The Talk About Anything Page. (Archive 1)
By [pseudonomen] • Nov 29th, 2007 • Category: Opinions and EditorialsI know that a lot of people have something they want to say, but are hesitant because they feel like it just doesn’t fit into any of the discussions here.
So here is a page where you can talk about anything and everything.
Have at it now, just remember the rules.
To comment or write about anything on this page click here.
November 29th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
I’m frozen in cyberspace!
November 29th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Ok, somehow I logged myself out and now I can’t log back on and add to the scanner scoop! AH! Karma? LOL
Until I find a way to get back in the groove, EMS and several units responded around 1:02p.m. to a deputy sheriff that had stepped out of his car to assist another motorist at 32 and Clinic Drive and was rear-ended and hit. I know the name, details, etc., but don’t want to put them on here. An ‘attempt’ at being a bit more vague here.
EMS stood by at Sharon Drive just off Dry Creek awaiting KSP to secure the scene. Domestic situation, person had left the area and other person had broken ribs, etc.
I pulled over and let EMS go by as they were headed up 60 West to Glenwood Hollow.
This ‘nice little lunch and pool hall’ beside us here has gotten pretty rowdy already. Quite noisy and cops have been there for a fight already and they haven’t been opened 2 weeks! I have seen, as I have a straight to the front door view, people pull into the parking lot and honk and someone walk out and they ‘exchange’ something. Heck! Do you think I’ve lucked out and gotten a drive-up within walking distance? LOL I don’t think so.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
OK, since this is an ANYTHING page, I’m asking……does anyone know if this is true or not. I was told that ANYTHING plugged into an electrical socket uses some amount of electricity where it is being used or not. If that’s true, then I’ve got a ton of unpluggin to do. I rarely use my DVD player and they happen to mention that something like a DVD player plugged in but not being used still uses electric as it’s kinda like in a ’stand-by’. I prefer my VCR. Anyway, just wondering if this makes any sense to anyone. If it does, does that mean I should shut off the powerstrip where everything is plugged into the computer or pull the plug from the wall?
November 30th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Things like a standard ac table lamp shouldn’t cause any current drain when it’s off. Same for anything that has a direct shutoff from the power cord. But those little wall wart chargers or dc adapters can eat the electricity when left plugged in, even if they’re not attached to anything.
If they aren’t in use the capacitors will still charge up, then bleed down with the help from a circuit that is supposed to keep the capacitor from overcharging and exploding.
Another factor is the converter coil, or transformer that reduces transforms the house current to the amount of current needed to power the appliance. The transformer continues to draw current while connected to ac.
Never mind, I’m 25 years behind the times.
Most people don’t have appliances that they can just unplug anymore without reprogramming them.
Simply put, yes everything, besides maybe your granny’s table lamp draws current while it’s plugged in.
I leave the pc running just as you would your fridge, but have the monitor, speaker, printer and other accessories on a power strip that I turn off and unplug. The switch on the power strip breaks the ac connection to the wall outlet. The only reason that I unplug mine is for fire prevention/safety purposes. Extension cords can sometimes double as fire starters.
If you can get by without the cordless(walkie-talkie-in-duplex-mode)phone then use one of the old cord models. It makes it difficult for the neighbors to listen to you as they will have to rely upon crosstalk during or after a heavy rain or when the lines condensate.
Of course you could unplug the television, but you will most likely have to go through the reprogramming process. Same for the VCR… I’d like to find a good old VCR that has the manual tuning adjusters on it as parts are getting hard to find for mine.
Now the trick is in turning it all back on as not to create a surge. Turn each appliance back on one at a time a few minutes apart so to cause as little added load to your power meter as possible.
They say that the best way to save electricity with the fridge and freezer is to keep them full. I use bottled water to fill the extra space. Don’t know if it works, but I always have a cold healthy drink at hand.
Sorry for being so long winded, but I haven’t been on in a while.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Looking fer old vcr parts give BEST’s Pat B. a holler to be on the lookout, heck I might have one too. The other factor is Kentucky has mold and humidity factors to consider, I believe electronics/wall wart transformer/pwr supplies last much longer (total hours use) if left plugged in. Keeping the juice going emits some heat and keeps the coils from getting moisture in it and breaking down the windings insulation. The mold in Kentucky actually grows on video tape and CD’s & DVDs, a Spanish egg head discovered this about 2-3years ago and I checked, my old mid 80’s supposed to last ferever Music CDs have see thru holes in them, they still play but I’d say the data was less dense with more forward error corrections & such. Looks like the best long term digital archive devices may be serial external hard-drives carefully protected from viruses & such. OR good oldfasioned film and records should be around for hundreds of years but large ammounts of video tape and digital stuff people have collected will be lost, “memories, youre talking bout memories” (Harrison Ford’s Decker from “Blade Runner”)
November 30th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Several people have been talking about the community dinner at Carl Perkins Center. Since I’ve never been I wanted to know about it. Is it for ‘everyone’ in the community? I’d like to bring my dad if possible.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:56 am
Since this is the anything page. I’m going to ask for an opinion from anyone. I have to go to Lex 18 news station on Friday the 21 of Dec and then I need to go back to Lexington to pick up hubby dearest early Sat Dec 22. It kills my back and legs to drive that far and back. Not to mention gas, etc. Would you think it would be easier to stay in Lexington for the night? Just wondering what someone else would do.
December 1st, 2007 at 2:05 am
If I had the spare cash, I’d get one of those nice little privately owned economy motel rooms and pack a few changes of clothes.
Your husband might want to “hit the town” so to speak, after resting up from the jet lag. Which would most likely involve yet another drive to Lexington to find a town worth hitting.
So I’d probably go with the motel room.
If you avoid the big name motels and stick with the private ones, the owner-operator might give you a deal. They have always given me a good price break, and reluctant to accept tips unlike some of the big named motels that I’ve stayed at.
It all depends on what you prefer, but those private owned motels are usually just as good and often better then the luxury chains with the big names.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:09 am
Thanks pseudonomen. Hubby in almost 25 years has never been a ‘Hit the town’ type person. He’s just flying in from Chicago where he lives so jet lag isn’t a problem, just 1 hour and 10 minute flight. He can never wait to get out of the airport and his first stop has to be Cracker Barrel in Mt. Sterling for breaksfast. I do think it’s a good idea to look for a small off the strip but named placed. Then I worry about being a female alone! YIKES! Oh well, heavy people are easy to rob but hard to kidnap! It would probably give someone a hernia just trying to dig a hole deep bury me, much less try to carry me somewhere! LOL
December 1st, 2007 at 11:12 am
YIKES! I meant NEVER NEVER been a HIT the TOWN person. Ya can’t EDIT these posts! POO!
Edit:I think I fixed it for you kat.
Will delete this one if you want me to.
-pseudo.
December 1st, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Evel Knievel Died. I loved him when I was growing up and stayed glued to the tv when he tried to jump the Snake River and fell short. Did any of you admire him? How about his son Robbie, now jumping? I like Robbie but he’s really got a holier than thou attitude.
December 1st, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Always wished he would have made it over the upper snake river canyon or tried again but maybe someone will do it on a more conventional bike, since his was just a rocket with wheels on a ramp, supposedly the motor and parachute cut out too early. You’d think one of those 200+ mph drag bikes could make the jump with a heck of a strip & ramp. “Evil” did not even plan to land on wheels but the nose of the “rocket bike”.
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:54 am
No one will ever jump snake river as Enviro-nazis would never allow such a jump again even on “private” property ,stakeholders some endangered rat is eating endangered flowers up there these daze and the watershed must be devoid of human activity as a heritage river. If a tree falls on Mars and there are no humans to hear it somebody must be sued.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:30 am
“Political language has to consist largely of euphemisms . . . and sheer cloudy vagueness.” - George Orwell -
H.R 1955: the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 recently passed by the House—a companion bill is in the Senate—is barely one sentence old before its Orwellian moment:
It begins, “AN ACT - To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.”
