“then the States CHECK that wandering off of the limits of the supply being oversupplied by refusing to pay any more Union dues.”
That word “union” brought a whole new meaning to me just now. I remember you speaking to me about the labor union you were “asked” to join. I remember you told me you could not work when the “union” was on strike. I think you also told me something about “union” pay…the con con was a “union?” The kind where dues are not optional? Is that what you are trying to get me to understand…in the terms of the states being forced to join a labor union…and those states include individuals that used to be free from the “Union?”
“If crime will happen then a power must exist by which the criminals are not powerful enough to overpower their victims and that is The BABY.”
The Baby = finding the power that exists to mitigate the criminal power
“When Baby meets Bathwater, the baby knows, and probably cries, or screams, so why can't we hear such things, as it happens often enough?”
I think it is because people do not know there is a baby and people do not know there is a bath water because there has been a con con and a con is not a con unless someone is conned.
“So who is going to act now, and will they be in the hull, or will they be nailed to wooden boards and paraded about town to let everyone else know what happens when someone questions the order to provide the means by which we suffer?”
I am not feeling brave. I suppose you make it too real. Those people in Washington, they are not real. Those people who face judges and get thrown into the hull, they are real. I know that is not logical, but it is the way my mind is working at the moment.
“If someone is speeding down a road where children will be wandering into the street then shooting the driver dead before he proceeds another block could work out to be the lesser of two evils, if, in fact, the driver would have plowed through a dozen children killing or torturing all 12”
Is that not preemptive justice? Isn’t that the problem with the wars in the middle east…preemption of the boogie man that may or may not be?
What if someone speeding down a child inhabited street gets a ticket and goes to courtand play common law?
“What is the specific question?”
The specific question is, if someone breaks the speed limit and is pulled over and given a ticket is it just to go to court and use common law to “get out” of paying the ticket? If common law is a grand thing, why use it in such a degrading way. Why not just drive the speed limit, or if you break the law pay the fine for breaking the known law?
“Why be ambiguous?”
I wasn’t trying to be ambiguous.
Who benefits from what?
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: