Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE - PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!!

2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference
PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!
http://energyscienceconference.com


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #3991  
Old 02-21-2013, 01:40 PM
blackchisel97's Avatar
blackchisel97 blackchisel97 is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NB, Canada
Posts: 1,702
Send a message via Skype™ to blackchisel97
Too bizzarre to be true?

How much more evidence do you need? DHS trains to shoot pregnant women, old men, children with guns (see photos)

V
__________________
'Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses -because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened'

General D.Eisenhower


http://www.nvtronics.org
Reply With Quote

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #3992  
Old 02-21-2013, 03:13 PM
dutchdivco dutchdivco is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,000
5150

Don't get me wrong, I get very angry, too, sometimes. But then i remember, 'sometimes you just have to laugh!'

You said:
"Well I admit I get worked up a little when I see elected politicians who swore and oath to uphold and defend the constitution doing exactly the opposite."

Take another look at what you said. You're 'worked up', because politicians aren't 'upholding' an oath? To a Politician, an 'oath' is just another 'promise', and they LIE, all the time!

Lets face it, "Honest Politician" is an oxymoron!

Its like seeing you walk out of a 'comedy club' saying "Well yeah, I KNOW he's a comedian, but I didn't expect him to be telling JOKES!", or, given that we're talking about Politicians, saying, "Well yeah, i KNOW it was a Sh*T sandwich, but I didn't expect it to have suc bad aftertaste!"

They are POLITICIANS, fer christ sake; LIEING is what they DO!LOL

And yeah, this is, at least in part, a place to 'vent' about the "American Ruling Class", and what you think about that, and so I should think you can share your thoughts, what your going thru, etc.

Keep it civil, etc. which your posts have always done.

As far as keeping a firearm 'handy', IF you reach the point where you have 'payed your debt to society' (their words, not mine) you might TRY petitioning for Civil rights restoration and record expunging. Its JUST a matter of writing a letter, and all they can say is "No". From what you have described, as your 'record', I'm not sure what they would say. Oh, and you might consider taking some 'anger management' (if you haven't already); it would 'look good' to put that in such a 'petition'.

It would be a shame, to go back, JUST because of felony possesion of a firearm. Although, from what the Chicago Police chief and others have said, Holders Injustice dept. isn't 'choosing' to prosecute such cases. Another case of 'selective' enforcement? Jim
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3993  
Old 02-21-2013, 07:04 PM
dutchdivco dutchdivco is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,000
Jesse Jackson Jr.

Haven't been following the details, but just in the headlines its clear he is admitting he used Campaign contributions for personal expences for over 5 years; making it obvious NO ONE is 'monitoring' this kind of behavior, and the Lamestream media has totally failed to even comment on THIS aspect of it; i.e. How many OTHER politicians are doing the SAME thing???Jim
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3994  
Old 02-22-2013, 01:29 AM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,261
Muni Corps

Hoo works for Hoooo @Mark 0:45 ?

Public Dispute - Mayor vs Attorney - YouTube

Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3995  
Old 02-22-2013, 08:41 AM
FuzzyTomCat's Avatar
FuzzyTomCat FuzzyTomCat is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 620
Send a message via Skype™ to FuzzyTomCat
The "Dick" BILL and COMMENTS - HR 11654

Howdy everyone,

I was able to find more exact information on the "Dick" bill and comments : H.R. 11,654, "a bill to promote the efficiency of the militia and for other purposes," to supersede the archaic militia laws enacted in 1792.

The Second Amendment protects a fundamental right and should be read broadly because it implements the right of self-defense. Self-defense is the ultimate right of all individuals to preserve life. The rights to a free press, free speech, assembly, and religion are extremely important — but none of them matters very much if you can’t defend your own life against aggression. None of them matters very much when an evil government is fully armed and its citizens are disarmed.

DICK ACT of 1902 - CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government
Quote:
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

..... snip .....
The Dick BILL and COMMENTS HR 11654 - A Bill to Promote the Efficiency of the Militia and for Other Purposes to Supersede the Archaic Militia Laws Enacted in 1792 "COMPLETE ORIGINAL 1902-1903 TEXT"

Library of Congress LCCN Permalink 96190993

Glen
__________________
Open Source Experimentalist
Open Source Research and Development
Reply With Quote
  #3996  
Old 02-22-2013, 03:09 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyTomCat View Post
Howdy everyone,

