100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Tiny victory for working poor, | |
|---|---|
|
|
 so , what you just stated, in laymans terms is that you understand 'enumerated powers' and 'bill of rights' and I am glad for you and impressed, seriously but the questions were ,,, where in the 'supreme law' does it say criminals shouldn't be prosecuted? and what 'criminal prosecution' does the sixth amendment refer to? please don't answer by denying the existence of a thing (Crime) by including the legal definition of what that thing is (blacks law definition of crime)  when citizen breaks penal law (blacks definition of crime) should hey NOT be prosecuted? if not, what is the purpose of Article 3 or any of the amedments pertaining to 'crime' or 'criminal'? All of this has already been answered, it is not my problem if you do not comprehend. Do your own research, all the paths have been laid out. I do not subscribe to entitlements, so my time is my own to do as I wish and I wished to provide clarity. It is your responsibility to proceed beyond that as provided by me. dude, I totally understood your pedantic 'look how intelligent I am' rant but it still doesn't address the questions it was allegedly supposed to be answering,,,lol I see plenty in the 'supreme' law about crime and criminal and all I asked was where that law states that criminals cant be prosecuted I see you have no actual direct answer to 'provide clarity' so I will assume my responsibility to not expect that to change and to move on,,,, It addressed them totally, no rant, all facts. And obviously you ill understand what "supreme" law actually is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
alnewman
on
Wed 03/19/14 11:44 AM
|
|
continue to believe the accounts you choose to believe and discount others ,,,,,,its the persecuted privileged way,,, Persecuted privileged, is that supposed to mean something? per�se�cute verb past tense: persecuted; past participle: persecuted 1. subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, esp. because of their race or political or religious beliefs. priv�i�leged adjective 1. belonging to a class that enjoys special privileges; favored: the privileged few. 2. entitled to or exercising a privilege. 3. restricted to a select group or individual So using actual English language this would mean taking the entitlement crowd and subjecting them to hostility and ill-treatment. Boy I bet a lot of the non-entitlement people here would support that. Would definitely reduce the leech count. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nah, I truly believe there are sickos in these threads that wouldn't hesitate to rejoice in bringing harm to those they feel are 'entitled' or 'thugs' or any of the other labels signifying someone's inferior status to themselves,, my stalker is no longer imprisoned,,,I have no intention of some sicko informing him of how to find me,,, So we remain with a one sided story that from experience can be considered tainted and within the scope of reasonable doubt as to the facts. I think his CONVICTION alleviates the notion of a 'reasonable doubt' and I am yet again not disappointed continue to believe the accounts you choose to believe and discount others ,,,,,,its the persecuted privileged way,,, Not really, there are many prosecuted in jail that should not be there. Seems more and more every day are being released because they didn't do the crime, just the acts of a zealous illegal prosecutor. So we're back to square one, which again is par for the course, with a one sided story that may or in all probability didn't happen, and may or in all probability wasn't as it seems as no actual verifiable facts can be discerned. So based on experience, without verifiable facts, it doesn't exist, period. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes, the way I could address the question
'where is highway 95' by answering in this manner: The word HIGHWAY harks back to the elevated, agger, the mound or hill of the Roman road formed by earth thrown from the side of ditches toward the center. In old England these raised, or high, ways were under the protection of the King's peace and open to public, unrestricted travel as distinguished from byways, or private roads. yet the word has been bastardized today as such routes are often no more elevated than the streets and neighborhoods they run alongside,,, and the government has overreached their powers permitted to them by the 'supreme law' of the land yet, I would not expect the persecuted privileged in society to understand this and to continue asking for permission to drive on highways that don't really exist in the first place
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nah, I truly believe there are sickos in these threads that wouldn't hesitate to rejoice in bringing harm to those they feel are 'entitled' or 'thugs' or any of the other labels signifying someone's inferior status to themselves,, my stalker is no longer imprisoned,,,I have no intention of some sicko informing him of how to find me,,, So we remain with a one sided story that from experience can be considered tainted and within the scope of reasonable doubt as to the facts. I think his CONVICTION alleviates the notion of a 'reasonable doubt' and I am yet again not disappointed continue to believe the accounts you choose to believe and discount others ,,,,,,its the persecuted privileged way,,, Not really, there are many prosecuted in jail that should not be there. Seems more and more every day are being released because they didn't do the crime, just the acts of a zealous illegal prosecutor. So we're back to square one, which again is par for the course, with a one sided story that may or in all probability didn't happen, and may or in all probability wasn't as it seems as no actual verifiable facts can be discerned. So based on experience, without verifiable facts, it doesn't exist, period. not surprising 'if I wasn't there, without 'verifiable' facts, it doesn't exist' unless there are no verifiable facts that someone was assaulted , and then their alleged attackers 'thug' identity is clearly real got it,, the PPP double standard, never disappoints |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
