The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15182436
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then show me where I am wromg.



….because your government kicked in the doors of Muscogee people, killed them, and took their house and land and then put it on the auction block.

Which is how some white guy bought it and how you eventually were able to buy it.

Again, these are historical facts. Prove me wrong.



So you are saying that the law gives anyone property rights.

The law does. Not god or unaliens.



This whole part is irrelevant.


This is the last multi quote from you that I will respond to:

1) What I said IS relevant. NOBODY died and made you God

2) This thread is NOT a debate about Indians and what you've posted is one generic story from history that is not representative of every case of land acquisition. To prove you wrong would take a thread all of its own and would be pointless. We can't make it right to your satisfaction. You are just looking for an excuse to hate whites in this country

3) If you cannot read the Declaration of Independence and The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man, you are not mature enough to be in this discussion.
#15182437
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. This has not been clarified.

Please provide a specific date. Thank you.


No. I will not give you the satisfaction of derailing this thread. You can't blame white people for your failures. Whatever in the Hell white people did to Indians is irrelevant to this thread. The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man is a demand on the government to honor the guarantees per the Constitution of the United States. The dumbassery of thinking I could do anything to change the past shows your lack of reasoning skills. If the Indians have a problem with the federal government, let them make a demand... just as I did by supporting The Charter.
#15182439
The Resister wrote:No. I will not give you the satisfaction of derailing this thread. You can't blame white people for your failures. Whatever in the Hell white people did to Indians is irrelevant to this thread. The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man is a demand on the government to honor the guarantees per the Constitution of the United States. The dumbassery of thinking I could do anything to change the past shows your lack of reasoning skills. If the Indians have a problem with the federal government, let them make a demand... just as I did by supporting The Charter.


Okay.

Does the constitution create land rights for the Muscogee?

If so, they should get their land back.

If not, then you have to ask yourself why it creates land rights for white guys but not Indigenous people.

So, which one?
#15182441
@Pants-of-dog

"historical facts"

He won't acknowledge facts. @The Resister believes that history, everything (pinko) historians say happened, the historical narrative as told - everything - is the work of socialists out to destroy America and can be ignored.

He'd rather rely on the not historians, investigators of the paranormal whose favourite TV programme is Ancient Aliens than let the burdens of the past reach inappropriately into the present.*


* See: Olick and Levy, Collective Memory and Cultural Restraint. American Sociological Review Vol. 62, No. 6 (Dec. 1997)
#15182473
ingliz wrote:@Pants-of-dog

"historical facts"

He won't acknowledge facts. @The Resister believes that history, everything (pinko) historians say happened, the historical narrative as told - everything - is the work of socialists out to destroy America and can be ignored.

He'd rather rely on the not historians, investigators of the paranormal whose favourite TV programme is Ancient Aliens than let the burdens of the past reach inappropriately into the present.*


* See: Olick and Levy, Collective Memory and Cultural Restraint. American Sociological Review Vol. 62, No. 6 (Dec. 1997)


The OP is the type of guy that enjoys The History Channel. :)

What the hell happened to that channel anyway?

It went from the Hitler Channel (only covered WWII), to a small period of like 2-4 years where they covered legit historical shit beyond WWII. THen after that, they got a new CEO/program director from the A&E channel, and then it went off the rails chasing stupid people basically. That's when the explosion of Ancient aliens and other dumb shit started.
#15182496
Pants-of-dog wrote:Okay.

Does the constitution create land rights for the Muscogee?

If so, they should get their land back.

If not, then you have to ask yourself why it creates land rights for white guys but not Indigenous people.

So, which one?


