Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Democrats' Response to the 2014 Elections
mrld_ii Joined Thu 05/15/14 Posts: 1410	Fri 11/07/14 03:50 PM
Really and just how does one account for Odumbocare? And how about the renewal of the Federal Reserve Act, the Patriot Act, NDAA, etc., etc., etc. And it would be truly refreshing if those "Senators" and "Representatives" would actually sit on their backsides and do nothing. It is pretty obvious that most of the unwashed masses have no clue as to what really occurs, just the clamber over the current argument that masks the actual deeds. And I totally disagree with your use of descriptors, "VERY interesting" as a way of projecting what is about to transpire with the 114th Congress. What would be "interesting" would be to understand just what you meant by the word! I have never even heard of "Odumbocare"; I Googled it, and no one else has either. Provide a citation to a legitimate source discussing this "Odumbocare" and I'll look into it and see if I can't address your concerns about it, which you directed AT me, to clarify for you. Since I have not received the memo that indicates YOU are now The Person in Charge of Everything, I don't really care if you agree with MY assessment that the newly-unfolding Congressional make-up is going to prove "very interesting". As to you not being sure what "interesting" means when I use the word, I'm known for utilizing Mr. Merriam's and Mr. Webster's meanings of English words, since they went to the trouble to put together a little book on the meanings of words...and even went so far as to put them in alphabetical order, just in case anyone else wanted to look 'em up: interesting = "attracting your attention and making you want to learn more about something or to be involved in something : not dull or boring" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interesting You're welcome.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Fri 11/07/14 06:18 PM
Yes, it's genius. It's the new As The World Turns soap. But you have to admit, those exec. orders were padded into taking away all of our rights, even in peace times. Even took away each states right to gather their own state guard. The national guard will be in place if HE so deems. Unfortunately, I can't admit that, as I'm not seeing where in any of the Executive Orders President Obama's enacted, that there HAS been any "taking away of ALL of our rights", let alone even some of 'em. I've hotlinked them, by year...perhaps you can draw my attention to the particular orders in which this has occurred? 2009 EOs 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 As to the claim that the Coast Guard is no longer under States' control and reports directly to the POTUS, that not true; the EO was signed after the Haiti earthquake and tsunami and was worded to allow emergency orders of deployment by the POTUS IF - and only IF - "...when it is not operating as a service in the Navy..." i.e., when the Coast Guard is inactive. EO13529 As an aside, if our current POTUS keeps up at his current pace, by the time he leaves office he will have signed 258 EOs. Several Presidents have signed more - some even WAAAAAY more - than that, during their terms in office: George W. Bush (291), Clinton (364), Reagan (381), Carter (320), Nixon (346), Johnson (325), Eisenhower (484), Truman (907), FDR (3,522), Hoover (968), Coolidge (1,203), Harding (522), Wilson (1,803), Taft (724), and Teddy Roosevelt (1,081). Hmmmm...what is so uniquely different about this POTUS that he's being accused of signing EOs all willy-nilly-like, when factually-speaking it's just simply not true?!? http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php Wow, remarkable, in this instance I would have to agree with you. While Odumbo has done many things not within his authority as granted by the constitution, his sponsors have been very careful not to put anything in writing in the way of his executive orders that would constitute a serious breach of his powers. And as to regards to the Coast Guard, he is the Commander and Chief (well in title at least) and can mandate that the Mickey Mouse look is their official uniform if he so desires. But speaking of Executive Orders by the clown supreme, how about: 13571 - Improving Customer Service. Remarkable, we peasants are customers and deserve service. 13588 - Shortages of Prescription Drugs. Now that would account for some of the mysteries. Can you imagine having a Chemo shortage at $5000 - $9000 per treatment? The disgrace of Big Pharma ignoring all those profits or is this only for Odumbocare? 13616 - Accelerating broadband Infrastructure Deployment, did you know the Federal Government owns over 30% of the land in this country. Not very constitutional there. No wonder Clive Bundy has problems, he has been ousted by an organization that owns nothing not stolen from the people. 13617 - Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted From Nuclear Weapons. Now there is a mouthful. Here is Odumbo directing the government to monitor the actions of a sovereign government to meet terms of a treaty but the US can violate anything it wants. 13622 - Authorizing Additional Sanctions With Respect to Iran. A blatant act of war, not just against Iran but to any country that desires to buy Iranian oil. And the best for the last: 13660 - Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine. And yet many US officials, especially Nuland, John Kerry and Karl Rove still don't have their property seized. Guess it doesn't count when you are the oppressor.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Fri 11/07/14 06:22 PM
"...Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy..." It was the closest EO I could find that had ANYthing to do with the subject she'd introduced... ...withOUT providing any specifics or any citations when making the claim. When she said "state guard", it was clear to me that she was talking about the state guard, not the Coast Guard. I didn't accept her claim since she hadn't provided a link to evidence supporting such a claim. Gee, it does seem that was what was typed. No mention of coast guard at all. And then to think that Odumbo stole the state guard by an executive order. But then, what will he do next, tell another lie????? But then why be factual when any old story will do????