Those whose pulse did not quicken at “other purposes” have probably not read George Orwell’s essay, “Politics and the English Language,” or they voted for the other George both times.
((ACTually it is a RESOLUTION as the H.R. designates and very technically is NOT a ACT or it would/should be H.B. 1955, the senate dispensed with the SB# now only giving “bills” or resolutions S### numbers. Seriously if you dig back into real legislative records every provision of a LAW had enACTing clauses NOT “be it resolved” but “be it further enacted…”
Another quote besides orwell would be Jefferson’s
…”Law is meant for men of ordinary understanding …not to be interpreted to mean everything and nothing at the same time.”
OR the everpopular Tacitus ” the more corrupt the state, the more it legislates” (or in the defacto prima facia “law”; appears to legislate)
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:00 pm
it’s happening right before our eyes with our complicity! That’s what gets me about all this “Orwellian” junk!
I am amused by people who start up with this Illuminati/Orwellian/Zionists balderdash…like it’s “ooooooooooohhhhh some big brainy secret organization who must trick us into taking away our freedom!
BALDERDASH, I say. There is NO NEED for them to be secret about it. All that’s required is for the majority of us to fall for the false promises of politicians.
Look…no amount of “secret” language can take away our freedoms if we want those freedoms. If you and I are willing to defend them for each other, that is.
Likewise, no kind of written guarantees will assure them. Look what we’ve done to the constitution. Can anyone seriously argue that there is EVEN ONE idea of the constitution that we haven’t breeched? If you think you can identify one single freedom guaranteed by the constitution…please, identify it for me.
But they’re not being “taken away” from us. We’re giving them up.
There is no way on earth that someone like Hillary should be considered a serious candidate by a freedom loving people. Her Marxist, socialist ideas aren’t even thinly veiled…they’re blatantly obvious.
If that’s what we want as a people…then that’s what we’ll get…socialism, marxism, communism…and all the misery that comes with it.
This post is like someone freaking out over a candle being lit while the house burns down around them
December 4th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Can I have your permission to tare that last comment apart? Piece by piece? Not to take any sides because both of you are right.
Most importantly, We all need to fight to protect one anothers freedoms, and I see that trait and desire in the two of you.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:09 am
A freedom loving people should by all means consider any and all candidates as serious candidates, and look for an alternative candidate even if it means switching parties just in case somebody with Marxist, socialistic ideas wins a parties nomination.
I mean to tell you that I take Hillary seriously as a candidate, and I’m doing everything in my power to get her defeated, not only in the primaries, but in the general election as well.
I can’t just sit back and take the chance that she doesn’t get the primary nomination.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:57 am
Well secret means hidden, you can hide a tree in a forest, and that is what we have a forest of distractions with 3 or four sports programs on every day every hour, 600TV Channels+ then there is video games & the “internets”; & pleanty of destractions that keep 90% of the wee people from causing a problem for the establishment. MANY of the 10% that are paying attention are convinced that “you cant fight city hall” or “why fight I’m on the next flight”(rapture) leaving only a couple of %points that are isolated/not connected, threatened with a IRS audit or procecution of some 50,ooo infractions if they mess with the tag team match of tweetle dee or demopublicans. There are a few videos out there on the topic, a scene from NETWORK c.1976 comes to mind but it is full of foul language about how TV/boob tube has put most of us in the matrix, hypnotised into what we want to hear or escape into from Little House on the Prairie to Despirate Housewives to NASCAR or NFL NBA SEC BIG10 or you name it. Pass the popcorn! The bread and circuses are always on.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:06 am
WHile the house burns CEASER FIDDLES or reads a book upside down about a goat.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:16 am
I would relish that, nighthawk. I enjoy having an open, honest discussion. I enjoy the passion too. So I look forward to it very much.
I also consider him an ally. We may disagree about some secret organization, that’s all. But heck, there might even BE a secret organization—I’m just trying to point out that they’re powerless as long as WE as a people believe in freedom and indivudal worth. You know…I won’t let you be carted off to jail…you won’t let me, that sort of stuff. Shoot, I wouldn’t even want Rhandi Rhoades in jail…lol…and they don’t get much more loonier than her.
And Ooooooooh brother do I know Hillary is a serious candidate…I’m saying she SHOULDN’T be a serious candidate by a freedom loving people. The people who would support her are not concerned about freedom.
Nighthawk, I know what I’m about to say sounds harsh. But the people who support ANY of the current democrats are willing to surrender their freedom and liberties in exchange for that false sense of security. They’re willing to ignore the constitution about the right to life and let them support abortion with our tax dollars (planned parenthood)…they’re willing to ignore the constitution about personal property and let the government take stuff away from other people and give it to them (by taxing the “rich” and redistributing it to them)…and they’ll ignore civil liberties and grant certain groups special priviliges (affirmative action…hate crimes, etc).
THAT’s the mindset our our so-called democrats nowadays.
And they’re not even logic about it…you can’t reason with’em. Consider our friends comment about the upside-down goat book. What clear thinking person would even say that junk?
Anyway…looking forward to it very much!
December 4th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
it’s happening right before our eyes with our complicity! That’s what gets me about all this “Orwellian” junk!
That is what Orwell was warning about.
Orwell had already witnessed these sorts of things happen before peoples eyes once before
I am amused by people who start up with this Illuminati/Orwellian/Zionists balderdash…like it’s “ooooooooooohhhhh some big brainy secret organization who must trick us into taking away our freedom!
I don’t know about how secret or brainy the organization is, but it has a name,
and that name is corporatism.
BALDERDASH, I say. There is NO NEED for them to be secret about it. All that’s required is for the majority of us to fall for the false promises of politicians.
That is part of the secrecy, but the not so secret part is how corporations lobby (”legally bribe” is the semisecret meaning of the word lobby). the politicians.
The politicians don’t really lie, nor do they make any promises. Instead they use words of art, so most folks believe that they are promising one thing while they are stating something totally different. Perhaps they skew the context of what they say, but the majority of the time they can’t really be caught up in a lie or a false promise. They simply explain what they were really saying using other words of art.
Let me give you an example:
“My name is Jack Carter and I have seven deputies…”
Well he does have seven deputies… and more likely seven more, seeing as I have heard numbers like s-14 and s-20 on the scanner.
Look…no amount of “secret” language can take away our freedoms if we want those freedoms.
Except for the vague wording on ballots when voting on constitutional amendments.
If you and I are willing to defend them for each other, that is.
When they take the second amendment, then the first amendment will be much easier to take.
Likewise, no kind of written guarantees will assure them. Look what we’ve done to the constitution. Can anyone seriously argue that there is EVEN ONE idea of the constitution that we haven’t breeched? If you think you can identify one single freedom guaranteed by the constitution…please, identify it for me.
The first ten amendments are absolutely guaranteed, even if we must die to enforce them.
But they’re not being “taken away” from us. We’re giving them up.
Like the second amendment…
Thanks to the infotainment news wires.
And TV shows like COPS that brainwash people into thinking the police have the power of judge, jury and executioner.
First off, Guns Don’t Kill People,
People Kill People.
Jack The Ripper used surgical tools.
I think the rest has already been covered. And as I said before, I’m not siding. I’m looking from different angles.
December 4th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
The goat book was upside down from his viewpoint if he was reading along with the child, or looking at the illustrations even.
But in all fairness, he could have went into a slight state of shock when he was informed of the buildings being struck, and all of those people losing there lives.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Former Italian President and the man who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio Francesco Cossiga has gone public on 9/11, telling Italy’s most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies.
Cossiga was elected President of Italian Senate in July 1983 before being winning a landslide 1985 election to become President of the country in 1985.
Cossiga gained respect from opposition parties as one of a rare breed - an honest politician - and led the country for seven years until April 1992.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
(Well ‘merika has had a good run, all good things must end eh?)
Cossiga’s tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio - a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s.
Gladio’s specialty was to carry out what they coined “false flag operations,” terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.