The answer is neither. With respect to your question, the SCOTUS is unequivocally clear about your specific question regarding unalienable Rights. On many other questions about Rights, not so much. According to court holdings:

By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

You can pick which synonym suits the interpretation that you think is most consistent with what I try to articulate: absolute, inherent, natural, God given, irrevocable, or unalienable. The SCOTUS interpreted it this way:

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Their rulings (those of the SCOTUS) do not fit YOUR world view and they do not fit my understanding of what the founders and framers intended. But, where I DO AGREE with them is that it is not within their purview to secure or grant unalienable Rights. I can only work within the parameters set by the court decisions. AND, while the SCOTUS rules one way in one case, they rule the opposite in the other making The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man even more relevant in this discussion. For example, in 1875 the SCOTUS granted to Congress "plenary powers" to Congress over immigration. Where in the Hell is that in the Constitution? On that basis Congress created a status of human beings called "illegal immigrants." It is an oxymoron.

Immigration is defined in legal dictionaries as: "The entrance into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence. The correlative term emigration denotes the act of such persons in leaving their former country."

https://legal-dictionary.thefreediction ... mmigration

This definition does not cover people who enter the United States to do business with people who willingly engage in business with them and those foreigners have NO intention on being here permanently. The application of unconstitutional laws suggest that you must undergo some "legal process" to enter the United States and then become a citizen in order to acquire Rights. That view is wholly inconsistent with the Declaration of Independence which declares:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Unalienable Rights don't have squat to do with citizenship. When Jefferson penned those words to the Declaration of Independence there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States. Where you will, predictably go, is to suggest that all rights (sic) and unalienable Rights are the same thing. They aren't. While the Constitution was created only for themselves and the Posterity of the framers, NOTHING in it suggests that no non-citizens can be deprived of their Rights. It is an evolving area of the law that The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man seeks to stabilize and define more accurately.
#15182502
@The Resister Know this: I have more post secondary education than you have total education. That you can be well assured of.


Imagine that. You claim all of that education yet you seem to have missed classes in grammar.

I make no such claims. You are tilting a windmill. (You can Google the reference.)
#15182510
Drlee wrote:Imagine that. You claim all of that education yet you seem to have missed classes in grammar.

I make no such claims. You are tilting a windmill. (You can Google the reference.)


There are no major problems with my grammar. You're grasping at straws. When you type 80wpm off the top of your head, you don't look for typos. You aren't a doctor of dumbassery and that is it. Do you have anything substantive to say regarding this thread or should I ignore your illiterate attacks as the infantile bullshit they are?
#15182514
Drlee wrote:Imagine that. You claim all of that education yet you seem to have missed classes in grammar.

I make no such claims. You are tilting a windmill. (You can Google the reference.)


@Drlee ;

Tell me how your reference also relates to Ignatius Loyola and you'll make my day, seeing a real erudite. :D
#15182521
@The Resister

I understand.

You think the Constitution merely clarifies some magical property rights that came from god’s bum or somewhere equally mythical and apply to everyone everywhere but can be ignored when it comes to actual Indigenous land claims right now.

This is why it is difficult to take this charter and its advocates seriously.
#15182532
The Resister wrote:While the Constitution was created only for themselves and the Posterity of the framers

If you are confused, this is a coded reference to the political, social, and economic discrimination he denies wanting in polite company - An apartheid state.

Image


.....................................................................................

annatar1914 wrote:relates to Ignatius Loyola

Jesuits?
#15182535
Pants-of-dog wrote:@The Resister

I understand.

You think the Constitution merely clarifies some magical property rights that came from god’s bum or somewhere equally mythical and apply to everyone everywhere but can be ignored when it comes to actual Indigenous land claims right now.

This is why it is difficult to take this charter and its advocates seriously.


You want answers that are beyond the scope of this thread and the subject matter covers an area that you are not knowledgeable in. The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man is not an attempt to right every wrong on God's green earth. It is not a petition. It does not establish a new form of government. The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man is a demand for the federal government to honor the social contract called the Constitution of the United States.

The founders and framers had one idea about the Constitution; the SCOTUS, presidents, and regulatory agencies have their own ideas about government - rarely are they in line with the original intent of the founders and framers. What we have today amounts to at least two major governments operating inside the United States: the legal / lawful / de jure government which is a Republican Form of Government under the Constitution. The other government is a de facto / illegal / unconstitutional form of government owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations. You either reclaim your Rights OR you forfeit them.

If you bothered to read this thread, you would learn that your idiotic and juvenile comments are pure bullshit. You waste bandwidth to make an unsubstantiated claim as if I'm some kind of moron based upon your straw man arguments. Quite frankly, based on that, I wouldn't want to be associated with you on any project. It hasn't even been a half a dozen posts back that it was explained to you that the Constitution does not create nor grant rights.

You might presume that because there are a few idiots that literally LIVE on this board and treat it like it was their 13 year old daughter's virginity they were protecting that you control the world with your straw man arguments and ad hominem insults by playing to their ignorance. You are wrong. You don't know what you don't know. Rather than to have a sensible and productive dialogue, you choose to keep insulting me and that gets you nowhere - except brownie points from communists. And, again, The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man does not create a new form of government.

If you could not understand the court rulings I've already posted and / or too stupid to ask questions before making such asinine and knowingly FALSE allegations, we both know you would never comprehend the complexities of discussing land rights and Indians when you have ZERO knowledge of the facts and the legal issues. If you want to see how much I know about that topic, start a thread and I will show you how little you do know.
#15182540
@The Resister

“He who goes about to reform the world must begin with himself, or he loses his labor.”

― St. Ignatius of Loyola

Why not be honest and admit for all your flummery, your stance stems from a deep-seated sense of inadequacy and the fear you can't compete in a free market? If you were honest with yourself, there'd be no need to dress up a rational economic argument - self-interest - in bullshit legal rulings, high-flown phrases, and religiosity.


:)
#15182624
The Resister wrote:You want answers that are beyond the scope of this thread and the subject matter covers an area that you are not knowledgeable in. The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man is not an attempt to right every wrong on God's green earth. It is not a petition. It does not establish a new form of government. The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man is a demand for the federal government to honor the social contract called the Constitution of the United States.

The founders and framers had one idea about the Constitution; the SCOTUS, presidents, and regulatory agencies have their own ideas about government - rarely are they in line with the original intent of the founders and framers. What we have today amounts to at least two major governments operating inside the United States: the legal / lawful / de jure government which is a Republican Form of Government under the Constitution. The other government is a de facto / illegal / unconstitutional form of government owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations. You either reclaim your Rights OR you forfeit them.

If you bothered to read this thread, you would learn that your idiotic and juvenile comments are pure bullshit. You waste bandwidth to make an unsubstantiated claim as if I'm some kind of moron based upon your straw man arguments. Quite frankly, based on that, I wouldn't want to be associated with you on any project. It hasn't even been a half a dozen posts back that it was explained to you that the Constitution does not create nor grant rights.

You might presume that because there are a few idiots that literally LIVE on this board and treat it like it was their 13 year old daughter's virginity they were protecting that you control the world with your straw man arguments and ad hominem insults by playing to their ignorance. You are wrong. You don't know what you don't know. Rather than to have a sensible and productive dialogue, you choose to keep insulting me and that gets you nowhere - except brownie points from communists. And, again, The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man does not create a new form of government.

If you could not understand the court rulings I've already posted and / or too stupid to ask questions before making such asinine and knowingly FALSE allegations, we both know you would never comprehend the complexities of discussing land rights and Indians when you have ZERO knowledge of the facts and the legal issues. If you want to see how much I know about that topic, start a thread and I will show you how little you do know.


You really get rude and insulting.

Anyway, since you have not disagreed with my claims in any intelligent manner, I guess you have no real rebuttal.

————————

The thing about these so called rights movements is there is no real struggle or sacrifice to make. Or to be more specific, it is never used to deal with actual struggles because they would involve sacrifice.

It is simply a grandiose way of saying that someone feels taxes are too high.
#15182663
Pants-of-dog wrote:You really get rude and insulting.

Anyway, since you have not disagreed with my claims in any intelligent manner, I guess you have no real rebuttal.

————————

The thing about these so called rights movements is there is no real struggle or sacrifice to make. Or to be more specific, it is never used to deal with actual struggles because they would involve sacrifice.

It is simply a grandiose way of saying that someone feels taxes are too high.


You've done nothing except talk down to me. I told you up front, when it comes to the Indian thing, you don't know what you don't know. If you want a discussion on Native Americans and property rights, start a thread and I'll take you on. It's irrelevant in this thread.

No matter how much you try to insinuate that I'm in love with the de facto / illegal / unconstitutional / immoral / indefensible / government emanating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption, your deflections and phony assertions about me are not true. THAT, sir, is what is insulting. I'm not trying to create another freaking government. I don't know what you don't understand about that. Neither do I think a bunch of bloated political propaganda prostitutes in Congress that haven't had an original idea in the last 25 years can provide some magical elixir or a silver bullet that will solve the world's problems.

My personal ideas and those that Congress and the courts have determined they will or will not legislate on are not the same. You pretend that I'm defending the federal government when I'm making a DEMAND from them to honor the social contract known as the Constitution of the United States. We keep covering the same ground over and over and over and over and over again. How is that entertaining? How is that enlightening? How is that educational? What governmental agency do you work for that mandates you show up on a daily basis and interrogate me? If you'd learn to read the freaking thread, you might see your questions have been answered repeatedly.

If you want to switch to another topic and argue over Native Americans, you're going to be at more of a disadvantage than you are here. I've stated before that the courts have said that we have an inherent, natural, God given, unalienable Right to own property, BUT THAT THEY NEVER REALLY TREATED IT THAT WAY. You're so busy lying about what I said (and didn't say) that you haven't exercised a little common sense and asked me. And, even if you did, because I'm not a stupid socialist, you would be trying to denigrate me and insult me. Did you ever consider that your lies coupled with that condescending attitude and the insults you hurl are responsible for the attitude I give you back? I'm not your monkey and I won't allow you to treat me like one. You want to be respected, show respect. If you want to be a bully on the Internet, live with the fact that sooner or later someone will call you on your B.S. I just did.
#15182666
The Resister wrote:You've done nothing except talk down to me. I told you up front, when it comes to the Indian thing, you don't know what you don't know. If you want a discussion on Native Americans and property rights, start a thread and I'll take you on. It's irrelevant in this thread.


No, it is not irrelevant.

In fact, it is a clear and ongoing real world example of an opportunity for people like you to defend property rights against government overreach: by supporting Indigenous land claims.

No matter how much you try to insinuate that I'm in love with the de facto / illegal / unconstitutional / immoral / indefensible / government emanating out of Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption, your deflections and phony assertions about me are not true. THAT, sir, is what is insulting. I'm not trying to create another freaking government. I don't know what you don't understand about that. Neither do I think a bunch of bloated political propaganda prostitutes in Congress that haven't had an original idea in the last 25 years can provide some magical elixir or a silver bullet that will solve the world's problems.

My personal ideas and those that Congress and the courts have determined they will or will not legislate on are not the same. You pretend that I'm defending the federal government when I'm making a DEMAND from them to honor the social contract known as the Constitution of the United States. We keep covering the same ground over and over and over and over and over again. How is that entertaining? How is that enlightening? How is that educational? What governmental agency do you work for that mandates you show up on a daily basis and interrogate me? If you'd learn to read the freaking thread, you might see your questions have been answered repeatedly.

If you want to switch to another topic and argue over Native Americans, you're going to be at more of a disadvantage than you are here. I've stated before that the courts have said that we have an inherent, natural, God given, unalienable Right to own property, BUT THAT THEY NEVER REALLY TREATED IT THAT WAY. You're so busy lying about what I said (and didn't say) that you haven't exercised a little common sense and asked me. And, even if you did, because I'm not a stupid socialist, you would be trying to denigrate me and insult me. Did you ever consider that your lies coupled with that condescending attitude and the insults you hurl are responsible for the attitude I give you back? I'm not your monkey and I won't allow you to treat me like one. You want to be respected, show respect. If you want to be a bully on the Internet, live with the fact that sooner or later someone will call you on your B.S. I just did.