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Fri 11/07/14 06:21 PM
As to the claim that the Coast Guard is no longer under States' control . . . Fleta said "state guard", not "Coast Guard". So, who mentioned "Coast Guard"? If you'd bothered to check the hotlink provided, the wording of EO13529 specifically referred to the "Coast Guard": "...Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy..." It was the closest EO I could find that had ANYthing to do with the subject she'd introduced... ...withOUT providing any specifics or any citations when making the claim. Apparently, part of the Newly-Adopted Posting Rules is that only SOME people have to provide citations to legitimate sources when introducing facts into a discussion, while others are provided a free pass...and free rein (reign?). Thanks for (only) noticing - and responding to! - a post of *MINE* in the thread you're hosting, again. Really?

mrld_ii Joined Thu 05/15/14 Posts: 1410	Fri 11/07/14 06:28 PM
Wow, remarkable, in this instance I would have to agree with you. While Odumbo has done many things not within his authority as granted by the constitution, his sponsors have been very careful not to put anything in writing in the way of his executive orders that would constitute a serious breach of his powers. And as to regards to the Coast Guard, he is the Commander and Chief (well in title at least) and can mandate that the Mickey Mouse look is their official uniform if he so desires. But speaking of Executive Orders by the clown supreme, how about: 13571 - Improving Customer Service. Remarkable, we peasants are customers and deserve service. 13588 - Shortages of Prescription Drugs. Now that would account for some of the mysteries. Can you imagine having a Chemo shortage at $5000 - $9000 per treatment? The disgrace of Big Pharma ignoring all those profits or is this only for Odumbocare? 13616 - Accelerating broadband Infrastructure Deployment, did you know the Federal Government owns over 30% of the land in this country. Not very constitutional there. No wonder Clive Bundy has problems, he has been ousted by an organization that owns nothing not stolen from the people. 13617 - Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted From Nuclear Weapons. Now there is a mouthful. Here is Odumbo directing the government to monitor the actions of a sovereign government to meet terms of a treaty but the US can violate anything it wants. 13622 - Authorizing Additional Sanctions With Respect to Iran. A blatant act of war, not just against Iran but to any country that desires to buy Iranian oil. And the best for the last: 13660 - Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine. And yet many US officials, especially Nuland, John Kerry and Karl Rove still don't have their property seized. Guess it doesn't count when you are the oppressor. In your zest and zeal to quote a post of mine to simply use a springboard to go off on your next tangent, you forgot to provide that citation to a legitimate source that will explain what this "Odumbocare" that you're so worked up over is all about that even Google hasn't heard of. Just trying to keep you tethered, there, Big Guy...even though I know how much you hate it...

fleta_n_mach Joined Tue 06/24/14 Posts: 3510	Fri 11/07/14 06:34 PM
...misses me. sowry mrld. I know you can handle his tangents, oops I mean I no longer consent to his stalking. OT I used to be a registered Democrat.