Cossiga’s revelations contributed to an Italian parliamentary investigation of Gladio in 2000, during which evidence was unearthed that the attacks were being overseen by the U.S. intelligence apparatus .
In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, “You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force … the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”
Cossiga’s new revelations appeared last week in Italy’s oldest and most widely read newspaper, Corriere della Sera. Below appears a rough translation.
“[Bin Laden supposedly confessed] to the Qaeda September [attack] to the two towers in New York [claiming to be] the author of the attack of the 11, while all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe … now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part … in Iraq [and] Afghanistan.”
Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9/11 in 2001, and is quoted in Webster Tarpley’s book as stating that “The mastermind of the attack must have been a “sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.”
Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga’s assertion that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies is highly unlikely to be mentioned by any establishment media outlets, because like the hundreds of other sober ex-government, military, air force professionals, allied to hundreds more professors and intellectuals - he can’t be sidelined as a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/cossiga_ex_italian_pres_intel_agencies_know_911_inside_job.htm
December 4th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Ref: Comment #6535
It is refreshing to know that at least three of us would be willing to defend one another’s rights, but the majority of the people do seem to have the mentality that you can’t fight city hall, and I see a conspiracy being orchestrated by the media outlets as being the primary reason for people thinking this way.
I think that the three of us would agree that the Constitution was intended to limit the power of government.
So why is this government, which is supposed to be limited in power, so power hungry?
Could it be that long ago, a certain “honest” president created an artificial power that the government was never intended to have?
Could this power have been called an executive order by chance?
Do you think that this executive order could have given government a sweet tooth for power?
The government of today has become an obese monster when compared to what it was originally intended to be.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Orwell worked in the ministry of truth office of England and saw what happened as things are controlled and edited to push the Allied adgenda, so he lived it, no reference to Gobbels necesary PLUS he apparently was connected to the elete and privy along with his brother to conversations about their plans for us worthless eaters; alot of the same type of stuff planned/predicted by Albert Pike, Karl Marx, Rhodes, Morgan, Rockerfeller, and warned about by Jefferson, Franklin, Crockett et cetera…
December 7th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
IF you use the DIGG thing Looky:
When one of the bury brigade censors a story at Digg, they say that it is “buried as inaccurate”.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/071207Whistleblowers.htm
(Article pretty good to keep for a list of traitor? “if yur not for us you is agin us”
. . . >
Well, I have written the most objective, accurate story I can possibly write.
Please digg it, and let’s make hay when they bury this.
The following people question the government’s version of 9/11 (are they credible or not?
December 8th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
But they DO lie, Nighthawk…and right to our face. But it doesn’t matter to some.
Bill Clinton lied both to us and under oath. And he’s still a shining star to the modern liberals. John Kerry lied, repeatedly…and he still garnered 49 million votes. There is a looooong list of lying people who are calling themselves “democrats”. How about phony fighter pilot Tom Harkin?
So…no…I’ll have to disagree; politicians do lie. But people will overlook that if they feel it serves their purpose. And there’s the rub.
I’m trying to make something clear here. I’m NOT saying there isn’t some group somewhere plotting all kinds of mischief. In fact, I’m QUITE sure of it!
But I’m contending that they’re not needed. Additionally, I’m contending that they’re powerless against a people who love and are willing to defend freedom for everyone; a people who are willing the face the truth about difficult matters—and are willing to do so even if it appears to go against their self interest.
Take Bob Sloan for instance. Do you remember our conversations? He hated Wal-Mart. It didn’t matter to him that people who shop at Wal-Mart are making a personal choice. It didn’t matter to him that a generation ago, community “activists” fought small businesses to allow Wal-Mart-type stores into the community because local businesses were “gouging” the local populace. It didn’t matter to him that the video he was touting was propagating misinformation.
That didn’t matter to him one bit. He hated Wal-Mart and that was that. And when I refuted him point after point after point…he resorted to the only option left to modern liberals—he hurled a few insults and left the scene. No doubt, he’s still out there, believing what he WANTS to believe.
Do you reckon Bob Sloan is under the influence of some secret cabal? Some sort of brainwashing from some media outlet? Why heck no…he’s just wants what he wants!
Our constitution is supposed to protect us from this type of behavior. It’s supposed to protect our life, our liberty, and our property. But can we identify even one of these basic rights that are currently being protected?
I could go on…lol…but I’ve went on too long now. The bottom line is, it’s OUR individual responsibility to make sure these rights are protected—and to get’em back now that they’re gone.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:08 am
The Bill Clinton Lie(s) about harmMonica were a big distraction from much more serious stuff like Gore &the budha temple & china payoff scandals, the Vince Foster Death, the OKC Murrah “sting” operation fallout for the Waco TX debacle; Clinton did not stop the Indiana Baptist Temple from being seized, 1st church/501c3 ever seized in the history of the Several States, he handed that to Bush who let it happen. Clinton bought his chip in the big game by leaving the MENA, AK Contra cocaine Express intact “as a federal matter” when Congressmen called for him to do something by letters that Ironically were touted from the likes of the “Clinton Cronicles” fans. ( I got a new keyboard yeehaww! can ya tell?)
December 9th, 2007 at 12:30 am
The truth is undoubtedly somewhere in the middle. But even Wal-Mart can’t deny that the (many, many) people in the documentary are in fact ex-employees, did in fact experience the things they’re talking about, and the company is in fact fighting off more tax evasion, fraud, and wage-related lawsuits than their advocates want to admit; Did all the reports lie that talked about illegals being locked in overnight, shaving of overtime off to next payperiod using a backdoor computer passoword? Teaching sessions for underpaid imployees on how to subsidize themselves with govenment welfare programs so they could afford to work a Wal MART? I know from personal experience that MALL WART would buy out the production of a factory and change the product labels to “Sams Choice” selling the same product retail price BELOW wholesale price for a local business in that case who is being gouged? and where is the FTC? Looking the other way because the CAFRs might show that government holdings in Wal MART mean it is FACISM/Corportism we are talking about not even CAPITOLISM (Forget about Free Enterprise mom & pop small businesses and such BUY CHINAMERIKAN?
December 9th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
DHunley,
I Did Not say that politicians don’t lie.
I said that they do it in clever ways, using words of art.
Here is another example…
Sheriff Carter said it’d take a new sheriff a few years to learn how to be a sheriff, and that by the time he had learned how, his term would be over…
But how did Mr. Carter learn how to be sheriff?
I’d imagine that he might have learned the the exact same way that he said his opponent would have to.
But in this case, I can’t say that Mr. Carter lied, because he used words of art.
Or take my prior example…
“My name is Jack Carter and I have seven deputies…”
Again I can’t say that he lied, he just used words of art.
Matter of fact, by the time he was finished naming all the deputies who are assigned to specialized duties, he had named off more then seven.
Now I could march right up to him and say “Sheriff Carter, You LIED about having seven deputies!” and he’d probably say something along the lines of “Lied!, I didn’t lie! I do have seven deputies …at least!”.
But yes, there are plenty of Bill Clinton types out there too.
DHunley,
Can you please point out where I said politicians don’t lie?
December 9th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Now that we’ve established that they DO lie, let’s figure out what we can do when they lie to us in private.
We could wear a tape recorder and when we end up in court tell the judge “I have it all right here on tape!”
Then we press the play button and hear the following:
my voice,
loud hissing noise with random muffled words that don’t fit into a discussion,
my voice,
more loud hissing noise and random muffled words,
my voice,
more loud hissing noise and random muffled words,
and so on, and so forth…
And I Don’t Expect You To Understand This, Let Alone Believe It, but I write words of experience here.
December 9th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
DHunley,
I see that you dodged the issues of corporatism and lobbyists and alluded to your previous discussions with Bob Sloan.
