to the Big Business Crony Capitalists who have the cadres of lawyers and accountants to negotiate the mine fields, while many of their competitors must throw in the towel and quit. When they do close their doors, that hurts their employees who lose their jobs and the consumers who must pay higher prices due to fewer competitors and thus less supply.
        With Free Markets, people can much more easily do what they do best and add to the productivity of the country sans licensing and other Government impediments to their chosen profession.
        But I’ve gotten to a point where peoples’ eyes will just glaze over, so those who are interested in more should read this book, especially Chapter 7 “The Morality of Capitalism” which explains how Free Markets float all boats:
        http://library.mises.org/books/Kel%20Kelly/The%20Case%20for%20Legalizing%20Capitalism.pdf

      • DaveH

        Re: Dave67′s insinuation that China, Mexico, and India have Free Markets.
        Go here and pick the country links to read just how “free” their markets are:
        http://heritage.org/index/ranking

      • DaveH

        And rather than wait for Dave67′s usual nonsense about Heritage Foundation, I will post a link to another site which also exposes the link between Economic Freedom and Prosperity (just enter the country names in the field at the top):
        http://www.freetheworld.com/
        Dave67 has demonstrated to me that he has enough intelligence to grasp these concepts, yet he spouts the same old nonsense time and again. Given that, I can only conclude that he is an administration shill (and probably another of Flashman’s multiple personalities).
        And he has no credibility on this board.

      • DaveH

        Kinetic,
        After re-reading your comment, I see that I wrongly included you in my statement. I apologize.

      • Dutchman

        I agree and would add no fear of political correctness either!

      • Kinetic1

        JeffH,
        Webster defines reverence as honor or respect felt or shown, and awe as an emotion variously combining dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by authority or by the sacred or sublime. Save for dread I would say this is a worthy description of a healthy view of God, but I still can’t see how you could consider “fear of God” as an apt description of honor, respect and wonder. Even a sense of dread is not enough to justify the term fear.

        The logical explanation is that, whether or not you consider the Bible to be the word of God, it is a work of man. Translation is a tricky business and the Hebrew from which “fear of God” is derived is “Yirat HaShem”, or “Fearing God’s Name”. Ask a Rabbi and he’ll tell you that in this context Yirat does not directly translate into fear, but is more synonymous with awe. Then again, if you are from either the Catholic church, one of it’s offshoots or the Bible thumping, fire and brimstone school of Christianity where fear is used to enforce the power of the church, then maybe fear of God is just what you have in mind.

      • Kinetic1

        DaveH,
        Thanks for your consideration. After re-reading my post I realized that I had made a mistake as well. In the interest of questioning the idea of ones view of God as fearful or not, I neglected to question whether or not one even needs to be religious to be a patriot. If one shows love for their country and a healthy moral code, what difference does it make?

      • JeffH

        Kinetic1, JeffH or Jay?

      • Larry K.

        GOD GOD CREATOR LORD LORD GOD GOD CREATOR LORD PRAISE THE LORD PRAISE GOD PRAISE THE HOLY BIBLE!
        ANYONE OFFENDED YET??? TO BAD.

      • truesoy

        samuray;

        Its nice to se you’re still around, spewing nonsense.
        You should have taken eed of my advice and sought professional help.

        Sincerely,
        Truesoy

      • Rebecca

        Kinetic1, “Fear” in the context of “Fear The Lord” actually means “Respect”.