mrld_ii Joined Thu 05/15/14 Posts: 1410	Fri 11/07/14 06:40 PM
Not a problem, fleta...I just kept kickin' him back into play for ya, 'til you got back. I used to be a registered Republican...for the first 30 years of my adult voting life. Rumor has it the party is now looking for ways to get women - like me - back, in time for the 2016 general election. I it when old, white-haired men come a-courtin', yanno?

fleta_n_mach Joined Tue 06/24/14 Posts: 3510	Fri 11/07/14 06:53 PM
Well getting beaten about the brow might just drive us poor helpless wimins to registering again. Maybe....

Sojourning_Soul Joined Fri 02/13/09 Posts: 10767	Fri 11/07/14 06:58 PM Edited by Sojourning_Soul on Fri 11/07/14 07:01 PM
Now that Harry Reid won't be the Senate Majority Leader, bills passed by the House will be voted on by the Senate, instead of being blocked Reid-style. I would say that would be a very true statement, things are going to be passed, but the question is what? And to think Odumbo would use that many vetoes, not likely. Some nasty things are a brewin'. And taxes could very well be at the top of that list: national sales tax, tax on internet, tax on this, tax on that. All aimed at the middle class to help complete the destruction. I won't disagree but will make a couple of points..... Repulsicons are noted for their love of power and money! They promote business, jobs, and sadly.....war..... now our largest export since the rule of the Bush dynasty, and continued under our recent and present admins..... a real change in American principles and policy towards their "New World Order" agenda.....especially since 9/11. In history, under the Reps, people made more money, so taxes will increase, a given! But one thing you can say for them is they more often than not would support a strong economy because it created a bigger piece of the pie for them to devour. Look at the Reagan era. Then came the Bushs and Clintons...... The Bushs are/were a corrupt dynasty, and Dubya was daddy's puppet with Mr Haliburton (Cheney) and the New World Order war machine Eisenhower and Kennedy both warned us about (CIA, now DHS), actually calling the shots. They have never been known, like the Rockerfellers, Morgans, and Wahlburgs, to care much for the "little guy". Kissinger said it best......"Military Men Are Just Dumb, Stupid Animals To Be Used As Pawns In Foreign Policy" ..... he was of course the advisor to the Bush dynasty, a member of the CFR, Tri-Lateral Commission, Bilderberg, and all those other wonderful warmongering, profiteer institutions that gave us what we have today..... which this admin has built on rather than disassemble.....AS PROMISED! IN 2016 IF PEOPLE ARE STUPID ENOUGH TO ELECT ANOTHER BUSH OR CLINTON THEY DESERVE WHAT THEY GET! Hopefully we have learned what letting the war machine, bankers, corporations and their media give us as a choice for leadership will only continue our present course of loss of freedoms, privacy, instead giving us war, division and mistrust, all wrapped up in a nice cozy blanket of fear and control for our own good..... If we make it that long