I’m not Bob Sloan, never have been, and don’t want to be… But I suspect he makes a much better living from his books then I do from writing here, or even from my current job… lol
And I’m not going the Democrat v.s. Republican route with you, because there are a few honest politicians in both parties, and a whole bunch of what you classify as “Modern Liberals” in both parties.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
I didn’t “dodge” it…nighthawk…I addressed the fundamental problem and solution. Man! I’m not sure how to make it any clearer. But I’ll try, so please bear with me.
If you have a specific instance or an example, I’ll be happy to address it. It is hard to deal in generalities without using generalities—which is what both you and I have done. I’m confident that with any specific example, I can show you how it is enabled by our willingness to suspend portions of the constitution.
I tried using Bob Sloan as an example because he is local, well-known, and exhibited the classical response of modern liberals—that of picking and choosing his facts, ignoring any that didn’t support his position, and resorting to personal attacks when held to the point.
I’ve agreed that there are probably lots of people up to lots of mischief. No doubt, they’re in back rooms and board rooms (lobbyists, illuminati, Zionists, C.E.O’S, and anything else you can think of) around the world and across this great land! What I’m SAYING is, they can only weld their power and execute their plots if WE let them.
And we let them by agreeing to circumnavigate the constitution in some form or other in exchange for some kind of “gimme”!
Like I said, I’ll be happy to address any specific instances. Now on to other things.
December 9th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Other things…
Your quotes…
I Did Not say that politicians don’t lie.
Can you please point out where I said politicians don’t lie?
The politicians don’t really lie, nor do they make any promises.
Nighthawk…I’ll concede that I took your words too literally. All I meant to do was illustrate that politicians blatantly lie…black and white lie…and STILL we’re willing to overlook them. That was my point. I do understand about the “word art” politicians can use. You’ll get no quibble from me on either point.
About the “modern liberals” on both sides. Sure there are…”modern liberals on both sides.” But what else are you going to call them for short-hand? As a sort of blanket description so that we can more easily discuss larger issues?
They’re certainly not liberals in the classical sense. I’ve tried to find some way to describe people who call themselves “liberal” when, in fact, they’d be more accurately described as socialists, marxists, or communists. The common factor among them is that they believe there should be a set of rules (their rules, of course) that tell people how to live, what to eat, what to drive, and what to think.
Unfortunately, even THAT group of people (as distasteful as they are) have fallen in league with an even more distasteful group—the absolute people haters. The PETA’s leaders of the world who wish they could be reincarnated as a deadly virus that would wipe out billions of people; people that think my son has no more rights…or no more worth…than a monkey.
The trouble with this people is that they aren’t happy to go off and form some kind of commune (as if these people ever pulled that off…lol…if you ask me, they’re perfect examples of what kind a world these guys would create…unable to survive without sponging off the kind of society that a free people have created). Nooooooooo…they have to force people like ME to accept their rule.
December 9th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Of course, if you take those words out of context, it appears as if I said “The politicians don’t really lie, nor do they make promises.” as an absolute.
The full text involved and described secrecy.
For those of you who are just tuning in, here is what I said in context:
That is part of the secrecy, but the not so secret part is how corporations lobby (”legally bribe” is the semisecret meaning of the word lobby). the politicians.
The politicians don’t really lie, nor do they make any promises. Instead they use words of art, so most folks believe that they are promising one thing while they are stating something totally different. Perhaps they skew the context of what they say, but the majority of the time they can’t really be caught up in a lie or a false promise. They simply explain what they were really saying using other words of art.
and then I gave an example:
“My name is Jack Carter and I have seven deputies…”
Well he does have seven deputies… and more likely seven more, seeing as I have heard numbers like s-14 and s-20 on the scanner.
I wasn’t saying that politicians don’t lie, or perhaps stretch the truth a little at best.
I guess I could have worded things better if I were an english professor, but unfortunately, I am not.
In all honesty, I am pretty feeble with my grammar, and that should be evident from my writings.
But on to the subject at hand now:
First of all, I’m not willing to suspend portions of the constitution, unless those portions are in conflict with the first ten amendments. But if any part of the constitution is in conflict with the first ten amendments, it is automatically unconstitutional, thus technically not a part of the constitution, although theorically still a part of the constitution, even though voided by The Bill Of Rights.
Sure, I won’t argue with you that you have the ability to sign a consent to search without warrant, thus giving up your 4th Amendment right.
I would suppose that your actions by doing so would even be your personal right.
However, It is within my personal rights to refuse to sign that consent and force the public servants to uphold my 5th Amendment right to Due Process.
See, by signing that consent to search, you are giving up both your 4th and 5th Amendment rights. But go right ahead if that’s what you want. It’s your right.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Just in case you still don’t understand, I’ll add the following:
United States Constitution:
Amendment 10;
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Kentucky Constitution
Section 26:
General powers subordinate to Bill of Rights — Laws contrary thereto are void;
To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void.
December 9th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
This story sorta describes Morehead when WalMart come to town.
I wish those optimistic business owner’s better luck then the luck of Morehead’s local business owners.
Farewell Main Street.
December 9th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
DHunley,
I’m not for sure that we’re on the same page here, so would you care to clarify something for me?
You Wrote:
“I’ve agreed that there are probably lots of people up to lots of mischief. No doubt, they’re in back rooms and board rooms (lobbyists, illuminati, Zionists, C.E.O’S, and anything else you can think of) around the world and across this great land! What I’m SAYING is, they can only weld their power and execute their plots if WE let them.
And we let them by agreeing to circumnavigate the constitution in some form or other in exchange for some kind of “gimme”!
Just exactly what do you mean by “andWE let them by agreeing to circumnavigate the constitution in some form or other in exchange for some kind of “gimme”!?
Secondly, and probably most importantly, how do we stop them from welding their power and executing their plots?
December 10th, 2007 at 10:03 am
The “sheer cloudy vagueness” of H.R 1955, as well as its terror factor, may account for its bipartisan 404-6 House vote but how, in an era informed by the Bush-Cheney administration’s egregious assault on the Bill of Rights, can the phrase “other purposes” fail to raise the “National Terror Alert” from its current threat level of “elevated” to “severe.”
Future “other purposes” will undoubtedly be justified by the Act’s use of the term “violent radicalization,” which it defines as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence . . .” or by the folksy, Lake Wobegonesque “homegrown terrorism,” defined as “the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born [or] raised . . . within the United States . . . to intimidate or coerce the United States, the civilian population . . . or any segment thereof . . .”
In the service of some self-serving “other purposes,” will “extremist beliefs” become any belief the temporary occupants of the White House consider antithetical and threatening to their political agenda?
Will “ideologically based violence” or the use of “force” become little more than the mayhem resulting after a peaceful protest, daring to move beyond the barbed wire of the free speech zone, is attacked by a truncheon-wielding riot squad armed with tear gas, German Shepard dogs and water cannons?
Will the unarmed, constitutionally protected dissenters who are fending off blows or dog bites, or who are striking back in self-defense become “homegrown terrorists” and suffer draconian sentences for their attempt to “intimidate or coerce” the state with free thought and free speech?
A clue to future “other purposes” may lie in the Act’s parentage. The proud House “mother” of the Patriot Act’s evil twin is Rep. Jane Harmon (D-CA), chair of the Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee. Rep. Harmon has admitted to a long and productive relationship with the RAND Corporation, a California based think-tank with close ties to the military-industrial-intelligence complex. RAND’s 2005 study, “Trends in Terrorism,” contains a chapter titled, “Homegrown Terrorist Threats to the United States.” Is this Act a bastard child?
Keep in mind that the RAND Corporation was set up in 1946 by Army Air Force General Henry “Hap” Arnold as “Project RAND” sponsored by the Douglas Aircraft Company. Keep in mind also that Donald Rumsfeld was its chairman from 1981 to 1986 and Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Dick Cheney’s felonious former chief of staff, and Condoleezza Rice were trustees. Enough said!
RAND maintains that “homegrown terrorism” will not be the result of jihadist sleeper cells. Rather, it will result from anti-globalists and radical environmentalists who “challenge the intrinsic qualities of capitalism, charging that in the insatiable quest for growth and profit, the philosophy is serving to destroy the world’s ecology, indigenous cultures, and individual welfare.”