continue to believe the accounts you choose to believe and discount others ,,,,,,its the persecuted privileged way,,, Persecuted privileged, is that supposed to mean something? per�se�cute verb past tense: persecuted; past participle: persecuted 1. subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, esp. because of their race or political or religious beliefs. priv�i�leged adjective 1. belonging to a class that enjoys special privileges; favored: the privileged few. 2. entitled to or exercising a privilege. 3. restricted to a select group or individual So using actual English language this would mean taking the entitlement crowd and subjecting them to hostility and ill-treatment. Boy I bet a lot of the non-entitlement people here would support that. Would definitely reduce the leech count. yes, if living off of a few hundred dollars a month is someones idea of 'favored',lol otherwise, its pretty self explanatory those who enjoy special 'privileges' (not to be confused with NEEDS,lol) but believe they are being subjected to 'ill treatment' or, those who feel they are more deserving of NEEDS ( favored) than others and believe they are being subjected to 'ill treatment' when their pompous views are called out |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
alnewman
on
Wed 03/19/14 11:48 AM
|
|
yes, the way I could address the question 'where is highway 95' by answering in this manner: The word HIGHWAY harks back to the elevated, agger, the mound or hill of the Roman road formed by earth thrown from the side of ditches toward the center. In old England these raised, or high, ways were under the protection of the King's peace and open to public, unrestricted travel as distinguished from byways, or private roads. yet the word has been bastardized today as such routes are often no more elevated than the streets and neighborhoods they run alongside,,, and the government has overreached their powers permitted to them by the 'supreme law' of the land yet, I would not expect the persecuted privileged in society to understand this and to continue asking for permission to drive on highways that don't really exist in the first place Is this really supposed to mean something or just another rant for refusal to comprehend without being hand fed, entitlement at it's best. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes, the way I could address the question 'where is highway 95' by answering in this manner: The word HIGHWAY harks back to the elevated, agger, the mound or hill of the Roman road formed by earth thrown from the side of ditches toward the center. In old England these raised, or high, ways were under the protection of the King's peace and open to public, unrestricted travel as distinguished from byways, or private roads. yet the word has been bastardized today as such routes are often no more elevated than the streets and neighborhoods they run alongside,,, and the government has overreached their powers permitted to them by the 'supreme law' of the land yet, I would not expect the persecuted privileged in society to understand this and to continue asking for permission to drive on highways that don't really exist in the first place Is this really supposed to mean something or just another rant for refusal to comprehend without being hand fed, entitlement at it's best. no hon a 'where' question is pretty direct and the answer was never directly provided, just a lot of constitutional review, but still no direct quote or answer from that document that states criminals cant be prosecuted,,, not to 'hand feed' you the problem with the response but the constitutional lesson provided still didn't answer the question that was asked,,, as illustrated in my example of 'where is highway 95' just responding , ya see, with a long winded explanation of the history and breakdown of 'highway' doesn't answer 'where is highway 95?' likewise, a long winded explanation of the history and breakdown of the constitution didn't answer the question 'where does it say criminals cant be prosecuted?' ,,sigh,, getting it yet? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes, the way I could address the question 'where is highway 95' by answering in this manner: The word HIGHWAY harks back to the elevated, agger, the mound or hill of the Roman road formed by earth thrown from the side of ditches toward the center. In old England these raised, or high, ways were under the protection of the King's peace and open to public, unrestricted travel as distinguished from byways, or private roads. yet the word has been bastardized today as such routes are often no more elevated than the streets and neighborhoods they run alongside,,, and the government has overreached their powers permitted to them by the 'supreme law' of the land yet, I would not expect the persecuted privileged in society to understand this and to continue asking for permission to drive on highways that don't really exist in the first place Is this really supposed to mean something or just another rant for refusal to comprehend without being hand fed, entitlement at it's best. no hon a 'where' question is pretty direct and the answer was never directly provided, just a lot of constitutional review, but still no direct quote or answer from that document that states criminals cant be prosecuted,,, not to 'hand feed' you the problem with the response but the constitutional lesson provided still didn't answer the question that was asked,,, as illustrated in my example of 'where is highway 95' just responding , ya see, with a long winded explanation of the history and breakdown of 'highway' doesn't answer 'where is highway 95?' likewise, a long winded explanation of the history and breakdown of the constitution didn't answer the question 'where does it say criminals cant be prosecuted?' ,,sigh,, getting it yet? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
let me give an example of a 'where' question and an answer
Question: Where does it say that the president is supposed to be paid? Answer: Article II, Section 1 'The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, ' see how simple, and short, and direct that answer is? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