      • NC

        Jay– excellent response on the fear of the Lord

    • Warrior

      Another gubmint created “cottage industry”. Think about all these organizations that now have their own “diversity” programs and departments with loads of do nothing individuals that PRODUCE NOTHING. Same goes for Tax Attorneys and Tax Accountants. I’ll bet you can also name a few other occupations that actually have no productive benefits to society but the gubmint created them. Go figure.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      I agree with you, DaveH, I think that it gives a person a feeling of power and superiority to “correct” others. I am not intimidated by a person who wold tell me that I am politically incorrect. My first experience with “political correctness was in 1989. My son has Cerebral Palsy. I was having a discussion with his principal because he wanted to take a drafting class and she said he couldn’t, because he wouldn’t be able to draw sraight lines. She said he had to take chorus instead. When I spoke of his rights as a handicapped individual, she attacked me and said that it was terrible to call him handicapped. We don’t use that term anymore! Now we say “disabled”. I replied with “My son is not DISabled! He is ABLE to do MANY things, but he does them with a HANDICAP!”. From that moment on, I would NEVER allow someone to make me feel inferior! I will choose MY words and I don’t give a crap if they are “acceptable” to anyone else! Political correctness is about power and control, superiority. It’s not going to work with me. BTW, I got an advocacy group involved and they threatened to sue the school district if they didn’t allow my son to take drafting. He got to take the class, his therapist recommended taping his paper to the desk and he did fine. Don’t let people try to run over you!

      • Liberterian

        Like what and how you say it, always be an individual and stand forever behind what you believe and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Everyone has their own self serviant goals and try to make someone else beieve in or follow them. Politicians are politicians whatever party, class, left or right, they always think that they know it all.

      • Average Joe

        Politically Correct:

        An overzealous media, trying to convince and under-educated audience…that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd…bythe clean end.

        I remain, Unapologetically Opinionated (UO)

        Best Wishes,
        AJ

      • JohnQ from MS

        Excellent tactic, Nancy. I detest political correctness. I believe that the reason it is such a force in our society today is that too few people have been willing to contest it in the past. Liberals have been bullying us for 40 to 50 years with impunity. It is time it stopped and the only way it is going to stop is when we begin confronting them.

        In fact, that is happening and that is, in part, the reason for the huge division within our country and our society today. People are beginning to stand up to liberal idiots.

        I wouldn’t be so down on liberalism if liberals would display a tiny amount of common sense. For example, take the issue of religion and homosexuality. Liberals are bashing Christianity because the Bible tells us that it is wrong. But we don’t need the Bible to tell us that. Anyone with a little imagination and enough sense to come in out of the rain can figure that out. To complicate matters for liberals, liberals drool at the mouth over the issue of being accepting of Islam. Yet Muslims don’t beat around the bush: they are willing to do bad things to those practicing homosexuality. When I hear a liberal badmouthing Christianity and praising Islam, I have to stop and wonder at that person’s lack of intelligence.

        I was overjoyed with the response to the Chick-fil-A nonsense Wednesday. I am overjoyed at the response of the Catholic Church to Obama and his minions. I used the word minion deliberately because it means “a servile follower or subordinate of a person in power.”

        When a liberal bashes us for using the term “black” instead of “African-American”, we have a perfect opportunity to strike back. The first word out of our mouths should be “How do you know that person is an American? He might be a Jamaican, a Ugandan, a Kenyan or a Bermudian. He might be an Australian Aborigine or he may come from Borneo. Stop being so rigid! Try using a little sense!”

        How about racial profiling? MS has a large concentration of blacks — about 37% of our population and a large percentage of these have the chain-license-plate holders on their cars. These items have been available for 20 years or so and I have never seen a white driver with one. They are exclusively a black thing. Yet blacks complain about profiling. If you encounter a car with a chain license plate holder, you can be assured that the car belongs to a black (or an African-American if you know the driver is an American citizen). And very darkly tinted car windows? Blacks love ‘em.

        I can go on and on about liberal stupidity. Let’s start confronting them, folks. There is no excuse for their nastiness, especially when they have so little ground to stand on.

    • Dave67

      Average Joe says:
      August 1, 2012 at 11:19 am
      Dave67 says:

      August 1, 2012 at 9:41 am

      “DaveH,

      The founders were rich white guys who did not want to pay taxes…That is what we should get back to? ”

      Prove it… Prove that they were “all white guys” and next prove that they were all “rich’ and then prove that they all “just didn’t want to pay taxes”.