Further, RAND claims that anti-globalists and radical environmentalists “exist in much the same operational environment as al Qaida” and pose “a clear threat to private-sector corporate interests, especially large multinational business.” Therein lies the real “other purposes.”
Predictably then, H.R. 1955 is not about protecting homegrown Americans. That protection is only incidental to its “other purposes” of protecting homegrown corporate interest and its unconscionable manipulation of the American political process to fill its coffers. Any thought or speech or action— however protected it might be by the Bill of Rights—that threatens corporate hegemony and profit will no doubt suffer the “other purposes” clause of the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.
Anyone doubting the Orwellian nature of a “bastard child” that equates anti-globalists and environmentalists with al Qaida terrorists will do well to read Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” and to acquaint themselves with the fate of Winston Smith in 1984.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:19 am
DHunley,
I am an “anti-globalist” but not a “radical environmentalist” although I could get a bit radical if a car load of drunks were to pull up and empty an ashtray on the ground, or start bursting beer bottles where I’m out picking up litter.
To read what you initially wrote
This post is like someone freaking out over a candle being lit while the house burns down around them
is a bit disturbing for me.
I don’t know if you have read the resolution or not, but these sorts of resolutions turn people just like you and I into criminals.
December 10th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Don’t fergit the preamble to 1st 10articles/ Bill of further restrictions . . .
(phew! lots to read guys)
Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution!!!
…
Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
The first ten amendments are “declaratory and restrictive clauses”. This means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of our Constitution.
On the h.R. 1955/S1959 issue how many voted afraid of some “goober dust” from Fort Detrick/Anthrax or a needle behind the ear or a “sorry your Bohemian Club membership has been suspended”, or Being Larry Craig -ed/Huter S. Thompson-ed/Gary Webb/ . . . http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A2897EA1CE236496
Some of the hundreds that voted for it may have actually been tempted to read it but few did IF ANY. besides “Dr. NO”?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:48 am
I thought there was something on here about the FCC mandated Digital switch over for full power television stations, but I cant find it.
Anyways, I have a question,
As I understand a date has not been set for LPTV to switch over, after the switchover date I will be able to see at least 1 local channel over my antenna with my existing television.
I don’t believe in paying for cable, or satellite, so I have neither.
Now here’s the question(s)
Would it be a good idea to invest in a FTA receiver, or should I invest in a video out for my computer and feed IPTV into my set with a UHF modulator?
I have played with IPTV for several years watching it evolve from the tiny realplayer screen of say 1″ X 1″ with crummy audio into the full screen mode with decent picture and audio quality.
9/10 of the +1000 stations are in a foregin language, and the ones that aren’t seem to all show the same old B movies.
But I have started to enjoy the repeats of “Attack Of The Giant Leeches”, “The Little Shop Of Horrors”, and “The Devil’s Advocate”, etc…
I figure that with the FTA system, at least from what I have read about them, about 9/10 of the programming is going to be in a foregin language also.
But will the limited amount of english language programming amount to the same thing I get with IPTV or will there be more of a variety?
So, Should I go with the video converter for the computer and UHF modulator, or the FTA system, or both?
I a bit confused about what I want to do at this point because I don’t have any experience with FTA.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Alot of FTA boxes are pretty simple and there are tech support forums online, (not just for those hacking signals either), you just need a signal level buzzer meter, compas to aim the dish if you have open souther sky. the Sat at 97′w is probably the bes IA-5 KU I think, It has most of the same type of channels as skyangle.
Once you get a signal you hit scan for FTA and blip 3 minutes later you have all the channels plus radio on that sat. TOTAL with a positioner for KU small 39″dishes is about 85free english/North American Channels, Except for hard rain it is more reliable than my internet connection and is simple for the rest of the house to use. Most Networks have their program listings on FTAlist site Lots of spanish & local RTN retro television networks out there IF you dont have to have full HDTV a stationary dish is about $175+/~ you’ll want to use PAM or some dish spray or a really big clear or white trash bag for a rain cover but when its raining that hard head for the basement and turn off the puter TV et cetera to keep it from getting zapped by lightning/static.
There is a full spectrum 4-5ft C&KU combo system out there starting at $450 plus shipping, ITHINK it comes with a positioner for that price, all you will mis is the analog channels and wild feeds which are fun to surf the sky for. You can watch some programs weeks befor the air in syndication. SDTV digital broadcast TV is great when it works but I think the bugs are still being worked out, the recievers have gotten better, I would get ~$200 DVD/VCR combo with service plan and see what you can pick up with the antenna 30feet up and you will want a FMtrap and low noise amp. Cornfused enuff yet?
December 11th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Somebody said SkyAngel was going to the internet exclusively next year or something like that BUT they are a distribution company so several of their networks are recievable from other satellites/feeds like “FTA” Free -to-Air. Myself I don’t need the extra problems of a computer to maintain just to watch some TV.
As “Scotty from Star Trek put it: “the more they over take the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain”
so, FTA &DTV will be how I watch TV
I suspect the next president may be lobbied to extend the FUll-Power Shutdown date but who knows? it could be why the date was pushed off to Feb of 2009,(”let the next schmuck deal with it”)? Kinda Like Clinton didn’t move on the International Baptist Temple: 1st “Church” seized for taxes in u.S. History, “seek not a sign” eh?
People I have talked with have mixed results round here in the hills with DTV/HDTV reception; It can vary widely with how new of a tuner is in your TV/VCR/Dvdburner, 5th generation chipsets are what you want, with the “aiming” signal bar in the menu AND a remote Antennna rotator is handy rather than running a extention cord or hollerin “back to the left honey, no right, no left…”
December 12th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Makes perfect sense to me, but I’m way down in the valley, and antenna reception is next to nothing for me. I do have a good view of the southern sky and have had Dish Network in the past, but the cost isn’t worth it when there are plenty of free channels up there.
I had a friend tell me that the new digital sets will receive network programming just by pointing the dish at a one of the birds. Is this true? He sort of doubted it, but said a tv repairman told him this.
I think your right about the IPTV thing being too much trouble and clogging the lines. Just imagine if everyone was tuned into net tv at prime time. It’d probably slow high speed connections down to 28.8 or maybe slower.
December 12th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
TV repairman was cornfused I suspect as QAM modulation is decoded by HDTVs but it is not on the right channels or frequencies, gotta have a FTA box and big networks are not on FTA yet?
December 12th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
MIght be suprised that you can get 10-12+ channels on antenna. IF you have a TV that is less than 1yr old from date of manufacture, you likely have a 8Vsb/QAM tuner with just rabbit ears ($5) even down in a hole you should get DTV KET .1 .2 .4-6 &maybe ION .1-.4
DTV is subject to refected signals bad so the stronger the signal is the more refections,
With a All band 10ft long antenna and preamp “Booster” with FM trap, you might get FOX56(DTVfreq is ch4 I think and I have seen that picked up pointed a hill here in downtown valley, not line of site.
TVQ36 is on 40DTV and is easier to get than LEX18on ch 39 from the same dang tower BUT ION29from WVA is on 39too so I suspect cochannel is the culpret as I can aim eachway and get each on some evenings (not at the same time)
Some evenings I get Cincinatti skiping in when I see lots of analog skip I know when to scan for digital signals, kinda fun but It can disrupt others viewing, so I have a second smaller antenna for local reliable signals. For the bedroom TV using a disguarded VOOM sat reciever with DTV tunercard, it is early chipset but gets 36.1&.2 & KET.1-6 &ION .1-4 just fine.
December 12th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
IPTV is not the same as Internet TV.
IPTV systems use network cable and set top boxes in a closed network, found in some metropolitan areas like NYcity but IPTV is a alternative to cable, cable-like distribution skeme built ontop of existing phone networks as a competitor to cable. It is fighting for a sliver of the slice of pie already carved up by DSS/Dish and it aint winning even if it is a more practical system cost wise over fiber based/CATV. CATV is going fiber anyway so telcos & CATV are competing directly soon if not already in bigger markets.
