Free Republic

That is an angle I had not considered in my response to you. Your logic makes sense.

Unless that clerk bankrupts the bank, the bank is liable for any damages to my account.

Who do I sue when a hacker gets my info and cashes me out?

I absolutely do not use a computer to access my bank. Nor do I use a phone. I actually *GO* to the bank, and withdraw money.

My computers have no credit card information on them, and no personal information on them either.

I don't trust them, and I know they can be hacked.

Maybe some people think Microsoft can protect you with their security methods, but I prefer not to trust them and don't put anything on the computer that can allow access to my personal life.

Another frivolous, no improvement "improvement" to the windows operating system.

I keep seeing every release of windows rearranging icons and layout, and other inconsequential stuff, but nothing in the way of actual improvement.

Does it run faster? No. Is it less kludgy? No. Does it do anything better than XP? No.

Maybe better security, but that only matters if you care about it.

They should stop believing stupid stuff that breaks with reality.

Suppose people thought they were Unicorns? Should we have a "Unicorn" athletic competition?

No. We need to demand reality. We need to forcefully confront people who are trying to make us believe clearly unreal things, and we need to hammer on them until they drop their nonsense.

We tell them "No. You don't get to push your delusions on me."

And you most definitely do not get to do it with either state money or state power.

Who is the shitty stupid person who wrote this?

Trump is gonna cut off Federal Money to California because those lunatics want to pretend boys can be girls, and they are so adamant about it they are willing to lose billions for their state to push this delusion.

Sometimes you just want to start slapping someone until they stop talking stupid sh*t.

They aren't hurting badly enough yet. They are still cranking out "Woke" stupidity, like "Iron Heart" and "Fantastic Four."

They need to lose more money. They got to hurt before they will take the appropriate corrective action.

Till they fire Kathleen Kennedy, they aren't serious.

This is a terrible tragedy. If they had just killed this piece of sh*t, the tragedy could have been avoided.

Yup. I have commented on that in the past. They are traumatized by their history, and now have gone to the opposite extreme out of some misplaced need to apologize for it.

Unfortunately, they are following a course that is most likely to revive some of the worst aspects of Nazism.

They are singlehandedly making the Nazi race-hatred look reasonable.

If they keep going this direction, they will push the populace back to the opposite extreme.

They are smart, hard working, and diligent to a fault, but they seem to suffer from congenital myopia.

That's my observation of them too. They love themselves some strong man *FORCING* people to do what they want.

They tend to be very stubborn about how they think things should be.

But of course!

Well they are the shittiest and most mentally ill group. They are likely to attract insults that other more sane people would not.

This.

Trannies belong locked up in mental asylums.

People who encourage their mental illness belong locked up in prisons.

That is exactly right, because that "white guilt" has been taught to all of us since it became a useful propaganda tactic during the Civil War, and a useful political propaganda tactic after the Civil War.

It empowers the corrupt power structure of Washington DC, and so it is never going away until it stops working.

That stupid corrupt bitch should never have been allowed to run for president. He's not even an American!

He is not qualified to run for the Presidency, but a lot of shitty people ignored this requirement to put that worthless bum into office.

Corrupt, nasty DC juries need to go to prison. DC needs to be deprived of all courts except the Supreme court.

DC is corrupt, and nobody can be tried there fairly.

Does that change the constitutional process? The whole war was contingent on *THE SOUTH* not adhering to Constitutional law, (A claim which I reject, by the way) So the people forcing constitutional law down their throats don't have to obey it themselves?

How does that work?

Slavery was being abolished.

Not legally it wasn't. Lincoln spent the first year and a half of the war telling everyone he had no authority or power to abolish slavery. Well he was right about that.

To be admitted into the Union, they needed to adopt the law of the land.

I'm going to point out a dichotomy here that apparently some people can't see or comprehend.

Lincoln's authority to raise armies to subdue the South were contingent on the theory that they could not leave the Union. Lincoln's position was that they were states in "rebellion" and therefore subject to the "Insurrection" clause of the constitution.

This legal authority evaporates if they are regarded as an actual separate nation. Constitutional law doesn't apply to other nations, it only applies to states that are still part of the United States.