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Fri 11/07/14 07:04 PM
Executive Order 13603(you'll have to scroll down to it.) National Defense Resources Preparedness Signed: March 16, 2012 Federal Register page and date: 77 FR 16651, March 22, 2012 I haven't had enough coffee yet, but in there, it also takes laborers for their skills to work for no compensation. Really, must be a conspiracy: "Sec. 502. Consultants. The head of each agency otherwise delegated functions under this order is delegated the authority of the President under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c), to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations. The authority delegated by this section may not be redelegated." Gee, wonder just whom these consultants may be???? Although Executive Order 10996, from 1956 already stated this, but not about the general public... Section 1. As used in this order, the term: (a) "Employees" means civilian employees of the Army National Guard or Air National Guard of a State who are employed pursuant to section 709 of title 32 of the United States Code, and paid from Federal, appropriated funds. (b) "State" means one of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory of the United States. .... Sec. 3. Each such agreement shall: (a) Provide that the Secretary of the Army with respect to civilian employees of the Army National Guard, and the Secretary of the Air Force with respect to civilian employees of the Air National Guard, shall comply with the requirements of such State law in the case of employees subject to the said act of June 15, 1956, as amended, who are eligible for membership in such retirement, disability, or death benefits system for State employees; (b) Specify when the withholding of sums from the compensation of such State employees shall commence; and (c) Provide for procedures for the withholding, the filing of the returns, and the payment of the sums withheld from compensation to the officials of the State, or organization designated by such officials to receive sums withheld for such programs, which procedures shall conform, so far as practicable, to the usual fiscal practices of the Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force, respectively. Sec. 4. The Secretary of the Army with respect to civilian employees of the Army National Guard, and the Secretary of the Air Force with respect to civilian employees of the Air National Guard, shall designate, or provide for the designation of, the officers or employees whose duty it shall be to withhold sums from compensation, file required returns, and direct the payment of sums so withheld, in accordance with the terms of the agreements entered into between the Secretary of Defense and the States. And just what does this have to do with Executive Order 13603, Section 502? Nothing? But back to state rights to Guard...I was mistaken, It was not an EO, it was a National Security Letter. Which one? I dunno. National Security Archive Here's an article I did find on it, that you don't have to pay for: Governors NSL Letters Obama Threatens 14 US Governors With Immediate Arrest Posted by Europe on May 26, 2010 http://www.eutimes.net/2010/05/obama-threatens-14-us-governors-with-immediate-arrest/ A chilling report from the Foreign Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU) prepared for Prime Minister Putin warns today that United States President Barack Obama has had served on 14 US Governors National Security Letters (NSLs) warning that if their actions in attempting to form what are called State Defense Forces are not halted they will face "immediate" arrest for the crime of treason. The use of NSLs in the United States was authorized by the Patriot Act law enacted after the September 11, 2001 attacks and forbids anyone receiving them from even acknowledging their existence, and was reauthorized by Obama's "rubberstamp" Congress this past February over the objections of both civil and human rights groups who warned they mimic similar type "government security notices" enacted under both the former German Nazi and Soviet Communist regimes. To the issue angering Obama against these State Governors, this report continues, is their attempt to reestablish what are called State Defense Forces which are described as follows: "State Defense Forces (SDF) (also known as State Guards, State Military Reserves, or State Militias) in the United States are military units that operate under the sole authority of a state government; they are not regulated by the National Guard Bureau nor are they part of the Army National Guard of the United States. State Defense Forces are authorized by state and federal law and are under the command of the governor of each state. State Defense Forces are distinct from their state's National Guard in that they cannot become federal entities. The federal government recognizes State Defense Forces under 32 U.S.C. § 109 which provides that State Defense Forces as a whole may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States, thus preserving their separation from the National Guard." Important to note is that Obama, as President of the United States is also its most powerful military leader known by the term of Commander in Chief, and is authorized by the Militia Act of 1903 to federalize his individual States National Guard Forces putting them under his command, something he does not have the power to do with State Defense Forces. Obama's fear of these State Defense Forces, this report says, rests with his not having power over them, and with the bulk of the US Military Forces he does control being stretched to near breaking with the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would leave these State military forces under the control of these Governors in "defacto control" of the United States. The two US Governors spearheading this rebellion against Obama, this report states, are the Republican opposition party Governors of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty and Texas, Rick Perry; both of whom have a deep fear their President is destroying their Nation. Governor Pawlenty's fear of Obama is that since he took office he has appeased America's enemies while at the same time shunning some of America's most stalwart allies, especially Israel. Governor Pawlenty recently castigated Obama for abandoning the US missile defense plan for Europe by saying, "The lessons of history are clear: Appeasement and weakness did not stop the Nazis, did not stop the Soviets, and did not stop the terrorists before 9/11. We must stand strong with allies like Israel and eastern Europe in the face of growing challenges to our national security." Governor Perry has blasted Obama and warned his fellow Texans that the President is "hell bent on socialism" and is punishing his State by dumping tens-of-thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants into their cities and small towns. Governor Perry further warned Texans that that if "Barack Obama's Washington doesn't stop being so oppressive, Texans might feel compelled to renounce their American citizenry and secede from the union." Note: Following the end of the Civil War the rights of the individual US States to succeed from the Union was heard by their Supreme Court in a case called Texas v. White (1869) and who ruled that the Constitution did not permit States to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding States intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null". However, the decision did allow some possibility of divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States." Obama, in fearing a revolution against him by the States, this report continues, has moved swiftly against them, including nationalizing nearly all National Guard Forces in Governor Pawlenty's Minnesota in what is being described as their State's largest call up of troops since World War II. Other reports coming from the United States are stating that Obama has also nationalized the National Guard forces in Georgia, Alabama, Kansas, and perhaps Texas too. Though Obama may have taken from these dissident States their National Guard forces, the Governors of the States of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia still have under their sole command their State Defense Forces to go against US Federal forces. Important to note in this report is its stating that there are no US laws prohibiting National Guard troops from also joining their State's Defense Forces, but would create a dilemma for those soldiers should they be called to service by them both at the same time. This dilemma occurred for many American soldiers during their Civil War with the great majority of them choosing to serve their States instead of the Federal Government. .... ^^^There are more links within this article if you want more details. Now for more coffee. And this whole article would be a joke on you. This is in reference to 18 USC 2709. Counterintelligence access to telephone toll and transactional records National Security Letters National Security Letters