December 13th, 2007 at 8:16 am
First, nighthawk, I’ll get to it just as soon as I can.
In the meantime, did anyone listen to the presidential debates?
I heard on the radio that Fred Thompson put one of those silly reporters in their place. I heard the sound bite and got a real kick out of it.
Some reporter (obviously biased) asked for a “show of hands” (like they were a group of school kids) from those who believed global warming was a threat and that man was causing it. (Obviously, I’m paraphrasing…I bet the thing is on youtube and maybe I’ll look for it.)
Anyway, Ol’ Fred wasn’t playing that game and simply, and politely refused. I FELT LIKE CHEERING!! Finally, someone who is calling these guys on their foolishness and is giving voice to sanity.
BRAVO FOR FRED THOMPSON!!!
MAN! Just like every other issue the modern liberals tout…this “global warming” thing is filled with half-truths, misinformation, and a studious ignoring of scientific facts.
It’s just another way that modern liberals are trying to get us to submit to governmental control…that’s it.
December 13th, 2007 at 8:26 am
I ws right…here’s the youtube of it. ENJOY!!!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yUn8GSbUl_4
December 13th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
DHunley,
It seems that we’re for liberty, and want to see the constitution upheld, and I believe that most of us do, but at the same time, we hold variating opinions about the causes and solutions of the problems that we face in political America today.
We both agree that it’s all about power and exercising authority over us. Let’s just call it control for the sake of simplicity.
These CONTROL mechanisms start going into effect the day we are born.
A Birth Certificate (of Title) is issued.
Now if you don’t “Register” your child at birth, then you have an “Unregistered Child” and the authority figures will come and arrest you, AND claim ownership of your child (Since you didn’t file for a Birth Certificate (of Title).
This is the very beginning of you being stripped of your sovereignty.
Now, I realize that obtaining a Birth Certificate (of Title) has become the norm, and that people have been “educated” (for years, No, Decades!) that it is so.
But think outside of the box for just a day or two. Think about what you have been “taught” is THE norm, and then ask yourself the question, “Why would our government dictate, and then educate us of the norm?”
Now, I didn’t make (or have) the choice of whether or not I had a Birth Certificate, Therefore my constitutional right to Due Process has been violated from the day that I was born.
I can go on and on all day long, but I’ll end it here for today.
Why? you may ask…
The reason is because I realize that it will take a while for this to sink in, and when it does, it will take even longer to overcome the shock and denial—if you can.
December 13th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
To avoid confusion, I feel that I should add the following definition to a word used in my last post:
Sovereignty: The ultimate, supreme power in a state (e.g., in the United States, sovereignty rests with the people).
December 13th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I have no quarrel whatsoever with anything you’ve said. Actually, if I were able to word it better (I’m no “English” major either :), I think what I’ve said supports your position.
I certainly didn’t mean to take you out of context—I’m sorry and I’ll try to be more careful. All I meant, any way, was to point out that even if people lie…even if they’re unrepentant…it still doesn’t matter to some people. Like I said, Bill Clinton lied under oath…and John Kerry lied repeatedly…and still they were/are shining stars to some people.
I will give you a more comprehensive response as soon as I have time—mostly likely it will have to be this coming weekend sometimes—to the questions of what liberties we’re willing to give up in return for some sort of “gimme”; but you’ve given a pretty good example right here with the birth certificate thing.
We (our parents and we as parents) might have given up our sovereignty by acquiring a birth certificate. But what were the consequences if we didn’t? We couldn’t “work”? We couldn’t receive social security? We couldn’t get a drivers’ licenses? Things like that?
December 13th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
“How the government
Steals your car”
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20010311.htm
Some folks have been successful “off the radar” with cases pressing for sovereignty, some even here in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arizona and elsewhere. There was a case in Tennesee of a Uncle John Hackett? I think, he and his wife moved from florida and did not transfer “titles” and did not register their deed to the “property” they “bought” (using some “money ” 21dollars silver & consideration) with the courthouse
(the wife was targeted and end the end won on appeal as the USattyGen opinion said ” The UNITED STATES reserves the right not to answer in this case” as it would set a precidence?)
(sounds a bit like that movie with Jodie Foster as the “wild child” in “Nell” the mom had all the alodial family deeds in the big bible not the courthouse “in fee simple” “and ABSOLUTE” used to be part of the nomen juris.
NOW everything is commercial paper assets to be leined up for “the full faith and credit of the people of the UNITED STATES”(inc.?)
Some say the special paper(like banque note paper) that berth certificates are printed on are done not only for document protections reasons /(counterfeit resistant) but that these measures are required by the financial world so the “government” won’t be tempted to make some phantom “sureties” for the bonds and debt/credit that can be created for every “natural”"Person” that a birth/berth certificate indicates. Financial schemes you can imagine are based on the expected re-venue generated by a “citizen” over a lifetime. Supposedly there are even life insurance policies generated with the government as the beneficiary if the surety of a berth certificate dies.
“Making merchandise of men” where have I read that?
The reinventing government types have been exposing the lingo since before Gore invented the internet referring to property owners as “stake holders” along with those claiming control of the “warrent deeds” and such alodial title substitutes.
If you fight hard enought “they” might implement a policy of non-enforcement agin ya, which is what I suspect happened to the TN couple, he rode with out a helmet and insurance on his Motorcycle, says judges would just get up and leave the court when he came in to stand in for the “strawman” as he put it. They were in their 60s when I talked to them 10yrs ago. Could be dead by now?
December 13th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Manufacturer’s Certificate of Origin / Manufacturer’s Statement of Origin.
http://www.geocities.com/tthor.geo/vehiclecertorig.html
Article links the conversion of legal title to equitable title(user titles) going back to the 1930’s (geee hmmm, can anyone say banque EMERGency.
The banks emerging as the owners/controllers of evar thing thru comercial ponzi skemes?
Were any of those Executive orders FDR issued recinded or eclipsed?
December 15th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Here you go Tech, The Right To Drive AKA “The Driver’s Handbook for Detroit, Michigan in 1937″.
Scanned pages from this book prepared with the cooperation of THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF DETROIT.
Maybe Kentucky should model a new “Drivers Manual” (except for the mistake of honking a horn to warn the operator of a horse drawn vehicle) after the one linked above.
December 15th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Even though a “Right To Drive” method of terminology was still in use at the time, registration and license are named and illustrated in the book that I linked above.
Maybe the point where they started conditioning folks to believe that “driving is a privilege”?
December 16th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Municipal turfdoms were the first to start driver/commercial “vehicle” licensure (as well as police/corpo security guards, nearly unknown outside New York & big “cities”)
((Morehead supposedly still had a ordain-ance, a few years ago, that a pedestrian had to carry a lantern when crossing the street after dark so as to not spook horses. ))
Farmer John could still use his implements of husbandry to come to town, truck, non commercial car and such without a license as he did not have a domicile or business in the jurisdiction of the corporate boundary of the city. ALL of this is about jurisdiction and the original “Borked” supCt nominee dared to point out that most folks, that are imprisoned, granted jurisdiction voluntarily, even going to jail voluntarily. Well I for one don’t volunteer and only operate with any government regulated privaldged license under coersion, threat and duress. I am self assured no self insured as too many are “driving” beyond their means using a “vechicle” owned by the state (and the bank) that they are making payments on under the delusion it is theirs. IF the entire economy was not built on constructive fraud of fake money that has to be borrowed into circulation perhaps we could be self-insured outside the scope of admiralty/commercial/equity court color of law “jurisdiction” claims.
eeeehhhhhhhh whatever merry vinter solstice heathen…
December 16th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
IF there is no injured party of the jurisdiction for a venue there is no case. Some argue with various succusses over the decades that since “the state” is a fiction the mere witness by a officer of a alledged violation of some ordain-ence or statuet without a real live injured party, there is no crime or violation. Example being running a stop sign at 2am or speeding on a empty country road, or any number of “violations”. No injured party no case; otherwise you have selective enforcement or a tracking devise and cameras on everyone.