I was able to find more exact information on the "Dick" bill and comments : H.R. 11,654, "a bill to promote the efficiency of the militia and for other purposes," to supersede the archaic militia laws enacted in 1792.
Quote:
The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
Hmmm, Glen, something's not quite right with this so-called "Dick" Bill. This definition of what the Constitution refers to as the militia is out of whack with what the Founders said, if it speaks of the unorganized militia in this way. The Founders made it clear that the militia was simply all the people, which would encompass anyone capable of bearing arms against aggression or tyranny. What about us folks who are over 45 years of age? Are we not capable of wielding a firearm to protect ourselves, our family, our property, and our state? And according to this "Dick" Bill, would we lose the 'personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms' once we pass the age of 45? Conversely, what about persons under the age of 18 who have been well trained in the proper use of firearms? A good example is my February 19th post telling how an eleven year old girl, alone at home, defended herself against armed intruders. This "18 to 45" provision of the "Dick" Bill appears to improperly seek to define who has a constitutional right to bear arms, and is definitely not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Am I just reading it wrong, and does the "18 to 45" age restriction only apply to the organized militia (National Guard)? If not, then the "Dick" Bill is of no help to gun rights activists.
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff
Reply With Quote
  #3997  
Old 02-22-2013, 03:19 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,354
Quotable quotes of the day......

On fiscal responsibility:
“I think the president has lost contact with reality. He doesn’t see the spending and the debt as a problem. We are approaching a real meltdown if we don’t get control of it. If we’re going to save our country and keep us from looking like Greece in a few years, we’re going to have to find things we can cut."

On immigration:
“It’s very apparent to me what’s going on here. The president and the Democrats want two things. They want voters. They want union members. So everything they talk about is about citizenship. The U.S. has an illegal immigration problem, not a citizenship problem."

On gun control legislation:
“We can’t eliminate evil in this world, but the schools are going to have to do things at the local and at the state level to protect themselves and have the ability within to stop something like this once it happens. Gun control laws don’t help. If they did, Chicago wouldn’t be the murder capital of the world. We need to look at real solutions and not just this political talk that makes people feel better but doesn’t make our children safer.”

The above quotes are the words of former Senator Jim DeMint.
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff
Reply With Quote
  #3998  
Old 02-22-2013, 03:23 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyTomCat View Post
Howdy everyone,

I was able to find more exact information on the "Dick" bill and comments : H.R. 11,654, "a bill to promote the efficiency of the militia and for other purposes," to supersede the archaic militia laws enacted in 1792.

The Second Amendment protects a fundamental right and should be read broadly because it implements the right of self-defense. Self-defense is the ultimate right of all individuals to preserve life. The rights to a free press, free speech, assembly, and religion are extremely important — but none of them matters very much if you can’t defend your own life against aggression. None of them matters very much when an evil government is fully armed and its citizens are disarmed.

DICK ACT of 1902 - CAN'T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) - Protection Against Tyrannical Government


The Dick BILL and COMMENTS HR 11654 - A Bill to Promote the Efficiency of the Militia and for Other Purposes to Supersede the Archaic Militia Laws Enacted in 1792 "COMPLETE ORIGINAL 1902-1903 TEXT"

Library of Congress LCCN Permalink 96190993

Glen

The-Dick-BILL


http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/f...he/119755.html

Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3999  
Old 02-22-2013, 04:30 PM
dutchdivco dutchdivco is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,000
So, there's the DIVIDE;

You're either for SPENDING control, and BORDER control, or you're for GUN Control.
Is it really THAT 'simple'? Jim
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4000  
Old 02-22-2013, 05:18 PM
dutchdivco dutchdivco is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,000
Seems to me

'people' have gotten too 'hung up' on the mention of 'organised militia's', in the second amendment. Mostly, (until the recent SCOTUS decision) this hang-up was with GC advocates, who tried to imply that because of this first part of the second amendment, the right to keep and bear WASN'T an INDIVIDUAL right, and it seems like the SCOTUS have clearly disabused this notion.
Moreover, it seems to me all the rights enumerated in the bill of rights are inherently individual rights; the freedom of religion doesn't apply ONLY to 'organised religions', freedom of the press doesn't apply ONLY to established news outlets, we ALL are 'protected' from unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

It also seems to me that THIS argument is being made, now, to justify the recently proposed GC legislation, and its THIS argument we need to focus on, rather than fighting the last war;

Even the enumerated rights in the Bill of rights, tho individual, are NOT 'absolute'; Freedom of speech doesn't give us the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, Freedom of religion doesn't give us the right to human sacrifice, etc.
So, there ARE limits, and thats fine. BUT, in order for the 'state' to restrict or limit one of these rights, it is incumbent on the STATE to show IT has a 'compelling' interest. That the state has a 'compelling' interest in restricting people from yelling 'Fire' in a theater is 'self-evident', likewise for human sacrifice.
But, I don't believe the 'state' can show, with conrete evidence in SCOTUS, that it has a 'compelling' interest in prohibiting 'assault' weapons, especially since it 'allows' ownership of 'semi-automatic rifles', which is functionally all an assault rifle is. Especially since the fed. government 'allows' private ownership of FULLY automatic weapons, (once a background check shows the 'state' has no compelling interest, and you pay the tax).

