The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Lies are not legitimate

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: They are legitimate. (see in situ)

Lies are not legitimate

Look old_aldy if you can't back up what you are saying, if all you get to do is to just say it is true, without actually having anything to back it up, then you are a practicing dictator, or a parrot, like all the rest, and of what concern is that of mine?

Your response to what I said, reasonably, legitimately, is for you to ask me for some measure of proof that can back up what I say.

I have some proof, certainly more than none, which is all the liars have when they lie, they can claim half truths, but that merely covers up their lies, those half truths are lies by omission.

"These papers also pointed out how dangerous the Constitution would be without a Bill of Rights."

That is a very interesting perspective you have in view, exactly that exemplifies this false discussion we appear to be having at this moment. If you can stop dictating to me, your viewpoint, then a discussion can begin. What exactly is written in any Federalist Paper, and by whom was it written, and how do those written words point out "how dangerous the Constitution would be without a Bill of Rights"?

"Fed paper forty-six I found interesting because it talks about the contention between the state and the federal governments. It also mentioned how powerful we the people would be while armed to protect the state and themselves from the federal government overstepping it's jurisdiction."

The case has been made, not by me, I can quote sources, whereby The Federalist Papers were written by Nationalists pretending to be Federalists and they were no such thing.

The Federalist Papers are on par with "Read my lips: No New Taxes" and Elect me because I will keep us out of war, and any other campaign promise that is promised with the goal in mind to become a dictator and then do what all the dictators ever do throughout history.

If you do not understand that then you can take up your argument with someone other than me, I see no point in arguing, I don't OWN the viewpoint, the viewpoint offered was common knowledge, is common knowledge, among those who know the facts.

You don't know, so, how does that have anything to do with me?

The Federalist Papers were written to sell the usurpation, known now as The Constitution, by claiming that The Constitution will do this, and The Constitution will do that, and we the "Federalist" (tongue most certainly in cheek) promise to be good ole' boys when elected into our new offices, and have no fear, ever again, we the good ole' boys, us "Federalists" (ha, ha, ha, all the way to our Monopoly Bank fools) will (he he he he, this is so funny, there is one born every minute) we "Federalists" will, ahhhh, we, ahhhhh, (what do they want to hear again, oh, yea) we will help you, we are your government friends.

Right, and the dupes, an the fellow criminals, took the deal.

I didn't.

Neither did many of the people locked up in Philadelphia under gag orders, they refused the "deal", and neither did all those actual Con-federalists, or Republicans, or Democratic Republicans, who were falsely labeled as Anti-Federalists, they too did not take the deal, because they knew it was a Confidence Scheme.

The Bill of Rights, as far as I know, were a result of the Democratic Republicans (falsely named Anti-Federalists) fighting against the Nationalists (hiding behind a false name of Federalists) because those Nationalists meant to create a Central Bank Monopoly Dictatorship.

At least one, and not me, smelled a rat.

You bought the lie hook line and sinker? You are a so called patriot, because you've been had so well?

Is that the story here?

"Problem is, maybe this is what you're referring to, the Constitution is designed to restrain the civil governments as long as those who govern were to govern righteously and respecting the Constitution. These civil servants were to promote that which is good and bring terror to that which is evil. Men in office today, ha, are no near what we need in office."

Problem is, you are ignorant, apparently, or I am, along with all the people whose information managed to find its way to me, and there is no such things s "civil servants" in Common Law.

We jurors in common law are all civilized people serving our own Liberty as we see fit, without your help, or any other pretender to some nebulous throne of "publiK service".

The Constitution, apparently, paved the way for Admiralty Law, for the British Monarchy, so named (a useful false front at the time), to retake the POWER to subjugate everyone who can be subjugated (with lies, threats of violence, and violence made legal) in "The Colonies".

Under The Articles of Confederation each free man (those with the POWER to be free) freed themselves.

OK, so forget me, I'm just another idiot living today.


English words. Our duty is to stop paying criminals who run government. Call it the anti legal extortion document.

You can interpret it any way you want.

Then came The Articles of Confederation.

That was a voluntary agreement among large State armies of defense whereby those State governors (of those volunteer armies) decide to agree to form an imperfect Union, but much better, much more perfect, than an INVOLUNTARY Union (extortion racket).

The Articles of Confederation worked well enough to drive off the largest Aggressive War Machine (dogs of war) on the Planet Earth at that time, and the Armies of all the cities, towns, counties, and States, were all volunteers.

Then after the British left the governors of the armies of Massachusetts began to persecute their own Aggressive Wars for profit by invading Canada and they lost. Those criminals in those offices tried the same Central Banking/Tax scam as The British (carbon copies) and there was then what has been accurately called the last battle of the Revolution in Massachusetts and the name of that last battle has a False Front Label on it now and that False Front (for publik consumption) is Shays's Rebellion.

The Revolutionary Warriors lost the battle, which was their Duty according to The Declaration of Independence, to fight against criminals in government, but they lost, but the losers were not going to be kidnapped and enslaved so those potential slaves, having lost their Revolution in Massachusetts, fled, as in "runaway slaves" to Vermont.

Under the Articles of Confederation the "FEDS" could not do anything, there weren't any "FEDS", so when the criminals running Massachusetts demanded their runaway slaves back from the Patriots running Vermont, those Patriots running Vermont did the right thing, they did not kidnap the slaves and return the slaves back to their masters in Massachusetts.

You don't get it, you won't get it, because you are duped?

What happens next is that Robert, the Robber, Morris rings up Alexander Hamilton, warning, warning, our Central Bank is in danger, and then Al finds George and pulls George out of retirement, and they cook up a false story about fixing the Articles of Confederation to pay the war profiteers back "on par", in gold, for their generous no bid contracts to supply the war effort with counterfeit supplies, remember how Georgie Boy had shoes but HIS soldiers went barefoot?

The real deal wasn't "fixing" The Articles of Confederation, unless the meaning of "fixing" depends upon what is IS.

The real deal was to make it legal to return runaway slaves back to their masters.

You may or may not have heard of The Dirty Compromise, but I'm certain you have heard of the 3/5ths clause, and it ain't Santa Clause, unless you are a Master wanting to make your way of life legal.

"I guess I'd disagree with you saying the purpose of the Constitution is a lie.

You can leave me out of it. Take up your argument with the people who were at the usurpation in Philadelphia where the Nationalists laid out their evil plans for only those in attendance to hear, as those same criminals placed a gag order on those attending.

I'm just another stupefied minion in Modern Times, so leave me out.


"Maybe this is what you mean? When the people are no longer a virtuous people then the Constitution, just as any other document written by man, would fail to restrain the a power hungry federal government."

No, I don't mean what you place in my mind by some magic trick, I mean exactly what I said, not some half baked falsehood parroted by the well brain washed masses. You want to blame anyone but those responsible, fine with me, I've heard that lie many times now.

You can have your lies, I'll have no part of it.

Thanks anyway.

"Have a blessed day."

Without your "help" I take it?