December 16th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
MEANING OF THE TERM ‘UNITED STATES’
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/ChallJurisdiction/Definitions/freemaninvestigation.htm
For, every federal indentured servant, subject, slave, ‘individual,’ ‘employee,’ and ‘official’ has an undisputed duty to file a tax return…being a homo fiscalis, ‘a vassal belonging to the treasury’—being an alieni juris, one under the control of, or subject to the authority of, another…opposite to a freeman in sui juris, one possessing all his natural, social, and civil rights, not under anyone else’s guardianship or control. In other words, s/he is capax negotii, competent to transact his or her legal affairs. Or, one could say, one who has rectus in curia, right in court, one who can benefit from the law—unlike the ‘outlaw’ or slave. That is, legally being able to act for him/herself…namely, having the legal capacity, ability, and power to manage his/her own affairs, as opposed to someone having relinquished his/her power of judicial action, by giving up his/her power of attorney, and becoming, thereby, a ‘ward of the court.’ That is, someone considered of unsound mind and under the care of a guardian.
Truly unbelievable! One is reminded of a remark by Judge Bork, to the effect that 90% of those in prison are there voluntarily—i.e., by consent and permission! (You notice that he was not confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice!) Which brings to mind a Supreme Court case, in 1794, where one reads that:
The only reason, I believe, that a free man is bound by human law, is, that he binds himself. Chisholm v, Georgia, 2, Dall 440, 455.
December 16th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
So if I’m understanding the examples you point to correctly, those officers who “elect” to carry out the duties required of them under KRS 281.765 (.pdf (acrobat reader) file) and similar laws, would be “electing” to do so unconstitutionally, if not unlawfully; IF they carry out those duties upon folks who guide a farm implement (truck, tractor, horse & buggy) or automobile (different from motor vehicle), or an exempt vehicle that is motorized, but travels less then 5 miles outside the city limits or other municipality?
Wholey UNAUTHORIZED USE OF BLUE LIGHTs Batman!
December 16th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
The definitions for KRS 186, at face value, appear to cover every single aspect of a motorized vehicle, but it does not explicitly name an “automobile” (which similar omissions of definitions contained within KRS 189 have been ruled to be outside the scope of the title, section and subsection) and gives a few exceptions for the use of one.
These exceptions are so well hidden that I doubt many a lawyer could find them, let alone a jury see the exception right there in black and white.
So even if you can find the exceptions or exemptions within the law, the argument can always be twisted by the prosecution [to] be considered ludacris, no matter how reasonable it may be, even if a similar (ludacris) argument of the exact [same] law is being used by the prosecution.
It would make it rather tough for a jury.
December 17th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Especially when the jury likely has a member or 3 of a lodge that will recognize & acknowledge secret-sign hand signals from the prosecution that their case is to be won no matter what, as a protection to the community/establishment/clique/society
AND
Especially since the rules of court are rigged so that the jury is supposed to acquire knowledge from outside the court of their power to judge both the facts AND THE LAW itself(Jury Nullification cannot be mentioned by the rules).
The facts in a case may show a alleged-accused to be guilty as heck* but the “law”/resolution/statuet/policy is “void ab intio” (from its initiation/conception) as being non-constitutional.
Prohibition was repealed when it became difficult to convict a average citizen of possession or inebriation and it started affecting of other convictions as the populace began to see all government was so corrupt that sitting in judgment against a common man or woman was a farce. History doth repeat itself evar so oft now do’nit?
December 17th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
I have heard tell of a *clique, but just because a man is a lodge member doesn’t mean that s/he’s a part of that clique. Being a member of that click, doesn’t necessarily mean that s/he is a member of a lodge.
Having said that, I do know of people objecting to being a juror in as much as trying to disqualify oneself because of title or position, while others do not.
I can say this without prejudice because I owe no allegiance to neither a clique or a lodge.
December 17th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Just let me note that those definitions for KRS 186 appear to me to resort to trickery and words of art. Most notably the word “agencies” which can have many different meanings, but the meaning of this word is not defined within those definitions.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Yeah, nomen juris is not the common vernacular and we peons need a royal barrister to interpret the “Law”
Jefferson said …’laws are meant for men of ordinary understanding … not to be interpreted to mean everything and nothing at the same time”!
“christian” lodge members or any haven’t read Matt. 7:1 as anything more than letting your yes be yes and no be no comes of evil. We cannot even change one hair black or white let alone sware we know what will happen or what we will do next week or a year from now.
SO regardless of where or for what purpose you swore an oath of loyalty to a group, it was done out of ignor-ance of this principle. NOW I am not endorsing Yehovia’s witnesses or whoever, just pointing out the simple concept that is there and what the heck every other of the 10 communist manifesto planks has been implemented why continue all this for-swearing.
The front poarch oath swearers may have the best intentions, not just to chum around to get jobs, party while driving silly cars in parades drunk?, or fish out the bad apple characters in the community(yeah they used to keep books in secret language, maybe still do?)
Scrape away the veneer of all this show and it’s no wunder the towel heads call u.S. the great … like they know all this, Vote Ron Paul? well I said enuff?
December 17th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
I suppose that one must turn to Bouviers Law Dictionary for the definition of “agencies”, but alas, none is found.
Could the statues imply that the word “agencies” means “agency”?
According to KRS 446.020, “A word importing the singular number only may extend and be applied to several persons or things, as well as to one (1) person or thing, and a word importing the plural number only may extend and be applied to one (1) person or thing as well as to several persons or things.”
But even so, according to KRS 446.080,
“All words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved
usage of language, but technical words and phrases, and such others as may have
acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law, shall be construed
according to such meaning.”
So, since agencies are not defined, and the word agency is commonly used in the KRS, but never to describe an automobile, just how are we to know the meaning of “agencies” as used in KRS 186.010?
Maybe we can get satisfaction from a Law Dictionary…
Here are the definitions for “agency” from Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1856 Edition:
AGENCY, contracts. An agreement, express , or implied, by which one of the parties, called the principal, confides to the other, denominated the agent, the management of some business; to be transacted in his name, or on his account, and by which the agent assumes to do the business and to render an account of it. As a general rule, whatever a man do by himself, except in virtue of a delegated authority, he may do by an agent. Combee’s Case, 9 Co. 75. Hence the maxim qui facit per alium facit per se.
2. When the agency express, it is created either by deed, or in writing not by deed, or verbally without writing. 3 Chit. Com. Law 104; 9 Ves. 250; 11 Mass. Rep. 27; Ib. 97, 288; 1 Binn. R. 450. When the agency is not express, it may be inferred from the relation of the parties and the nature of the employment, without any proof of any express appointment. 1 Wash. R. 19; 16 East, R. 400; 5 Day’s R. 556.
3. The agency must be antecedently given, or subsequently adopted; and in the latter case there must be an act of recognition, or an acquiescence in the act of the agent, from which a recognition may be fairly implied. 9 Cranch, 153, 161; 26 Wend. 193, 226; 6 Man. & Gr. 236, 242; 1 Hare & Wall. Sel. Dec. 420; 2 Kent, Com. 478; Paley on Agency; Livermore on Agency.