By the way, "Class 3 weapons", as defined by BATF, includes not only FULLY automatic rifles, but 'sawed off' shotguns, (smooth bore, 12 guage, bbl less than 18 1/2") as well. Actually, you should see the list of 'class 3 weapons', would cause most GC advocates to pee in their pants, if they knew that 'ordinary citisens' could legally own such weapons! LOL

And, I don't believe the 'state' can show it has a 'compelling interest' in banning 'high capacity' magazines. Where, exactly, is the 'compelling interest'?

Political statements to the contrary, it is NOT incumbent on the individual, to show they have a compelling need, ('pursuit of happiness' suffices), but on the STATE. In addition, (again, contrary to statements by Biden, et al) there IS a 'legitimate sporting reason' for owning/using 'high capacity magazines'; OTHER than to 'kill a lot of people in a short period of time'.

Anyone who makes bets on what SCOTUS will rule, is foolish indeed. But I will say I would much rather be arguing for overturning such laws as 'assault weapons ban', and 'high capacity magazine' ban, than to try to defend them.

I just don't see 'them' as having the 'facts' on 'their' side.

Just as the restrictive gun laws in D.C 'led' to the SCOTUS decision affirming 'keep and bear' is an INDIVIDUAL right, this proposed legislation MAY, in the long run be a GOOD thing, if it is subsequently overturned in SCOTUS. Again, I ain't a betting man, and any bet on what they will rule would be foolish indeed, but I still think this is MAINLY a political ploy, to keep their base energised for the 2014 elections.
Thing is, it is ALSO energising the opposing base. They may be discounting that, since O'bummer won. But O'bummer wouldn't have won, if Repubs hadn't put such a weak candidate up. So, I still think this MAY 'backfire' for O'bummer and team, because while I choked at the very idea of voting for Romoney, I will vote for Mickey Mouse of Daffy Duck, to replace any Congressmen who votes FOR these gun laws. And I suspect MANY others feel this way.So, that makes it a DIFFERENT 'equation' all together! And, HUBRIS may be blinding O'bummer and Company to this reality.
Do you REALLY see Senator Reid voting FOR this legislation, and winning re-election??? I doubt it. Nevada is one of the most Libertarian states in the union. MAYBE if they manage to give all the 'undocumented workers' in Nevada the 'right' to vote, but thats the ONLY way.Jim
__________________
 

Last edited by dutchdivco; 02-22-2013 at 05:25 PM. Reason: spelling errors
Reply With Quote
  #4001  
Old 02-22-2013, 05:49 PM
FuzzyTomCat's Avatar
FuzzyTomCat FuzzyTomCat is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 620
Send a message via Skype™ to FuzzyTomCat
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickoff View Post
Hmmm, Glen, something's not quite right with this so-called "Dick" Bill. This definition of what the Constitution refers to as the militia is out of whack with what the Founders said, if it speaks of the unorganized militia in this way. The Founders made it clear that the militia was simply all the people, which would encompass anyone capable of bearing arms against aggression or tyranny. What about us folks who are over 45 years of age? Are we not capable of wielding a firearm to protect ourselves, our family, our property, and our state? And according to this "Dick" Bill, would we lose the 'personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms' once we pass the age of 45? Conversely, what about persons under the age of 18 who have been well trained in the proper use of firearms? A good example is my February 19th post telling how an eleven year old girl, alone at home, defended herself against armed intruders. This "18 to 45" provision of the "Dick" Bill appears to improperly seek to define who has a constitutional right to bear arms, and is definitely not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Am I just reading it wrong, and does the "18 to 45" age restriction only apply to the organized militia (National Guard)? If not, then the "Dick" Bill is of no help to gun rights activists.
Hi Rick,

The "Dick" bill and comments : H.R. 11654 "A bill to promote the efficiency of the militia and for other purposes," To supersede the archaic militia laws enacted in 1792.

From what I understand "IS" what gave explanation and conditions for the present law for the Bill of Rights second amendment militia clarification to divide the militia into three distinct and separate entities which we are still under today. The bill has only been changed a few times and one was to expand and give the "NATIONAL" guard the ability to go "outside" the continental United States. The "archaic" (Very old or old-fashioned) militia is whats defined in the original Bill of Rights by the final ratification from the 14 states then in existence came on April 19, 1792, when Connecticut approved the ten amendments.

The age part I have no clue if it was changed other than what is in the text from The Dick BILL and COMMENTS HR 11654 - A Bill to Promote the Efficiency of the Militia and for Other Purposes to Supersede the Archaic Militia Laws Enacted in 1792 "COMPLETE ORIGINAL 1902 TEXT (7-pages)"

There is quite a bit of information on this Bill and I'm still looking at it, this took me days to just find the 100 year old text referred to at the Library of Congress Library of Congress LCCN Permalink 96190993 .... there is a need for speed on this so I'm getting more information as I type

Glen
__________________
Open Source Experimentalist
Open Source Research and Development
Reply With Quote
  #4002  
Old 02-22-2013, 06:45 PM
dutchdivco dutchdivco is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,000
Here's a

Pretty comprehensive 'overview' of gun contol laws, including ways one can legally own NFA, or 'title 2' weapons, also commonly called 'Class 3'; Fully auto, 'sawed off' shotguns, etc.

Very complex, but an interesting read. Unfortunately, don't know how 'up to date' it is,last date i see is 1997.Jim
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4003  
Old 02-23-2013, 03:44 AM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,261
Theodore Roosevelt declared, "Our militia law is obsolete and worthless."

Page 496 U. S. 341

In the early years of the Republic, Congress did neither. In 1792, it did pass a statute that purported to establish "an Uniform Militia throughout the United States," but its detailed command that every able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 be enrolled therein and equip himself with appropriate weaponry [Footnote 7] was virtually ignored for more than a century, during which time the militia proved to be a decidedly unreliable fighting force. [Footnote 8] The statute was finally repealed in 1901. [Footnote 9] It was in that year that President Theodore Roosevelt declared, "Our militia law is obsolete and worthless." [Footnote 10] The process of transforming "the National Guard of the several States" into an effective fighting force then began.


[Footnote 7]
"That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

Perpich v. DOD - 496 U.S. 334 (1990) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Al
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4004  
Old 02-23-2013, 04:50 AM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,354
The Real reason for gun control

__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff
Reply With Quote
  #4005  
Old 02-23-2013, 05:05 PM
dutchdivco dutchdivco is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,000
Again

The whole 'militia' issue, (with regard to the 2nd amendment) SEEMS to have been resolved, with the SCOTUS decision. Even O'bummer and Bitem seem to be (lieing) recognising, (or at least giving lip-service to 'recognising) 'keep and bear' is an individual right, and doesn't apply stricktly to an "organised militia".

Am I MISSING something? If so, please point it out to me. If not, there are so many falsehoods being promulgated by 'the advocates', why are we focusing on this old and discredited argument?

"There is no 'legitimate' or 'sporting purpose' for High Capacity magazines; their only purpose is to kill a LOT of people in a short period of time!"

"No one is hunting deer, with an 'assault rifle'.

The Police are being 'out-gunned', and Police chiefs from around the country are IMPLORING us to PASS this legislation."

An assault weapon has no 'legitimate' or 'sporting' purpose, it is designed and intended to kill 'a lot of people'.

Etc., Etc., Etc.,.....

By the by, I wondered where this notion of 'sporting purpose' came from, as it is nowhere in the second amendment. I assumed 'uncle joe' had made it up, as with many of his other cock-a-mamie notions. After reading the detailed material in the link I posted earlier, I see that the BATF DOES use 'sporting use' as 1 criterion, so I GUESS thats where it came from? Not clear to me where THEY got it from, tho. Perhaps just a case of an 'administrative law' ruling.

Speaking of which, many don't consciously recognise there are 3 forms of law or legal proceedings; Criminal, Civil, and Administrative. And, while the first 2 at least have established rules and procedures which give the appearance of fairness, Administrative law DOESN'T; you want to REALLY get f*cked, get into a disagreement with the Gov't over 'administrative' law; ALL the 'factors' are 'stacked' in favor of the Government, or at least thats been MY experience! Not that you can't prevail, but, A) its far more difficult, because of the aforementioned 'stacking', and B) it can cost a LOT of time, and a LOT of $; and they can outspend and outwait you, most every time.