The Dichotomy here is that in order to beat them, Lincoln had to maintain they never left the Union, nor were they ever able to leave the Union.

Well if his claim is true, you have no basis whereby you can legally deny them their constitutional rights. They would still be subject to "due process" (fifth amendment) and the prohibition against excessive fines. (eight amendment.)

Determining that everyone in a state was "guilty" without proving it, is a violation of constitutional law. You can't just declare everyone "guilty." You have to have trials. There were many people in the South who were against secession, and who refused to support the secessionist government, yet they were treated just the same as those who fought against the Union.

To be admitted into the Union, they needed to adopt the law of the land.

Abolishing slavery was *NOT* the law of the land. It was a proposed law that never would have passed in a fair and uncontrolled referendum of the states.

It could not have passed with a normal process. There were 16 slave states in the Union that would not have voted for it, and it would have taken an additional 48 "free" states to pass it against the will of those 16.

In other words, it was legally impossible to abolish slavery through constitutional amendment.

If you do things legally. If you just pretend a state has passed an amendment, it isn't really legal, is it? It's despotism masquerading as "Democracy."

I would comment on your previous hypothetical if you just told me the war Massachusetts lost which required the victorious side's Generals to administer the State transitioning peacefully into the federal government and their laws.

Where does it say in the law that losing a war abolishes all your rights under the constitution?

And for what it's worth, Massachusetts asserted a right to secede long before the South started talking about it.

During the Hartford convention of 1814, both Massachusetts and Connecticut threatened to secede from the Union, and rejoin England. They didn't do it, but they certainly threatened to do it.

Their hope is that in their pursuit of this noble goal, they will live long enough to see it through and walk beside the 12th Imam who will climb out of the Well [ in Qom, Iran & having smelled all the blood the Mullahs have spilled to bring him out of the Well ], will lead the extinction level events.

Which is why they are called the Mad Mullahs.

Exactly right. Most people do not know about this, and we need to tell people at every opportunity that this is what those lunatics believe. They *WANT* a nuclear war.

You gotta be outta your mind to allow them to have a nuke.

They *WILL* use it.

Nwrep gets what I am getting at, and I'm surprised you don't.

I'm responding to your message # 8.

"The Constitution includes a mechanism to amend it, and that process was used correctly to make amendments and now the document includes more than just whites."

Which amendments were the ones that made the document include more than just whites?

Well it was the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. How did we get those amendments?

We parked armies in the Southern states, kicked out their existing legislatures, denied all their citizens the right to vote, only allowed the army and carpetbaggers to vote, elected a new fake legislature, which was just a puppet of the Washington DC government, and then this fake legislature "ratified", the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, completely against the will of the actual citizens of those states.

We broke constitutional law to create these amendments.

Now these amendments may very well have been well intentioned, but the method to "ratify" these amendments was completely against the constitutional amendment process.

These amendments were passed *AGAINST* the consent of the governed. That's not how the amendment process is supposed to work. That is how a dictator process works.

Now doubtlessly had the government followed constitutional law, none of those amendments would have passed.

I'm not speaking to the worthiness of the amendments, but any honest person who has studied this period of history would be aware that there is no way in hell the Southern states would have ratified these amendments without puppet governments speaking for them.

Without the Southern state ratifications, none of those amendments could have passed.

So you consider the question "dumb"? I wanted to get you committed to an honest amendment process before I pointed out to you that the process I outlined above is *HOW* we got those three amendments.

Now Nwrep has already indicated he knew where I was going with this, and he said it was just fine using the army to force states to "ratify" amendments under certain circumstances.

Well this is such an outrageous statement I knew he had to have figured out what I meant, and he just ignores how great of a constitutional violation it is to use the army to "ratify" an amendment.

So there it is. You are free to agree with him, or you are free to agree with me. I suspect you will go the "special case" route and agree with him, but I put it out there so that you and others can understand how I view a system that uses the army to suppress the will of the people in their own states.

I cannot but suspect this is the real reason for her objections.

There are people who would not do what is in the United States best interests simply because it might help Israel.

They are putting their hatred of Israel ahead of their love for their own country.