4. An agency may be dissolved in two ways – 1, by the act of the principal or the agent; 2, by operation of law.
5. – 1. The agency may be dissolved by the aet of one of the parties. 1st. As a general rule, it may be laid down that the principal has a right to revoke the powers which he has given; but this is subject to some exception, of which the following are examples. When the principal has expressly stipulated that the authority shall be irrevocable, and the agent has an interest in its execution; it is to be observed, however, that although there may be an express agreement not to revoke, yet if the agent has no interest in its execution, and there is no consideration for the agreement, it will be considered a nude pact, and the authority may be revoked. But when an authority or power is coupled with an interest, or when it is given for a valuable consideration, or when it is a part of a security, then, unless there is an express stipulation that it shall be revocable, it cannot be revoked, whether it be expressed on the face of the instrument giving the authority, that it be so, or not. Story on Ag. 477; Smith on Merc. L. 71; 2 Liv. on Ag. 308; Paley on Ag. by Lloyd, 184; 3 Chit. Com. f. 223; 2 Mason’s R. 244; Id. 342; 8 Wheat. R. 170; 1 Pet. R. 1; 2 Kent, Com. 643, 3d edit.; Story on Bailm. 209; 2 Esp. R. 665; 3 Barnw. & Cressw. 842; 10 Barnw. & Cressw. 731; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. 1041, 1042, 1043
6. – 2. The ageacy may be determined by the renunciation of the agent. If the renunciation be made after it has been partly executed, the agent by renouncing it, becomes liable for the damages which may thereby be sustained by his principal. Story on Ag. 478; Story on Bailm. 436; Jones on Bailm. 101; 4 John r. 84.
7. – 2 The agency is revoked by operation of law in the following cases: 1st. When the agency terminates by the expiration of the period, during which it was to exist, and to have effect; as, if an agency be created to endure a year, or till the happening of a contingency, it becomes extinct at the end or on the happening of the contingency.
8. – 2. When a change of condition, or of state, produces an incapacity in either party; as, if the principal, being a woman, marry, this would be a revocation, because the power of creating an agent is founded on the right of the principal to do the business himself, and a married woman has no such power. For the same reason, when the principal becomes insane, the agency is ipso facto revoked. 8 Wheat. R. 174, 201 to @04; Story on Ag. 481; Story on Bailm. 206. 2 Liv. on Ag. 307. The incapacity of the agent also amounts to a revocation in law, as in case of insanity, and the like, which renders an agent altogether incompetent, but the rule does not reciprocally apply in its full extent. For instance, an infant or a married woman may in some cases be agents, althouah they cannot act for themselves. Co. Litt. 52a.
9. – 3. The death of either principal or agent revokes the agency, unless in cases where the agent has an interest in the thing actually vested in the agent. 8 Wheat. R. 174; Story on Ag. 486 to 499; 2 Greenl. R. 14, 18; but see 4 W. & S. 282; 1 Hare & Wall. Sel. Dec. 415.
10. – 4. The agency is revoked in law, by the extinction of the subject-matter of the agency, or of the principal’s power over it, or by the complete execution of the trust. Story on Bailm. 207, Vide generally, 1 Hare & Wall. Sel. Dec. 384, 422; Pal. on Ag.; Story on Ag.; Liv. on Ag.; 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1269-1382.
But even after reading the above definitions, it would appear that an “agency” or “agencies” is not defined in a manner to where it can be construed to be an automobile.
Does this not mean that your “automobile” is not a “motor vehicle” unless you consent or declare it to be?
December 17th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Try Ballintines Law Dictonary that is where I found case law opinion definitions pointing out the difference between department and Branch, most everything is executive departments or so it seems. Congress makes a show of fighting over funding but the story I have heard told is that a messenger from each “operation” over at the White House is sent to congress to deliver the status of things “Mister Speaker the emergency continues” spins on the heals and heads back out.
Now only the record keeper and a quarum need be there for that to bury it somewhere in the congressional record if it is put there at all.
December 17th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
The section above about contracts does not appear to blatently cover unconscionable contracts, or those done thru duress threat or coercion …
“When the principal has expressly stipulated that the authority shall be irrevocable,
(nothing can be stipulated as irrevocable eh?)
…” and the agent has an interest in its execution; it is to be observed, however, that although there may be an express agreement not to revoke, yet if the agent has no interest in its execution, and there is no consideration for the agreement, it will be considered a nude pact, and the authority may be revoked. But when an authority or power is coupled with an interest, or when it is given for a valuable consideration, or when it is a part of a security, then, unless there is an express stipulation that it shall be revocable, it cannot be revoked”
(anything can be revolked as no remedy means lawlessness, there should be a maximum on that one in Bouvier’s?).
December 17th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
In Matthew 5:33-37, Jesus forbids His followers to take oaths. “Swear not at all,” He says.
But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation. James 5:12
Yet in the Old Testament, many people made oaths. Isn’t this a contradiction?
some of the passages that are employed as evidence that the taking of oaths is sanctioned touch the subject only incidentally or not at all:
Gen. 21:23-24 — God does not command this oath; it is requested by Abimelech and Phicol, and is granted by Abraham.
Gen. 24:2-9 — God does not command this oath; it is ordered by Abraham and performed by his eldest servant.
Gen. 31:53 — God does not command this oath either.
Gen. 47:31 — God does not command this oath either.
Lev. 27:2-10 — This is not about oaths; it is about welching on vows of dedication. (Here I’m making a distinction between /oaths/ as ways to affirm that a statement is true, and /vows/ which are promises to perform an action or inaction.
Numbers 30:2 — This, too, is not about oaths, per se; it is about vows of dedication (which could, but did not have to, involve oaths).
Deut. 23:31 — This is not about oaths; it is about vows.
Isaiah 45:23 — not really applicable, because it is about something God does.
Isaiah 48:1 — When the entire verse is read, it is clear that this is a critique against misusing the name of the LORD in oaths.
http://p099.ezboard.com/fsabdiscussionboardcontradictions.showMessage?topicID=1534.topic
December 17th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
In any event I don’t believe that the provisions of KRS 446.080;
“All words and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved
usage of language, but technical words and phrases, and such others as may have
acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law, shall be construed
according to such meaning.”
was designed or intended to require people to be sociologists in order to understand written law.
But, If that were the to be the case, we could look at this definition of “agency“;
“This term is linked to sociologies which focus on the individual as a subject and view social action as something purposively shaped by individuals within a context to which they have given meaning. This view is usually contrasted with those sociologies which focus on social structure and imply the individual is shaped and constrained by the structural environment in which they are located.”
It would appear to me that the peoples consent is the key to any mandatory automobile registration.
I would think that unless you expressly declare and consider your “automobile” to be a “motor vehicle”, the automobile remains an automobile.
I also feel as though (required voluntary compliance) has made some good points about folks being coerced, and flat out lied to, in order to get them sign their rights away.
So I ask again, and this time to anyone reading;
How do we prosecute them for violating our constitutional rights, and/or for coercing us into trading our rights for privileges?
December 18th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
I think “they” have craftily written themselves immunity from prosecution and by
occupation of offices considered abandoned in common law?
Perhaps somehow those positions would have to be re-occupied by those using constitutional money and real property bonded (et cetera) to take on or rid us of these NON-constitutional counterfeits; You are considered inept or infantile as far as being able to approach their jurisdiction/venue/turf, to interact with them at all requires defective status and prayers/motions to their aledged authority.
The Freemen of Montana had the right ideas but got sort of greedy it looks like. “My fraud is as good as your fraud” is what one of them told me he had exclaimed to a clerk that had release a tax lein on property to be transferred/sold by one of the Freemen “Checks”
December 18th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
They had never prosecuted the guy and he had sold the property but never got a cheque back for the difference from the “State” of Ohio a weird situation that worked for him thru their common law “Justus” township they set up.
Perhaps we could set up townships and common law offices from scratch, instead of generating liens, prosecute “them” at comonlaw for treason and such & file that in the miscellanious books of the “State of Kentucky” and when if ever any excutive constitutional sheriffs are put back in or take back their responsibility the hangings or tar & featherings would be carried out???LOL?
December 19th, 2007 at 4:57 am
Mr. “Na it doesn’t matter”, personally I am offended that your new moniker is basically calling yourself God. “I am that I Am”? what about changing it to “I YAM what I YAM” and we’ll call you Popeye! Just my two cents. I looked over and saw that and like I said, personally it bothers me and why change ID’s all the time? Oh well. Taking a chill pill and returning to my litter pan.
December 19th, 2007 at 4:59 am
oh, that’s “na i don’t think so”. Whatever.