Recall the earlier Rick post, about the young boy who wanted to raise and sell rabbits, and ended up owing the Gov't 10's of 1000's of $'s in fines; I'm pretty sure that was 'administrative law' he was dealing with.
Anyone who applies for Social Security Disability goes into administrative law; Dealing with Social Security Disability is so complicated thatmost lawyers who do it don't do anything else; The S.S. administration decides which lawyers can 'practice', and can revoke such a priviledge 'at will'.The Lawyers are prohibited from taking clients until AFTER they have filed their application, and been denied. And yet, the whole case is largely going to hinge on the answers they put on the application. So, no 'equivalent' of Miranda, or right against self-incrimination, etc. You begin to see how it works?,....THEY 'stack' everythoing in THEIR favor. And, being administrative law, it can easily take over a year for them to process the initial claim, which means someone who is disabled and can't work must somehow survive for a year or more, (and thats only till the FIRST denial!) before they can even hire a lawyer to assist them with the appeal, which can take ANOTHER year.Then they get denied AGAIN, and have their FIRST chance at their 'day in court', with their Lawyer, in an 'administrative hearing'. Again, a LOT of things are 'ajuducated' through administrative law, and its one of the most aggregious ways in which the Gov't can F*ck us, and goes on every day, with most people being un-aware it even exists, (unless you are unfortunate enough to be 'drawn in'. I suspect 'wetlands' cases, where a property owner makes 'changes' etc.would probably fall into this maw, as well. Anyway, dealing with BATF is ALSO something that would, at least initially, be 'administrative law', with the potential always there of moving into Criminal court.Just more 'ranting' on abuse of power of the Gov't., I guess.Jim
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4006  
Old 02-24-2013, 12:56 AM
gene gene gene gene is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northern Wisconsin
Posts: 257
Hi Jim,

In your post #4002 you mention an overview of gun control laws.
Can you provide a link?

Thanks, Gene
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4007  
Old 02-24-2013, 04:39 PM
dutchdivco dutchdivco is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,000
Sorry, Gene

'Brain f*rt!' Here it is;
rec.guns FAQ: II.F.1. General Guide to Class 3 Weapons
Obviously, 'Google' can find LOTS of info on gun control laws, etc. THIS link, while perhaps not the most 'up to date', goes into more detail and history than others i found.Jim
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4008  
Old 02-24-2013, 04:45 PM
dutchdivco dutchdivco is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,000
When is a door, not a door?

When its 'ajar', of coarse! When is a 'cut', not a 'cut'; when its in D.C., of coarse! The big bad sequester is SUPPOSED to be an 'across the board' 3% 'cut' in spending,....BUT, it is PRORATED, therfore it will be something LESS than 3%, since it didn't 'kick in' on Jan 1st. And, despite this 'cut', Federal spending will still INCREASE, this year, over last. Some 'cut', huh?

State Governors have made much 'heavier' cuts, REAL cuts, than this without it causing any 'end of the world' consequences. What a crock! Jim
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4009  
Old 02-25-2013, 04:05 AM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,354
Quotable quote of the day...

"If the brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't."

Believe it or not, I found these words of wisdom in a Chinese fortune cookie today. If we ponder this quote, perhaps it explains what is wrong in Washington DC. After all, the overwhelming majority of those now seated in the Obummer administration and in Congress are either total simpletons who don't understand the consequences of what they do, or are the knowing and willing puppets of those who pull their strings.
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff
Reply With Quote
  #4010  
Old 02-25-2013, 04:25 AM
Mad Scientist Mad Scientist is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchdivco View Post
The big bad sequester is SUPPOSED to be an 'across the board' 3% 'cut' in spending,....
3% OMG there is no way we can tolerate such a huge draconian reduction. Well at least not when those cuts are purposed to be made only in those areas that will have the most negative impact.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4011  
Old 02-25-2013, 02:53 PM
dutchdivco dutchdivco is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,000
Ahhh, Rick

Now your starting to see things the way I do! i.e PART of whats going on MAY be part of some vast conspiracy, but much of it is 'human nature', AND an inevitable responce of developing 'civilisation'.

Human BEANS are just 'legumes with legs'! Think of it this way; we ALL make decisions which we later come to regret, I know I have!
So, why should we think that we humans aren't just as capable of COLLECTIVELY making such (with the benefit of hindsight) STUPID decisions?

Thought of a good commercial;

"President O'bama looked right into the camera, and PROMISED me; "If ypou make less than $250,000, your taxes won't go up!"

Well, I DO make (quite a bit) less than $250,000, and my taxes HAVE gone up!

Then, he promised "If you LIKE your Dr., and your health ins., nothing will change for you!"

I do, but it has! My employer has decided to 'drop' healthcare ins.

And now, he looks into the camera, and says to me "If you are a 'Legal' gun owner, you have NOTHING to fear; we aren't going to be taking away YOUR guns!"

Why don't I believe him?
Just a thought,....Jim

Quote:
Originally Posted by rickoff View Post
"If the brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't."