not surprising 'if I wasn't there, without 'verifiable' facts, it doesn't exist' unless there are no verifiable facts that someone was assaulted , and then their alleged attackers 'thug' identity is clearly real got it,, the PPP double standard, never disappoints And yes, you got that right, if it can't be verified, it is just another tall tale. So if you can't or wont provide facts, then just move on, only the gullible entitlement crowd is going to believe it. And yes if someone looks all beat up but can't provide facts of an assault with evidence, then they just fell down, period. What is "PPP", the KKK of the entitlement crowd? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
' Pyrrhic victory'
The Restaurant Self-Order Kiosk wonder if they ask for Minimumwage,or will have much Absentee-ism!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
continue to believe the accounts you choose to believe and discount others ,,,,,,its the persecuted privileged way,,, Persecuted privileged, is that supposed to mean something? per�se�cute verb past tense: persecuted; past participle: persecuted 1. subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, esp. because of their race or political or religious beliefs. priv�i�leged adjective 1. belonging to a class that enjoys special privileges; favored: the privileged few. 2. entitled to or exercising a privilege. 3. restricted to a select group or individual So using actual English language this would mean taking the entitlement crowd and subjecting them to hostility and ill-treatment. Boy I bet a lot of the non-entitlement people here would support that. Would definitely reduce the leech count. yes, if living off of a few hundred dollars a month is someones idea of 'favored',lol otherwise, its pretty self explanatory those who enjoy special 'privileges' (not to be confused with NEEDS,lol) but believe they are being subjected to 'ill treatment' or, those who feel they are more deserving of NEEDS ( favored) than others and believe they are being subjected to 'ill treatment' when their pompous views are called out Where do you keep coming up with some of this weird stuff you post? Where did living off anything have to do with favored and how does it relate to the topic? And the only "special" privileges I know are all elements of the government that think they have that right to bestow them. What would be self-explanatory? None of this makes any sense what so ever, it's all just gibberish and getting worse. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes, the way I could address the question 'where is highway 95' by answering in this manner: The word HIGHWAY harks back to the elevated, agger, the mound or hill of the Roman road formed by earth thrown from the side of ditches toward the center. In old England these raised, or high, ways were under the protection of the King's peace and open to public, unrestricted travel as distinguished from byways, or private roads. yet the word has been bastardized today as such routes are often no more elevated than the streets and neighborhoods they run alongside,,, and the government has overreached their powers permitted to them by the 'supreme law' of the land yet, I would not expect the persecuted privileged in society to understand this and to continue asking for permission to drive on highways that don't really exist in the first place Is this really supposed to mean something or just another rant for refusal to comprehend without being hand fed, entitlement at it's best. no hon a 'where' question is pretty direct and the answer was never directly provided, just a lot of constitutional review, but still no direct quote or answer from that document that states criminals cant be prosecuted,,, not to 'hand feed' you the problem with the response but the constitutional lesson provided still didn't answer the question that was asked,,, as illustrated in my example of 'where is highway 95' just responding , ya see, with a long winded explanation of the history and breakdown of 'highway' doesn't answer 'where is highway 95?' likewise, a long winded explanation of the history and breakdown of the constitution didn't answer the question 'where does it say criminals cant be prosecuted?' ,,sigh,, getting it yet? I have had it all along and totally understand the constitution and the law, especially the "supreme" law. If you don't understand, then get educated. And who really cares where highway 95 is, if I want to go there I will ask my GPS. And what part of enumerated powers do you not understand? Oh that's right, all of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
alnewman
on
Wed 03/19/14 12:21 PM
|
|
let me give an example of a 'where' question and an answer Question: Where does it say that the president is supposed to be paid? Answer: Article II, Section 1 'The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, ' see how simple, and short, and direct that answer is? This is not an example but is purely an idiotic statement as to the topic at hand. Enumerated powers gives congress the ability to pay the president for the president's services. But show me where he gets paid upon leaving office? Not only does this reflect the ignorance of the constitution but shows the desire to remain that way. We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. -Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
not surprising 'if I wasn't there, without 'verifiable' facts, it doesn't exist' unless there are no verifiable facts that someone was assaulted , and then their alleged attackers 'thug' identity is clearly real got it,, the PPP double standard, never disappoints And yes, you got that right, if it can't be verified, it is just another tall tale. So if you can't or wont provide facts, then just move on, only the gullible entitlement crowd is going to believe it. And yes if someone looks all beat up but can't provide facts of an assault with evidence, then they just fell down, period. What is "PPP", the KKK of the entitlement crowd? correction if it cant be verified by sources that meet subjective personal standards of ingetrity, its just another tall tale maybe the same gullible entitlement crowd will be able to accept what I gave as personal experience that are able to accept your special tax status,, huh? and yes, if someone is involved in an altercation, they may look all beat up whether they have lost or won the altercation and they may look beat up whether they were the one who initiated the altercation or the one who had the altercation initiated against them PPP, is an acronym for the Poor Persecuted Privileged,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
' Pyrrhic victory' The Restaurant Self-Order Kiosk wonder if they ask for Minimumwage,or will have much Absentee-ism! Only if the government has something to do with it, especially NYC where they will demand a "Union" member or members must be employed to stand beside the Kiost (more likely sit, standing would be against employee rights). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
not surprising 'if I wasn't there, without 'verifiable' facts, it doesn't exist' unless there are no verifiable facts that someone was assaulted , and then their alleged attackers 'thug' identity is clearly real got it,, the PPP double standard, never disappoints And yes, you got that right, if it can't be verified, it is just another tall tale. So if you can't or wont provide facts, then just move on, only the gullible entitlement crowd is going to believe it. And yes if someone looks all beat up but can't provide facts of an assault with evidence, then they just fell down, period. What is "PPP", the KKK of the entitlement crowd? correction if it cant be verified by sources that meet subjective personal standards of ingetrity, its just another tall tale maybe the same gullible entitlement crowd will be able to accept what I gave as personal experience that are able to accept your special tax status,, huh? and yes, if someone is involved in an altercation, they may look all beat up whether they have lost or won the altercation and they may look beat up whether they were the one who initiated the altercation or the one who had the altercation initiated against them PPP, is an acronym for the Poor Persecuted Privileged,,, Pure rubbish. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
continue to believe the accounts you choose to believe and discount others ,,,,,,its the persecuted privileged way,,, Persecuted privileged, is that supposed to mean something? per�se�cute verb past tense: persecuted; past participle: persecuted 1. subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, esp. because of their race or political or religious beliefs. priv�i�leged adjective 1. belonging to a class that enjoys special privileges; favored: the privileged few. 2. entitled to or exercising a privilege. 3. restricted to a select group or individual So using actual English language this would mean taking the entitlement crowd and subjecting them to hostility and ill-treatment. Boy I bet a lot of the non-entitlement people here would support that. Would definitely reduce the leech count. yes, if living off of a few hundred dollars a month is someones idea of 'favored',lol otherwise, its pretty self explanatory those who enjoy special 'privileges' (not to be confused with NEEDS,lol) but believe they are being subjected to 'ill treatment' or, those who feel they are more deserving of NEEDS ( favored) than others and believe they are being subjected to 'ill treatment' when their pompous views are called out Where do you keep coming up with some of this weird stuff you post? Where did living off anything have to do with favored and how does it relate to the topic? And the only "special" privileges I know are all elements of the government that think they have that right to bestow them. What would be self-explanatory? None of this makes any sense what so ever, it's all just gibberish and getting worse. yes, of course I couldn't find a way to fit in 'entitlement crowd' so it is understandably hard to follow u can get back to studying the constitution,, I have 'hand fed' as much as I could to what I thought was a superior enough mind to understand,, oh well,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yes, the way I could address the question 'where is highway 95' by answering in this manner: The word HIGHWAY harks back to the elevated, agger, the mound or hill of the Roman road formed by earth thrown from the side of ditches toward the center. In old England these raised, or high, ways were under the protection of the King's peace and open to public, unrestricted travel as distinguished from byways, or private roads. yet the word has been bastardized today as such routes are often no more elevated than the streets and neighborhoods they run alongside,,, and the government has overreached their powers permitted to them by the 'supreme law' of the land yet, I would not expect the persecuted privileged in society to understand this and to continue asking for permission to drive on highways that don't really exist in the first place Is this really supposed to mean something or just another rant for refusal to comprehend without being hand fed, entitlement at it's best. no hon a 'where' question is pretty direct and the answer was never directly provided, just a lot of constitutional review, but still no direct quote or answer from that document that states criminals cant be prosecuted,,, not to 'hand feed' you the problem with the response but the constitutional lesson provided still didn't answer the question that was asked,,, as illustrated in my example of 'where is highway 95' just responding , ya see, with a long winded explanation of the history and breakdown of 'highway' doesn't answer 'where is highway 95?' likewise, a long winded explanation of the history and breakdown of the constitution didn't answer the question 'where does it say criminals cant be prosecuted?' ,,sigh,, getting it yet? I have had it all along and totally understand the constitution and the law, especially the "supreme" law. If you don't understand, then get educated. And who really cares where highway 95 is, if I want to go there I will ask my GPS. And what part of enumerated powers do you not understand? Oh that's right, all of it. dude, persistent in not answering huh? I didn't ask for an EXPLANATION of the different sections of the constitution. I didn't ask about what enumerated powers were? I simply asked what, I believed anyhow, was a straightforward simple question that required an 'address' of some sort 'WHERE in the constitution does it state criminals should not be prosecuted?' ,,now, don't surprise me by actually answering the question directly, I may fall over from a heart attac,, |
|
|
|
|