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Fri 11/07/14 07:12 PM
State Militias have ALWAYS been a Constitutional mandate What part of the 2nd amendment don't some people get..... including our POTUS.... the Constitutional law professor ? It's called Constitutional RIGHTS! As far as EOs..... it's never the number, it's the content!.... and they are NOT written in stone and can be over turned by another sitting POTUS Obozo's campaign rhetoric has proven to be just that....rhetoric.... as all of Bush's EOs have not only been allowed to exist, but have been extended and intensified under our present sitting POTUS Obozo is so daft he doesn't even understand what these past elections mean to the next 2 years of his presidency yet No more Reid and Holder to cover his ignorance....the Emperor has no clothes! North Carolina Constitution: Sec. 30. Militia and the right to bear arms. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

fleta_n_mach Joined Tue 06/24/14 Posts: 3510	Fri 11/07/14 07:16 PM
we already know it was false. yippie for you! Kept ya busy, huh?

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Fri 11/07/14 07:19 PM
I was right. Fleta didn't say anything about the Coast Guard, and she didn't imply "Coast Guard". If you'd bothered to check the hotlink provided, the wording of EO13529 specifically referred to the "Coast Guard": "...Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy..." It was the closest EO I could find that had ANYthing to do with the subject she'd introduced... ...withOUT providing any specifics or any citations when making the claim... *According to The New Rules, because my font's bigger, bolder, AND brighter, I am righter.* Not really, just the inverse of the font.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Fri 11/07/14 07:26 PM
I was right. Fleta didn't say anything about the Coast Guard, and she didn't imply "Coast Guard". If you'd bothered to check the hotlink provided, the wording of EO13529 specifically referred to the "Coast Guard": "...Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy..." It was the closest EO I could find that had ANYthing to do with the subject she'd introduced... ...withOUT providing any specifics or any citations when making the claim... *According to The New Rules, because my font's bigger, bolder, AND brighter, I am righter.* This is what fleta said: Yes, it's genius. It's the new As The World Turns soap. But you have to admit, those exec. orders were padded into taking away all of our rights, even in peace times. Even took away each states right to gather their own state guard. The national guard will be in place if HE so deems. In your reply to her, you said the following: As to the claim that the Coast Guard is no longer under States' control and reports directly to the POTUS, that not true. Now, where in fleta's above-quoted statement did she say "Coast Guard"? * * * * * * Personal Note: Lately I have been trying different font sizes and different font colors to see if any of them would make it easier for me to see what I have written. I wear bifocals, and they don't work well when I am looking at things on a computer screen. Thus, I don't always see my typing errors until they have been posted. Hey. I guess this has turned into the personal message area so... Ask your eye doctor for a prescription just for the computer. It makes all the difference in the world and saves your neck a lot of awkward angles.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Fri 11/07/14 07:58 PM
No, not really. But somehow I sense resentment that things did not go another direction, that things would have been perceived as going in the right direction if the whole of Congress turned blue. Actually I would love to see congress turn very blue, but in a literal and not metaphorical sense. However, back on subject. The last time all was "blue" we got that great legislation know as Odumbocare, how's that going for you? All these millions get to pay their hard earned money for medical insurance and still have no health coverage. What an outstanding contribution to society. Can't wait for those non-existent death panels to start making decisions. I seriously doubt you "sense" anything, let alone "resentment", and most particularly NOT on my part. Then you aren't to be taken seriously, that part I already understand. And no matter how you try to project self evaluation, your statements seem to project otherwise. And yes, your part. Every time someone objects to your statements, your go to the personal, first as being somehow against your person and then as an attack against the person. I prefer balance in all things, including my politics; if a POTUS is blue, I prefer a majority red Congress and vice-versa. It's a nifty little built-in checks-and-balances system that helps control those who exercise little self-control. "The last time all was 'blue'..." NEVER in the history of the United States has Congress been "all blue" or 'all red'. Factually-speaking, of course. And now you are just being totally indignant of the subject. Regardless of your little dance, during the 111th congress, the government for all rights and purposes was all blue. There was a 60% majority in both the Senate and House (yes there were two democrats disguised as Independents). So, factually speaking they were all blue as the red team didn't count at all. And even with that Odumbocare barely squeaked through. Don't say much for leadership capabilities.

mrld_ii Joined Thu 05/15/14 Posts: 1410	Fri 11/07/14 08:12 PM
...during the 111th congress, the government for all rights and purposes was all blue... For the record, I "do not consent" to the use of "for all rights and purposes" to be used in lieu of actual, factual realities of the situation. I stand by my previous assertion that your previous assertion of "the last time all was blue..." is a concocted fallacy, presented as another wild tangent to divert attention from the fact that your arguments can not hold water. In your defense, though...this IS the most attention you've ever received from women, huh?

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Fri 11/07/14 08:19 PM
Really and just how does one account for Odumbocare? And how about the renewal of the Federal Reserve Act, the Patriot Act, NDAA, etc., etc., etc. And it would be truly refreshing if those "Senators" and "Representatives" would actually sit on their backsides and do nothing. It is pretty obvious that most of the unwashed masses have no clue as to what really occurs, just the clamber over the current argument that masks the actual deeds. And I totally disagree with your use of descriptors, "VERY interesting" as a way of projecting what is about to transpire with the 114th Congress. What would be "interesting" would be to understand just what you meant by the word! I have never even heard of "Odumbocare"; I Googled it, and no one else has either. Provide a citation to a legitimate source discussing this "Odumbocare" and I'll look into it and see if I can't address your concerns about it, which you directed AT me, to clarify for you. Of course you haven't. And please, you place way too much value on that which has no value. Since I have not received the memo that indicates YOU are now The Person in Charge of Everything, I don't really care if you agree with MY assessment that the newly-unfolding Congressional make-up is going to prove "very interesting". And what is this hangup on some always having to be in charge of things? "Authority An illusion of a diseased psyche, based entirely in violence and built upon the erroneous and dogmatic belief that some people are masters who have the moral right to issue commands, and others are slaves who have a moral obligation to obey the masters, 'Slavery'. The belief in the legitimacy of 'authority' is the belief in the legitimacy of slavery. Ultimately, 'authority' is the idea that man can become God and through 'jurisdiction' dictate the law. As to you not being sure what "interesting" means when I use the word, I'm known for utilizing Mr. Merriam's and Mr. Webster's meanings of English words, since they went to the trouble to put together a little book on the meanings of words...and even went so far as to put them in alphabetical order, just in case anyone else wanted to look 'em up: interesting = "attracting your attention and making you want to learn more about something or to be involved in something : not dull or boring" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interesting You're welcome. And a dictionary but defines the word. It has no control over the context in which that word is used and context is everything. Therefore, as seems to be the norm, you ignore the question and proceed with a rant. But let me know when you figure it out.

mrld_ii Joined Thu 05/15/14 Posts: 1410	Fri 11/07/14 08:32 PM
... And please, you place way too much value on that which has no value. I do not consent to this observation, nor do I recognize the authority of this statement. "Authority An illusion of a diseased psyche, based entirely in violence and built upon the erroneous and dogmatic belief that some people are masters who have the moral right to issue commands, and others are slaves who have a moral obligation to obey the masters, 'Slavery'. The belief in the legitimacy of 'authority' is the belief in the legitimacy of slavery. Ultimately, 'authority' is the idea that man can become God and through 'jurisdiction' dictate the law. I do not consent to this fabricated definition of "Authority", nor do I recognize the authority when authorizing this newly-defined definition. And a dictionary but defines the word. It has no control over the context in which that word is used and context is everything. Therefore, as seems to be the norm, you ignore the question and proceed with a rant. I do not consent to this misuse of the dictionary and its contextual definitions of words, nor do I recognize the authority employed WHEN misusing words based on fabricated definitions. But I AM still waiting on that citation to a legitimate source of "Odumbocare", diversionally-ranting Big Guy.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Fri 11/07/14 08:42 PM
Wow, remarkable, in this instance I would have to agree with you. While Odumbo has done many things not within his authority as granted by the constitution, his sponsors have been very careful not to put anything in writing in the way of his executive orders that would constitute a serious breach of his powers. And as to regards to the Coast Guard, he is the Commander and Chief (well in title at least) and can mandate that the Mickey Mouse look is their official uniform if he so desires. But speaking of Executive Orders by the clown supreme, how about: 13571 - Improving Customer Service. Remarkable, we peasants are customers and deserve service. 13588 - Shortages of Prescription Drugs. Now that would account for some of the mysteries. Can you imagine having a Chemo shortage at $5000 - $9000 per treatment? The disgrace of Big Pharma ignoring all those profits or is this only for Odumbocare? 13616 - Accelerating broadband Infrastructure Deployment, did you know the Federal Government owns over 30% of the land in this country. Not very constitutional there. No wonder Clive Bundy has problems, he has been ousted by an organization that owns nothing not stolen from the people. 13617 - Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted From Nuclear Weapons. Now there is a mouthful. Here is Odumbo directing the government to monitor the actions of a sovereign government to meet terms of a treaty but the US can violate anything it wants. 13622 - Authorizing Additional Sanctions With Respect to Iran. A blatant act of war, not just against Iran but to any country that desires to buy Iranian oil. And the best for the last: 13660 - Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine. And yet many US officials, especially Nuland, John Kerry and Karl Rove still don't have their property seized. Guess it doesn't count when you are the oppressor. In your zest and zeal to quote a post of mine to simply use a springboard to go off on your next tangent, Buy for a penny, sell for a dollar. you forgot to provide that citation to a legitimate source that will explain what this "Odumbocare" that you're so worked up over is all about that even Google hasn't heard of. Didn't forget anything and goggle is no help and neither am I. If you can't figure it out, ignore it. Just trying to keep you tethered, there, Big Guy...even though I know how much you hate it... A legend in your own mind. I am no one's slave and have no tethers. It is rather obvious that you have never before now ever met a free person. As you somehow imply that one can be bound by some function of society, I belong to no society and remain unfettered. So continue through life pretending to have what is not there, not my problem. Continue with false hopes, not my problem.

alnewman Joined Sat 12/14/13 Posts: 4009	Fri 11/07/14 08:44 PM
...misses me. sowry mrld. I know you can handle his tangents, oops I mean I no longer consent to his stalking. OT I used to be a registered Democrat. Now why would that not be a surprise?