Believe it or not, I found these words of wisdom in a Chinese fortune cookie today. If we ponder this quote, perhaps it explains what is wrong in Washington DC. After all, the overwhelming majority of those now seated in the Obummer administration and in Congress are either total simpletons who don't understand the consequences of what they do, or are the knowing and willing puppets of those who pull their strings.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4012  
Old 02-25-2013, 03:15 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,354
We often speak herein of the numbing and dumbing down of the American public, but I'm sure that most of us wonder why so many seemingly intelligent people that we know were duped into believing that Barry deserved to be reelected to a second term in the Oval Office. Sure, they get caught up in the Democrat vs Republican malarkey thrown at them by the mainstream media, but there is more to it than that. Younger voters are products of a reeducation agenda which has been aimed at rewriting history and teaching that socialism, communism, and the big government that results from them, are preferred ideals which are superior to free market capitalism. For example, just look at this World History lesson being taught in Social Studies classes in Texas. It teaches students that communism is the fairest and highest attainable economic system, and that capitalism is but an evolutionary step on the ladder to progress. The lesson calls “Communism” a system where “all people work together for everyone,” and shows a person climbing stairs towards a communist pinnacle. Capitalism is defined as being a system where “all people strive to fulfill their own needs and wants,” and is shown to be at the bottom of the included handout. Notice how the "sunlight" in the background is positioned to promote the idea that the person is progressing towards a brighter future. And look at the big blue arrow, labeled "Government Control." Students are taught that real progress on the path towards reaching the summit is dependent upon greater and greater government control, the very thing that is actually destroying our nation and erasing our personal liberties.



This form of reeducation has been evolving ever since "History" classes and textbooks were renamed as "Social Studies." This actually happened in the early 1960's, while I was still in high school, though the changes were very subtle at that time. Under this change of terms, the focus became the study of social systems, and the lessons to be learned from historical events were reinvented to fit in with the new teaching agenda. During the past 50 years, the teaching agenda has gradually introduced change after change with every new textbook edition, and if you are to open and begin reading one of today's Social Studies textbooks you won't believe the crap that is actually being taught as being factual. With this kind of indoctrination and reeducation, is it any wonder that so many people, er uh sheeple, are buying into what government and media is feeding them?
__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff

Last edited by rickoff; 02-25-2013 at 03:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4013  
Old 02-25-2013, 05:13 PM
dutchdivco dutchdivco is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,000
Yes, Rick

The 'lefties' DID gravitate into certain professions; Hollywood and media, which enables them to 'affect' views, attitudes, etc.
Education, ditto.
State Dept, affect 'our' interactions with rest of world.

Was it cause having a 'leftist' view causes one to be attracted to those occupations, or part of some vast conspiracy? I KNOW what your view is, as you know mine. Thing is, it has happened, is happening. Not sure why/ how is as important as agreeing on that!

You know about Joe Kline? He's a political commentator, clearly and unabashidly left. Some years back, he became resentful/indignant that people were always saying the press was liberal biased. So, he decided to disprove this notion, once and for all!
He contracted with an editor, to write a book. Got some undergraduates to do the research, and they went thru the 2 previous years press coverage of National and World events, and sytematically classified coverage as 'left, right, or 'unbiased'.
Thing is, he took great pains to make sure his research would be transparently 'honest', (so no one could dispute the results), and the conclusion was,...(oops!) he found there clearly and uncontrovertibly IS a 'left' of 'liberal' bias.
He p*ssed off some of his liberal friends, cause he went ahead and published. Maybe courageous, or more likely he had already gotten a down payment from the publisher. Anyway, don't know the title, but I'm sure its out there, and still available.
Again, I think its just because people who are liberal are more likely to be drawn to reporting, myself. And, once you ARE a teacher, or professor, or reporter, your 'world view' is going to inevitably effect how you do your job.
Human nature.
Would like to see someone do a similar, scientifically rigorous study of Hollywoods 'product'; movies that are unabashadly 'telling the story' with a LIBERAL bias or slant, as opposed to those that are presenting a conservative or 'neutral' slant. I can think of many I have seen, with a clearly liberal slant, can't recall off hand ANY of a conservative view.
Denzel Washington has publicly stated he is conservative, but he also stated he was VERY cautious about discussing his political views, for fear of being 'blackballed', and not getting parts.
Until you reach a certain level, of 'stardom', like Charton Heston, John Wayne, etc. it is best to keep your Politics quiet, if you are conservative; otherwise THEY will see that you never GET to that level.
Conspiracy, or 'human nature'?
Doesn't really matter, in the end. By dominating the Lamestream news media, Education, and entertainment, they HAVE succeeded in 'brainwashing' the masses.
And, the *ssholes who 'should' be providing a 'counterbalance' have been doing a TERRIBLE job, lately! i.e the Repubs. Putting the worst possible candidate up against O'bummer, who was totally unable to articulate a clear conservative message, mainly cause he AIN'T 'extremely conservative', he's almost O'bummers white twin! Cheating, isolating and (with the help of lamestream media discounting Ron Paul as a candidate, ahh, to hell with it!

