Is It Time To Take Up Arms?

Rune said:
Also, just so you know, Fox new links and Hannity are not considered actual sources here, so your entire thread is a fail. If any of this is actually happening, surely you could provide links from other sources?
Click to expand...

seriously? do we need to just abandon all news sources because of their bias and lies?
 
Rune said:
Dipshit; Of course it was purchased by the Federal government.

1848: The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo following the Mexican War between the U.S. and Mexico resulted in the purchase of Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, and western Colorado.

http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/usboundary.htm

Lying doesn't help your already very poor credibility much.
Click to expand...

so AZ, CA, NV, NM, TX, UT, and Western Colorado are just territories of the federal government and not really US States?
 
XLVIII DOMINATORS said:
Actually, it was nothing like the Ametican Revolution. Lenin wished to empower, and succeeded, in empowering a few elite. The American Revolution was fought to free people from the tyranny of a few and to empower the individual.

Capitalism can be, and for the most part has been, lawfully constrained. Now we see the political class making back room deals with their special pet capitalists. Again this is Crony Capitalism AKA the step sister to fascism. It is facilitated by idiot voters who want to be led astray into faux issues and thereby divided against one another. This has also been called wagging the dog.
Click to expand...

Learn to read, child. Lenin wished to empower the working class, and it was destroyed by eighteen capitalist armies, leaving party members to fight or die, producing state capitalism. Capitalism is never constrained: it merely makes adjustment between the interests of the big thieves, as well you know. The American Revolution was to save the slavers from paying for their liberation from France.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so AZ, CA, NV, NM, TX, UT, and Western Colorado are just territories of the federal government and not really US States?
Click to expand...

Did I say that?

I was responding this this;

"Again, in the case of the Bundys, the land in dispute was not purchased by the federal government"

This is a bald faced lie, and the basis of most of Smilly's call to arms.

My statement simply provided proof that he/she was wrong.

The rest is extrapolation on your part.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the government. WE THE PEOPLE are the rightful masters of this nation, not the federal government.
Click to expand...

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou
when the federal government ignores the laws, the states and the people are no longer obligated to follow them as well.

Show what law the Federal government is ignoring please.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
does the fed own alaska? or does alaska own alaska?
Click to expand...

The federal government owns the vast majority of the land in Alaska. They paid for it, and they kept most of it. Do you have a problem with that?
Furthermore, what relevance does this have to the fact that Alaskan citizens have the right to possess up to an oz. of pot?
 
Rune said:
Did I say that?

I was responding this this;

"Again, in the case of the Bundys, the land in dispute was not purchased by the federal government"

This is a bald faced lie, and the basis of most of Smilly's call to arms.

My statement simply provided proof that he/she was wrong.

The rest is extrapolation on your part.
Click to expand...

what authority does the federal government have to collect rent on state owned property?
 
Rune said:
The federal government owns the vast majority of the land in Alaska. They paid for it, and they kept most of it. Do you have a problem with that?
Click to expand...
then aren't the borders of alaska wrong? it should be divided between what alaska really owns and what the federal territory is, IF the feds can actually own any property. which they can't.

Rune said:
Furthermore, what relevance does this have to the fact that Alaskan citizens have the right to possess up to an oz. of pot?
Click to expand...
it's against federal law, and if there is no clear border between what alaska owns and what the feds own........
 
SmarterthanYou said:
then aren't the borders of alaska wrong? it should be divided between what alaska really owns and what the federal territory is, IF the feds can actually own any property. which they can't.


it's against federal law, and if there is no clear border between what alaska owns and what the feds own........
Click to expand...

There is a clear border. There are incorporated towns and cities. They are under state jurisdiction. I assume Rana lives in a town or city, not the wilderness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top