      —————————————————————

      http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://americansforprosperity.org/texas/files/2012/07/founding-fathers.jpg&imgrefurl=http://americansforprosperity.org/texas/legislativealerts/what-would-our-founding-fathers-think-of-america-today/&h=300&w=600&sz=72&tbnid=9CbpfWO8n5bgcM:&tbnh=67&tbnw=133&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpictures%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bfounding%2Bfathers%2Bof%2Bamerica%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=pictures+of+the+founding+fathers+of+america&usg=__bPHage-IRkXDx0TrZULnOT0scrs=&docid=KwS30veNwLiq4M&sa=X&ei=IFwZUKjGLYSO8wS9l4EI&ved=0CE4Q9QEwAg&dur=3259

      They look White to me…

      http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers_overview.html

      Most were on the upper echelons of colonial society

      ——————————————————————–

      You’ve made three acusations in one sentence without proving any of those assertions….and then you go on to say:

      “But WE love to categorize, simplfy people into easy definitions that we don’t have to think too much about which is why you blame “progressives” and “liberals” for everything without any real proof of your assertions.”

      ———————————————————————-

      AJ, can you look up the definition of “WE” and contrast with the definition of “YOU”?

      See thats why I use the term WE, because WE are all guilty of it. I am including ME when I say WE

      Do you feel better now AJ?

      I know I do…. Now lets all embrace liberalism and be more accepting of those people who are different from ourselves.

      Have a super wonderful day AJ…

      • Average Joe

        Dave67,
        Please don’t include me..in your “we”…My statement was not hypocrtical…although yours was. So, your answer is to misdirect your own failings upon someone else? Nice…although I’m not buying it. While you are free to imply that you are a hypocrite, please don’t imply that everyone else is. You own that disinction all by yourself (as your post proves).

        Please define: white men…because the last time I checked, I am not white…but rater an off-pink color…yes, I know…semantics….but isn’t that what you are arguing? You seem to be more worried about thier color…rather than thier individual characters…not all of them advocated slavery…taxes …etc….but you have lumped them all into a group…based soley on skin color…how convoluted is that?

        Your first link: A painting…so you once again assume (from a painting) that they were all white men? Where were they all from? Were they all from the same country (originally)?
        Did they all come from the same culture or were the in fact, the product of different cultures? (think: European, many cultures).

        Your second link tells a lot about thier occupations and previous training…but nothing about thier individual wealth…you do know than many of our founding fathers were not rich and that many of them died penniless…right?

        I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but assigning your short comings on others will not work on me…I consider that it is simply your opinion….and we both know what they say about those opinions…stop talking out of yours. Work on fixing your own shortcomings…and stop trying to assign your shortcommings on others.

        “Now lets all embrace liberalism and be more accepting of those people who are different from ourselves.”

        Uh..no, let’s not embrace liberalism…while you are free to embrace whatever deluded notion that you choose to embrace, I choose to embrace Libertarinism, free market capitalism, Constitutional princioles and the Rule of Law.

        BTW, I always have a wonderful day….unless I wake up on the wrong side of the grass, but so far, that hasn’t happened.

        Best Wishes,
        AJ

      • Dave67

        AJ,

        LOL… so I should get down the the exact hue of a person? Interesting… so you as an opponent of political correctness now want me to label people of the Caucasian race as a “pinkish-white” to a “very light brown” Because all the founders were of a different hue….So what if I have a tan? Oh lordy… what a conundrum….

        So you never generalize? GOOD FOR YOU AJ!!! WELL DONE OLE BOY!!!!

        You are the first human who never does it…. What is your secret?

        The HC law is the law of the land so I expect you and your other conservative friends to sign up for private HC insurance if you can afford it because its the “rule of law”. Now can you tell some of these conservative states to get with the program?

        Thanks ever so much and have a super special wonderful day AJ. We will make a liberal out of you yet…

      • Average Joe

        “The HC law is the law of the land so I expect you and your other conservative friends to sign up for private HC insurance if you can afford it because its the “rule of law”. Now can you tell some of these conservative states to get with the program?