This whole bit seems irrelevant.

Let me know when you want to discuss real world examples of people being deprived of property rights by government and what we can do to oppose it.
#15182674
You pretend that I'm defending the federal government when I'm making a DEMAND from them to honor the social contract known as the Constitution of the United States.


Demand? Or else...what?

What is it you will do to them?

I am satisfied that the SCOTUS, lower courts, state, local and municipal governements as well as the House, Senate and the myriad government agencies, have since the beginning, honored the constitution or been compelled to honor it. Would you like to give us some examples of the government acting in an unconstitutional way?

I seem to recall that you claim to be an attorney. If so, why don't you take them to court? But then, and correct me if I am wrong, you did take them to court on one point or another and....lost.

So now what?

Oh. And do try to dial down the anger. You will do yourself an injury.
#15182676
ingliz wrote:If you are confused, this is a coded reference to the political, social, and economic discrimination he denies wanting in polite company - An apartheid state.

Image


.....................................................................................


Jesuits?


@ingliz , Miguel Cervantes was a real devotee of Jesuit spirituality in it's earliest days and the Milieu in which that spirituality arose , and wrote his works, particularly ''Don Quixote'' with that in mind. With a fair amount of the coded allegory in it of which the era's literature is chock full of. See this for details;

https://theimaginativeconservative.org/ ... uzman.html

https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/handle/1828/5195

Essentially, Don Quixote is the one seeing things as they really are, in Cervantes vision.
#15182678
Drlee wrote:Demand? Or else...what?

What is it you will do to them?

I am satisfied that the SCOTUS, lower courts, state, local and municipal governements as well as the House, Senate and the myriad government agencies, have since the beginning, honored the constitution or been compelled to honor it. Would you like to give us some examples of the government acting in an unconstitutional way?

I seem to recall that you claim to be an attorney. If so, why don't you take them to court? But then, and correct me if I am wrong, you did take them to court on one point or another and....lost.

So now what?

Oh. And do try to dial down the anger. You will do yourself an injury.


You talk skeet that you would never utter in public. Admin Edit: Rule 2 Violation, misrepresent, provoke, badger, and intimidate and then tell me I'd do myself an injury for getting fed up with your hypocritical B.S.

Most of your crap in answered in The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man. When the government refuses to do the job it is supposed to do and, when they do not let you get into court, you cannot win. Your phony "dr" handle is dwarfed by your feeble attempts to collect intel by lying about everything I've said. You try to play jailhouse lawyer because you, most likely, are a felon. You know full well that I've not posted a single sentence on this board that would lead anyone to know what it is I do for a living. WTH is wrong with you?

If you were as smart as you try to make intelligent people think you are, you'd know full well why the people that drafted The Charter didn't take the government to court. In the first place, you have to have the government's permission to sue them. You would have to have an IQ bigger than your shoe size to do that, however. The Charter IS a part of your Exhaustion of Remedies - that is the process of exhausting all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before contemplating extraordinary actions (always leaving the door to a peaceful resolution open). You have to do that before you could have a case to litigate in this instance. The only constant in life is change and you can be among those who precipitate a change or take a chance that the next change may or may not work out for you.
#15182683
The Resister wrote:contemplating extraordinary actions

Image
© Martin Rowson


:)


Q: Why is he wearing a business suit after boasting of paying the balance on his trailer early?

A: He made a big thing out of taking trips to California in the company plane.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

I'm merely stating that one promise of the Brexit[…]

This have gone a little OT since, but payed daycar[…]

The Wuhan virus—how are we doing?

And why not both at once? Let me ask you this, wh[…]

So we're all getting a 'death dividend' check i[…]