WE, (collectively) are getting JUST what WE deserve! By the way, youthink THAT materail was bad, The 'Ethnic Studies' program, at Tuscon Unified School District, has been re-instated, (I believe as a result of a court ruling. Clearly and blatantly Marxist propoganda. Makes me sick. Jim
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4014  
Old 02-26-2013, 02:45 AM
Mad Scientist Mad Scientist is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 563
Is anyone familiar with this group? itccs.org | GUILTY! I found it mentioned at a couple different sources.

If they are for real and if they are able to carry out their goals we could start to see some really interesting changes. Of course making claims and being able to carry them out are two completely different things.
Quote:

Final Verdict is Rendered in First Common Law Court Case against the Vatican and Canada for Genocide.

Pope, Queen and Canadian Prime Minister found Guilty of Crimes against Humanity and Sentenced to Twenty Five Year Prison Terms

Court Orders them to Surrender by March 4 or face Citizens' Arrests
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4015  
Old 02-26-2013, 05:08 AM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchdivco View Post

Again, I think its just because people who are liberal are more likely to be drawn to reporting, myself. And, once you ARE a teacher, or professor, or reporter, your 'world view' is going to inevitably effect how you do your job.
Human nature.
Would like to see someone do a similar, scientifically rigorous study of Hollywoods 'product'; movies that are unabashadly 'telling the story' with a LIBERAL bias or slant, as opposed to those that are presenting a conservative or 'neutral' slant. I can think of many I have seen, with a clearly liberal slant, can't recall off hand ANY of a conservative view.
Denzel Washington has publicly stated he is conservative, but he also stated he was VERY cautious about discussing his political views, for fear of being 'blackballed', and not getting parts.
Until you reach a certain level, of 'stardom', like Charton Heston, John Wayne, etc. it is best to keep your Politics quiet, if you are conservative; otherwise THEY will see that you never GET to that level.
Conspiracy, or 'human nature'?
Humanity vs Inhumanity(fringe element)



Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchdivco View Post
Doesn't really matter, in the end. By dominating the Lamestream news media, Education, and entertainment, they HAVE succeeded in 'brainwashing' the masses.

WE, (collectively) are getting JUST what WE deserve!
"Not guilty by reason of insanity."

Al
__________________
 

Last edited by aljhoa; 02-26-2013 at 05:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4016  
Old 02-26-2013, 07:40 AM
FuzzyTomCat's Avatar
FuzzyTomCat FuzzyTomCat is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 620
Send a message via Skype™ to FuzzyTomCat
Constitution?… What Constitution?

Howdy all,

This was something I was aware about for some time before the Legislators convened .... but I had no IDEA how whacked out the democratic party here has became.

Creates crime of unlawful possession or transfer of assault weapon or large capacity magazine.
Punishes by maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, $250,000 fine, or both.
Requires current owners to dispose of or register assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
Directs Department of State Police to conduct background checks and maintain registry of assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
Declares emergency, effective on passage.


NRA-ILA | Oregon: Ban on Commonly Owned Firearms Introduced

Quote:

This ban on so-called “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazines would criminalize the possession and transfer of many commonly used firearms, create a registry, limit ownership to one registered “assault weapon” and three standard capacity magazines per person, and subject registered owners to “inspections” by the State Police.

Further, all Oregonians who legally own any of the items banned prior to this bill going into effect, or receive any of these items by inheritance or bequest, would have 120 days to come into compliance by one of the following means:

- Sell the “assault weapon” or standard capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer.

- Surrender the “assault weapon” or standard capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.

- Render the “assault weapon” permanently inoperable.

- If eligible, register the “assault weapon” or standard capacity magazine.


For those who wish to register their legally owned firearms and magazines, they would have to prove ownership, undergo a criminal background check, adhere to stringent and impractical storage and transportation requirements, and subject themselves to in-home inspections by law enforcement. Individuals would be limited to registering only one firearm and three magazines. All other banned firearms and magazines must be disposed of.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/13reg/mea...3200.intro.pdf OREGON STATE HOUSE BILL - HB 3200

Email and "Lobby" your Oregon State Legislators
Don't let your Constitutional "Bill of Rights" Second Amendment "Civil Rights" be violated.

Oregon State Senators ( 30 members )
http://www.leg.state.or.us/dynamic/m...r-type=senator

Oregon State Representatives ( 60 members )
http://www.leg.state.or.us/dynamic/m...representative

*** a sample letter "minus" a name and address ***
Constitutions Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment Civil Rights Letter


Glen
__________________
Open Source Experimentalist
Open Source Research and Development
Reply With Quote
  #4017  
Old 02-26-2013, 02:54 PM
Mad Scientist Mad Scientist is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyTomCat View Post
Email and "Lobby" your Oregon State Legislators
Don't let your Constitutional "Bill of Rights" Second Amendment "Civil Rights" be violated.
Perhaps this short video should be Emailed to those "illustrious" legislators.
It might help get the point across.