        Thanks ever so much and have a super special wonderful day AJ. We will make a liberal out of you yet…”

        I don’t recall discussiong HC here, however, since you brought it up…. I will not comply…deal with it. I do not consent and I waive the benefit.

        You write:
        “LOL… so I should get down the the exact hue of a person? Interesting… so you as an opponent of political correctness now want me to label people of the Caucasian race as a “pinkish-white” to a “very light brown” Because all the founders were of a different hue….So what if I have a tan? Oh lordy… what a conundrum….”

        Reading comprehension problems? And a racist to boot?

        I wrote:

        “Please define: white men…because the last time I checked, I am not white…but rather an off-pink color…yes, I know…semantics….but isn’t that what you are arguing? You seem to be more worried about thier color…rather than thier individual characters…not all of them advocated slavery…taxes …etc….but you have lumped them all into a group…based soley on skin color…how convoluted is that?”

        As for making a liberal out of me…not gonna happen… not in this life…but you are free to dream fantastic dreams, chase unicorns and rainbows as long as you wish to do so (good luck with that).
        I’ll stick with reality….it’s so much more interesting and animating.

        Again, everyday is wonderful for me…sorry for your luck…. if yours isn’t.
        Maybe if you changed your thought processes that would change for you.

        Before you spout off again, I wish to inform you that I won’t reply. You are not only wasting your time…but mine as well. So, if you can’t replace my wasted time ( a valuable commodity)….don’t expect a reply to your usual drivel. I value my time.
        My reply in advance…”Yada, yada, yada…sorry for your luck.”

        Best Wishes,
        AJ

    • Nadzieja Batki

      John Myers, that woman had limited vision. The blind man “saw” more by his other senses than she did with two good eyes.

    • Southside Hawk

      It is absolutely about Power. As a college instructor teaching adults I was recently accused of using an ethnic slur; “Old Jew” in my description of a character in a play. It was used totally in context to describe this particular character, his mileu, his political views. The politically correct student wrote that even thought he was not Jewish, he was raised as a Unitarian Universalist and he was “taught to treat all with respect”. After polling my Jewish students, none were offended, most did not even hear the direction. Researching UU I found an article where even the UU congregation elders write about their intolerance and arrogance toward other view. I informed this somewhat parochial minded student that we could take up the topic in class; that his lack of worldly knowledge – particularly about playwrights – would be expanded. And that I could not teach theatre with the thought police in my class He dissappeared. Bluff called.

      Several weeks later, another student brought in a clipping from the theatre pages of the NYT – a play had just opened, titled “Old Jews telling Jokes.”

    • Deerinwater

      Oh! God exist DavidH , if only in people’s minds , you can’t destroy or make an “idea” go away.

      While I could never buy into this idea of the Humanized understanding of God either, but it works best for some people that can not span the gap between the physical world and the spiritual ( quantum physics) world. A world that does have the same yet opposing forces that are paired up and directly affect each other is best understood in the “good/bad, God /devil metaphor. It’s a formula that quite simple~ “works” more often then it doesn’t. Then too, there is a “Get out of Jail Free” card. As the Lord moves in mysterious ways and his will be done. So It takes “Faith” and I am convinced, Believing things can manifest things, both good & bad, as good and bad are only opposing forces.

      I would never be one to say that God does not exist, for out of nothing came TIME and a long chain of events began, just as early man , today we marvel and ponder about our purpose and existence. The only thing certain in my mind, God is not human and nor is man 100% human. When you accept that your sum is greater then all of your parts, you have accepted this as a fact , where you conscience of it or not.

      The attempt to deny Gods existence , is an attempting to deny a large (but not in physical size) part of yourself. This is why, the term “Father” works so well in metaphor terms.

      To explain the universe the early Jews were very creative. In other distant cultures, it was explained in much the same way ~ to humanize afforded practical ease to understand and association with matters of origin and purpose.

      So? what is “Time”? ~ I would say Times main element that we all can understand and appreciated is,

      Awareness.

      But something is missing.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Bottom