COME AND TAKE IT (OurGuns.org) Steve Vaus (official video) - YouTube
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4018  
Old 02-26-2013, 03:21 PM
dutchdivco dutchdivco is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,000
Current Law

If is not changed, 'ALLOWS' me to 'legally' own a fully automatic rifle, once I fill out the forms, and pay a $200 tax, as i live in a State, (Ariz.) with no restrictions.
Current federal and state law also 'allows' me to legally own a Gatling gun, with a 'simple' background check, and no tax, as BATF classifies Gatling guns as 'semi-automatic' rifles.

So, if the Federal law on 'Assault weapons' IS passed, that means I couldn't purchase a semi-automatic 'assault rifle', but COULD legally purchase and own a fully automatic 'machine' gun, or Gatling gun.

While 'they' have obviously been 'hiping' Sandy hook, etc. for their own agenda, and while OVERALL crime statistics, and violent crime statistics have gone down, there HAS been an increase in certain specific categories of 'gun violence' incidents.

Firstly, suicides by gun have gone up.
Secondly, these 'gun spree' or 'rage shooting' incidents have gone up.
And thirdly, in SOME 'inner city' areas, gun homicides have spiked, dramatically.

All 3 categories have 2 common denominators. One is guns,....but the other is the 'shooters'; in all 3 cases, the shooters are almost always 18-24 Y.O. males. In fact, if you broaden the demographic to 16-30y.o MALES, you account for 99% of the shooters.

Now, there ARE significant differences, as well; the 'inner city' shooters invariably have (usually long) criminal records, with multiple felony convictions.
On the other hand, the 'spree shooters' invariably have NO criminal record, although often have (after the fact) obvious mental health issues.

And the suicides fall somewhere in the middle.

Question is, what are we (as a society, etc.)doing, or NOT doing, in the raising of young men, that is contributing to this?

A COMPLICATED issue, and one that gets to 'value' questions; the values of our society, and the kind of issue some conservatives have been talking about for years.

Many, for instance, note that children aren't really given the time to BE children, any more. In middle and upper class families, children are being told to start focusing on setting up for College, when they enter first grade!

Perhaps if young boys were 'allowed' to BE children, and 'play' cops and robbers, cowboys and indians, etc. the way earlier generations were, instead of 'playing' with graphic computer games?

And, in 'lower class' (poor) neighborhoods, they are being raised in a 'war zone', surrounded by crime, violence, povery, and neglect. In SOME of these neighborhoods, a child will see numerous dead bodies, (from violence) before they are 10 years old. Many accept as a 'given' that THEY will 'probably' be shot, themselves, at some point in their lives.

What the f*ck are we 'doing' about it? Not much! Many of the 'Policies' have created or contributed to these problems. And damn few if any are doing anything to address them. Jim
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #4019  
Old 02-27-2013, 03:16 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,354
Looks like some cuts are in order

__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff
Reply With Quote
  #4020  
Old 02-28-2013, 02:24 PM
rickoff's Avatar
rickoff rickoff is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maine, USA
Posts: 3,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyTomCat View Post
This was something I was aware about for some time before the [Oregon] legislators convened .... but I had no IDEA how whacked out the Democrat party here has become.

Quote:
Individuals would be limited to registering only one firearm and three magazines.
You're right, Glen. Not only is what they are proposing insane, but it is also unconstitutional as well. The states, both individually and collectively, need to wake up to reality and stand up against federal government abuses of power, not join in that abuse. Besides, what purpose do these legislators think that limiting legal ownership to one gun would serve? After all, nearly all crimes involving guns are committed with just one gun, but criminals intent on shooting other people wouldn't care what limit had been imposed. They would still have as many guns as they wanted, while law abiding citizens would be outgunned by them. Why should any law abiding citizens have any gun or ammo restrictions whatsoever imposed upon them? The very idea is nonsensical. What proof can gun control advocates point to as determining that legal ownership of more than one gun is dangerous to public safety? Have they thought about the number and types of guns which have been owned by prominent gun collectors like Charlton Heston, for example? Charlton literally had hundreds of guns in his collection, and these ranged form handguns to rifles and fully automatic military weapons. Did this vast array of weaponry induce Charlton to go on a killing spree? No, of course not. Charlton never killed anyone. Charlton was a responsible gun owner, and kept his personal arsenal in a 1600 square foot vault built into the basement of his home. Here are photos showing the interior of that vault:


__________________
"Seek wisdom by keeping an open mind to alternative realities, questioning authority, and searching for truth. Only then, when you see or hear something that has 'the ring of truth' to it, will it be as if a veil has been lifted, and suddenly you will begin to hear and see far more clearly than ever before." - Rickoff
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

Choose your voluntary subscription

For one-time donations, please use the below button.


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers