# Gotta LOVE Ga



## Beach Kowboy

I am all for drug testing welfare recipients. People sucking the government tit shouldn't be worried if they are not using the money for illegal drugs.. Ga is now for testing for drugs which EVERY OTHER ****ING STATE SHOULD BE!!! Anyone against it are probablyhttp://news.yahoo.com/georgia-governor-signs-law-drug-test-welfare-recipients-232311775--finance.html on drugs and I couldn't give a **** about.. If you are on welfare, you should have to jump thru hoops for as long as it takes. That is the problem, people use welfare as income and not as a stepping stone.
http://news.yahoo.com/georgia-gover...st-welfare-recipients-232311775--finance.html

Personally, In my OPINION. Anyone using welfare as an income rather than a stepping stone should have a bullet put behind the ear!! You are one of the ****ing reasons our country is going to shit and deserve to die a slow horrible death.. To hell with it, I hope your entire bloodline dies as well. If you are willing to milk our system, your family probably will too..

People are pissing and whining about drug tests and welfare.. 99.99 percent of them are against it because they ****ing know they are buying weed or whatever other drug with the welfare money. The rest are selling food stamps for 10 cents on the dollar so they can buy drugs or other shit they couldn't normally buy with food stamps!!!

I am ALL for helping people that need a helping hand temporarily. Those that use welfare as a regular source of income can die a slow horrible death as far as I'm concerned though..


----------



## Casie

My husband and I had to take a drug test to EARN the money that paid the taxes to fund the welfare programs. The least they can do is drug test the people they dole our hard earned money out to.


----------



## Inor

NO GOVERNMENT WELFARE PERIOD!!!! I am a pretty generous guy when I get to choose who gets charity and who does not. But I resent the hell out of the fact that that the government gets to decide who I have to be nice to. Screw that. If you are down on your luck and truly need some help, fine. Go to your local church. If they see your need is genuine they MIGHT CHOOSE to help. And if the church is in my area, I MIGHT CHOOSE to help them help you. But they may also require you to serve them. If that is unacceptable, fine... STARVE! If you approach me on the street asking for a handout, SHOW ME (not tell me) why you deserve it and I will probably double what you are asking for. If that is unacceptable, fine... STARVE. I do not care about your mother being a coke addict or your father being in prison. I do not care if you grew up in a disadvantaged neighborhood. At the end of the day, all I really care about is what you are doing today so you do not have to ask me (or anybody else) for a handout next week. If you can demonstrate that, I am plenty happy to pitch in and give you a hand. Otherwise, feel free to STARVE.


----------



## James m

I know Pennsylvania is working or trying a work requirement for Medicaid.
Wouldn't that be like a parallel universe. More people working less people collecting. 
But what would really happen is more people stealing.


----------



## The Resister

Casie almost stole my thunder, but here it is:

"_The* right* of the people to be secure in their *persons*, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized_." Fourth Amendment

*WHERE* is the probable cause to believe that just because a person falls on hard times that they do illegal drugs?

"_No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; *nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself*, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation_." Fifth Amendment

You did not have to do a drug test in order to pay for the benefit AND it is YOUR money. So, what in the Hell justifies forfeiting a constitutional Liberty in order to get something you are owed by virtue of paying the tax? Does the Constitution not account for *anything* so long as you get your political agenda addressed??? Can't you see the long term ramifications of weakening the Bill of Rights? Really?

How is it even relevant that a person does drugs if they genuinely need help? Try me better idea:

The social worker assigned to your case should have to get you off welfare asap. Their promotions and even their jobs should hinge on that one thing. The social worker should monitor your progress once you become a public charge. If a welfare recipient cannot find a job, the social worker should be looking into what skills the recipient has or does not have and address that aspect of it. Their job hunt should be documented and the social worker should verify the recipient is getting out of bed and actually looking. If a person is being denied job opportunities, the company should be queried in order to make sure welfare recipients are not being discriminated against.

WE could do a LOT to make sure welfare is scaled back, but forfeiting constitutional Liberties was plain stupid by any standards... unless you are a socialist. BTW, I do not do drugs... I don't even drink coffee nor smoke cigarettes.


----------



## Chipper

If you can't pass a drug test to get your welfare you most likely can't pass a drug test to get a fricken job. Which has nothing to do with your "RIGHTS". Your either a loser or not, pretty simple. You made the decision to do the illegal drugs, face the consequences.


----------



## tango

Gov. Scott, here in Florida, tried to pass the drug test for welfare recipients, but a judge shot it down.
Don't be surprised if the same happens in Ga., or anywhere else.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

The Resister said:


> Casie almost stole my thunder, but here it is:
> 
> "_The* right* of the people to be secure in their *persons*, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized_." Fourth Amendment
> 
> *WHERE* is the probable cause to believe that just because a person falls on hard times that they do illegal drugs?
> 
> "_No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; *nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself*, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation_." Fifth Amendment
> 
> You did not have to do a drug test in order to pay for the benefit AND it is YOUR money. So, what in the Hell justifies forfeiting a constitutional Liberty in order to get something you are owed by virtue of paying the tax? Does the Constitution not account for *anything* so long as you get your political agenda addressed??? Can't you see the long term ramifications of weakening the Bill of Rights? Really?
> 
> How is it even relevant that a person does drugs if they genuinely need help? Try me better idea:
> 
> The social worker assigned to your case should have to get you off welfare asap. Their promotions and even their jobs should hinge on that one thing. The social worker should monitor your progress once you become a public charge. If a welfare recipient cannot find a job, the social worker should be looking into what skills the recipient has or does not have and address that aspect of it. Their job hunt should be documented and the social worker should verify the recipient is getting out of bed and actually looking. If a person is being denied job opportunities, the company should be queried in order to make sure welfare recipients are not being discriminated against.
> 
> WE could do a LOT to make sure welfare is scaled back, but forfeiting constitutional Liberties was plain stupid by any standards... unless you are a socialist. BTW, I do not do drugs... I don't even drink coffee nor smoke cigarettes.


Applying for welfare is a voluntary act. The state is not forcing anyone to submit to a drug test. If a person does not wish to be tested they simply need not apply for welfare.


----------



## Denton

The Resister said:


> I don't even drink coffee nor smoke cigarettes.


What are you? Some kind of weirdo? :lol:


----------



## oldmurph58

Casie said:


> My husband and I had to take a drug test to EARN the money that paid the taxes to fund the welfare programs. The least they can do is drug test the people they dole our hard earned money out to.


You and me both. Every nursing job i've had i've been tested. They tested us a lot in the Army too.


----------



## The Resister

rice paddy daddy said:


> Applying for welfare is a voluntary act. The state is not forcing anyone to submit to a drug test. If a person does not wish to be tested they simply need not apply for welfare.


It's damn well *not* voluntary to have my hard earned wages stolen from me via taxes on the pretext of funding a welfare system. Let me exit the system and I'll stand good for my own welfare. Problem solved.


----------



## The Resister

Chipper said:


> If you can't pass a drug test to get your welfare you most likely can't pass a drug test to get a fricken job. Which has nothing to do with your "RIGHTS". Your either a loser or not, pretty simple. You made the decision to do the illegal drugs, face the consequences.


Spoken like a tried and true NATIONAL SOCIALIST. I don't do drugs son. I never have and probably never will. We have become subject to a lot of taxes that are illegal, unconstitutional, immoral, reprehensible and indefensible. Yet, got to give you credit... you are trying.

This is America, NOT Nazi Germany. In a de jure, constitutional Republic you have a RIGHT to a presumption of innocence. *IF*, based on probable cause, the LEO community suspects that you've committed a crime, then they can investigate. You do not (again, in a constitutional Republic) have to be a witness against yourself. This absolute rubbish about taking drugs is voluntary is meaningless.

If we apply searches the way you advocate, one might end up undergoing a "_background check_" and asked if they own a gun as a prerequisite to getting their children in school. The most popular response here on how one would handle keeping their firearms in a confiscation is to claim they are lost. Yeah, the battle plan is to LIE. Why not stand up for the Constitution NOW so that you don't have to lie in the future? Hitler told the Jews that unless they had something to hide, they shouldn't mind these "_searches_." Here's one for you Chipper: Although I don't do drugs, the issue is no damn body's business and if the government wants to investigate it, they should proceed based upon warrants that were obtained WITHOUT FORCING ME TO BE COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST MYSELF.

Applying for welfare is not a voluntary act. It's an act of desperation. However, if you have reservations about me drawing money out of a system I was forced to pay into, give me my money back, take me off the rolls and I'll agree to never take any welfare.


----------



## The Resister

tango said:


> Gov. Scott, here in Florida, tried to pass the drug test for welfare recipients, but a judge shot it down.
> Don't be surprised if the same happens in Ga., or anywhere else.


It will be one of the few issues that a judge and I will agree on.


----------



## The Resister

cam19 said:


> This is one of the two steps in the right direction Georgia is doing. The other is the Guns everywhere law. But, like inor said NO GOVERNMENT WELFARE PERIOD is best solution.


National Socialism is *NEVER* the solution. What America does not need is expanded laws allowing for witch hunts and warrant less searches. Each new law allows for more and more government intervention.

While no welfare would be a better alternative to pacify the extremists, it just ain't gonna happen. Too many people have too much to gain.

Again, rather than to throw the burden onto those who apply for welfare, you would be better served to put the burden on the government. Let those who dole out the welfare have their paychecks tied to the number of people they *take off* welfare. Quit creating busy jobs for more bureaucrats. Once they have to work to earn their money, the government will clamp down on the numbers of people that qualify for money.


----------



## The Resister

*FWIW* on this topic:

Jack Kingston is running for the U.S. Senate in Georgia. He was endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. His BIG ISSUE on his tv ads is to make people work to earn their welfare check. Here's the rest of the story:

A man by the name of David ran an identical campaign. He came up with the idea known as "_workfare_." David once stood on city streets and solicited for members for the American Nazi Party while he was in college. Later he would become a major Ku Klux Klan figure and state representative. This all started back in the late 1970s and went until maybe the early 1990s. You may remember David Duke.

Workfare was struck down in the courts and, most likely, it will be struck down in Georgia for the wrong reasons. Usually judges strike down such legislation as it violates the "_civil rights_" of the people. Bad legislation only empowers the government and expands these idiotic "_civil rights_" over constitutional Liberties. I hate to break it to you, but if you give a rat's ass about the Constitution, that bill was definitely NOT a win for the Constitution. It's a net loss - and a bigger loss after the courts strike it down... and we won't even mention the PR nightmare.


----------



## Inor

The Resister said:


> Again, rather than to throw the burden onto those who apply for welfare, you would be better served to put the burden on the government. Let those who dole out the welfare have their paychecks tied to the number of people they *take off* welfare. Quit creating busy jobs for more bureaucrats. Once they have to work to earn their money, the government will clamp down on the numbers of *people that qualify for money*.


"_People that qualify for money_"?!? What exactly is it that qualifies someone to take the money, that I rightfully earned, by the force of law? If you want to talk about civil rights, that violates *MY* civil rights!

Screw the welfare rats! If somebody is going to demand that I fork over a percentage of my hard earned income to pay for their living expenses, I should get some good or service from the bargain. Forcing me to give up a portion of the income that I earned without compensation, under the threat of incarceration or forfeiture of my assets is a violation of my 13th Amendment rights.


----------



## The Resister

Inor said:


> "_People that qualify for money_"?!? What exactly is it that qualifies someone to take the money, that I rightfully earned, by the force of law? If you want to talk about civil rights, that violates *MY* civil rights!
> 
> Screw the welfare rats! If somebody is going to demand that I fork over a percentage of my hard earned income to pay for their living expenses, I should get some good or service from the bargain. Forcing me to give up a portion of the income that I earned without compensation, under the threat of incarceration or forfeiture of my assets is a violation of my 13th Amendment rights.


In *theory* you have a point; HOWEVER, they take my money too. Sooo, if I should ever need my money because I've lost my job or whatever then I should be able to get it back. The focus, Inor, today is on the welfare recipient and NOT the government that is stealing the money in the first place. There is no way in Hell we have the clout to stop welfare. Remember, on this board I was shouted down for opposing the 16th Amendment.

The government steals our money under the pretext that we can have an available fund to draw from. Then the government is exempted from rational laws that apply to the business world. For example, the government doesn't even have to guarantee you the principal amount you put into these Socialist Security and welfare schemes. They even bankrupted Socialist Security! What would happen, Inor, if you and I did that to a pension fund? Would we not be sent to prison?

Well, we know the solution, but you have to be realistic. The National Socialists want to increase the size, power and scope of government. Realizing that I cannot stop welfare, I simply shift the burden back onto government.

Finally, IF people are truly needy, then they could draw out of the system. You take cases like my wife's son (by a previous marriage.) The mofo won't work, will never work and as long as we give money to people that are capable of working but won't, the costs for welfare will continue to eat us out of house and home. Make the government put mofos like him to work OR lose their jobs in the government sector.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> Casie almost stole my thunder, but here it is:
> 
> "_The* right* of the people to be secure in their *persons*, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized_." Fourth Amendment
> 
> *WHERE* is the probable cause to believe that just because a person falls on hard times that they do illegal drugs?
> 
> "_No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; *nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself*, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation_." Fifth Amendment
> 
> You did not have to do a drug test in order to pay for the benefit AND it is YOUR money. So, what in the Hell justifies forfeiting a constitutional Liberty in order to get something you are owed by virtue of paying the tax? Does the Constitution not account for *anything* so long as you get your political agenda addressed??? Can't you see the long term ramifications of weakening the Bill of Rights? Really?
> 
> How is it even relevant that a person does drugs if they genuinely need help? Try me better idea:
> 
> The social worker assigned to your case should have to get you off welfare asap. Their promotions and even their jobs should hinge on that one thing. The social worker should monitor your progress once you become a public charge. If a welfare recipient cannot find a job, the social worker should be looking into what skills the recipient has or does not have and address that aspect of it. Their job hunt should be documented and the social worker should verify the recipient is getting out of bed and actually looking. If a person is being denied job opportunities, the company should be queried in order to make sure welfare recipients are not being discriminated against.
> 
> WE could do a LOT to make sure welfare is scaled back, but forfeiting constitutional Liberties was plain stupid by any standards... unless you are a socialist. BTW, I do not do drugs... I don't even drink coffee nor smoke cigarettes.


If you don't want to take a drug test then don't. No one will force you to. You just can't get welfare if you don't. You do NOT have a Constitutional RIGHT to welfare, so is NOT violating your Constitutional RIGHTS to require you to take a drug test in order to get welfare, no more then it is for you to pass a drug test in order to get some jobs.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> *FWIW* on this topic:
> 
> Jack Kingston is running for the U.S. Senate in Georgia. He was endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. His BIG ISSUE on his tv ads is to make people work to earn their welfare check. Here's the rest of the story:
> 
> A man by the name of David ran an identical campaign. He came up with the idea known as "_workfare_." David once stood on city streets and solicited for members for the American Nazi Party while he was in college. Later he would become a major Ku Klux Klan figure and state representative. This all started back in the late 1970s and went until maybe the early 1990s. You may remember David Duke.
> 
> Workfare was struck down in the courts and, most likely, it will be struck down in Georgia for the wrong reasons. Usually judges strike down such legislation as it violates the "_civil rights_" of the people. Bad legislation only empowers the government and expands these idiotic "_civil rights_" over constitutional Liberties. I hate to break it to you, but if you give a rat's ass about the Constitution, that bill was definitely NOT a win for the Constitution. It's a net loss - and a bigger loss after the courts strike it down... and we won't even mention the PR nightmare.


Jack Kingston is NOT David Duke, and has not EVER been a member of the KKK or Nazi party as you seem to be implying. It does NOT violate anyone's Constitutional Rights to make them work in order to get welfare. Welfare is NOT a Constitutional RIGHT. You don't want to work for welfare? Fine. It's your choice. Go out and get a job then. Your choice.


----------



## Inor

The Resister said:


> In *theory* you have a point; HOWEVER, they take my money too. Sooo, if I should ever need my money because I've lost my job or whatever then I should be able to get it back. The focus, Inor, today is on the welfare recipient and NOT the government that is stealing the money in the first place.


The focus SHOULD be on the welfare recipient AS WELL AS the government! The welfare rats are using the government as a tool to rob us. It is no different than them using a gun, but using the government is more effective. And no, you should not "get it back" because it should have never been taken from you in the first place. I would happily let the government keep the several hundred thousand dollars they have stolen from me for SSI if they would just terminate the program immediately!



The Resister said:


> There is no way in Hell we have the clout to stop welfare. Remember, on this board I was shouted down for opposing the 16th Amendment.


I have certainly never shouted you down for wanting to repeal the 16th Amendment. The only thing I would shout about in regards to repealing 16th is that you should also include the 17th and 26th as well.



The Resister said:


> The government steals our money under the pretext that we can have an available fund to draw from. Then the government is exempted from rational laws that apply to the business world. For example, the government doesn't even have to guarantee you the principal amount you put into these Socialist Security and welfare schemes. They even bankrupted Socialist Security! What would happen, Inor, if you and I did that to a pension fund? Would we not be sent to prison?


You are absolutely correct about how the government would react if we pulled the same B.S. as them. But, you are only partially correct holding the government 100% responsible for stealing our money. The other part is the welfare rats insisting that their corrupt politicians do the deed for them and allowing the government to keep a percentage of what they steal.



The Resister said:


> Well, we know the solution, but you have to be realistic. The National Socialists want to increase the size, power and scope of government. Realizing that I cannot stop welfare, I simply shift the burden back onto government.
> 
> Finally, IF people are truly needy, then they could draw out of the system. You take cases like my wife's son (by a previous marriage.) The mofo won't work, will never work and as long as we give money to people that are capable of working but won't, the costs for welfare will continue to eat us out of house and home. Make the government put mofos like him to work OR lose their jobs in the government sector.


I think it perfectly reasonable and realistic to treat the welfare rats that are stealing my money through taxation the same way we treat all other felons that steal money from us at gunpoint. I.E. They lose their right to vote. They lose their 2nd Amendment rights. They need to check in with a parol officer weekly. Etc. The only difference between a welfare rat and an armed robber is their methods; the result is the same - taking money that does not belong to them from somebody that rightfully earned it.


----------



## firefighter72

I agree there should be drug testing and they should have to try and get a job. My family had to use food stamps when my mom was in nursing school. We did fine had to go with out some things that we wanted like tv and going out 2 eat but those are wants not needs. Thats one of the other problems is people dont know how to save or spend their money they see something they want and buy it. Then say they can afford food or gas or what ever.


----------



## Armed Iowa

Many welfare recipients are moving here to Iowa from Chicago because Illinois has cut them off. With them they bring the crime and are doing their best to ruin Cedar Rapids ! GO BACK TO CHICAGO !!!


----------



## The Resister

firefighter72 said:


> I agree there should be drug testing and they should have to try and get a job. My family had to use food stamps when my mom was in nursing school. We did fine had to go with out some things that we wanted like tv and going out 2 eat but those are wants not needs. Thats one of the other problems is people dont know how to save or spend their money they see something they want and buy it. Then say they can afford food or gas or what ever.


I support your Right to voice your opinion. It is, nonetheless, a socialist proposition. We still have a presumption of innocence in this country and your position still violates three guaranteed Rights in the Constitution. But, then what the Hell... What do you need a Constitution for???


----------



## The Resister

Inor said:


> The focus SHOULD be on the welfare recipient AS WELL AS the government! The welfare rats are using the government as a tool to rob us. It is no different than them using a gun, but using the government is more effective.
> 
> You are absolutely correct about how the government would react if we pulled the same B.S. as them. But, you are only partially correct holding the government 100% responsible for stealing our money. The other part is the welfare rats insisting that their corrupt politicians do the deed for them and allowing the government to keep a percentage of what they steal.
> 
> I think it perfectly reasonable and realistic to treat the welfare rats that are stealing my money through taxation the same way we treat all other felons that steal money from us at gunpoint. I.E. They lose their right to vote. They lose their 2nd Amendment rights. They need to check in with a parol officer weekly. Etc. The only difference between a welfare rat and an armed robber is their methods; the result is the same - taking money that does not belong to them from somebody that rightfully earned it.


Inor,

By putting the government under scrutiny, you *ARE* watching the welfare recipients. The facts are that most welfare recipients do not vote. Most welfare recipients are not stealing; they are following the lead of government. Allow me to give you an example:

My wife has a son that absolutely will not work. Recently, DFACS had a meeting with this POS and suggested ways he could milk the system so that they could put his step-son back into the home. My wife pays $750 a month so this mofo can sit on his ass, smoking cigarettes and watching Springer. So, DFACS says they cannot put the child back into the home unless he has an apartment and DFACS suggests that the dirtbag hit us up for more money to get an apartment with.

DFACS has not once, not even once suggested that this 28 year old lazy mofo get a GED, a job and start EARNING HIS KEEP. He isn't smart enough to steal from you... he's like a mangy dog that is only taking what his masters are willing to part with. He's not the exception, Inor. He is the RULE! Inor, YOU voted for the people in office. So, if the government is helping people steal, it's because voters are asking their representatives to do idiotic things. That gives me another example:

Inor when you stated "_I.E. They lose their right to vote. They lose their 2nd Amendment rights._.." it shed a lot of light on WHY you should not express a political opinion at this time. You certainly have a Right to, but that don't make it right to do it. You should know, there is NO "Right" to vote. That is a privilege of citizenship.

Now, as to gun Rights, you are advocating National Socialism. The government did not give us a "Right" to keep and bear Arms. Read what the *United States Supreme Court RULED* on this:

"_The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Lower courts had ruled the same way. Take this ruling for instance:

"_The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power_." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

Finally, read this:

"_The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the *right of the people at large or considered as individuals*.... It establishes some rights of the individual as *unalienable* and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of_." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

Inor, your solutions cannot pass constitutional muster. You don't understand the Constitution. Maybe you don't understand the welfare issue either, so maybe you should do a bit more research. You cannot take away a person's *unalienable* Rights.


----------



## Notsoyoung

It is NOT violating anyone's Constitutional Rights to make them take drug tests as a precondition for getting any welfare payments. Welfare is NOT a Constitutional Right, the government does not FORCE anyone to get welfare payments, and if you don't want to take a drug test, no one is FORCING you to.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> It is NOT violating anyone's Constitutional Rights to make them take drug tests as a precondition for getting any welfare payments. Welfare is NOT a Constitutional Right, the government does not FORCE anyone to get welfare payments, and if you don't want to take a drug test, no one is FORCING you to.


The government is forcing the taxpayer to pay into the system; therefore, the constitutional provisions *DO* apply. IF welfare were voluntary, then you'd be right. You fail once again.

The National Socialists are speaking up loud and clear, but the reality remains: Increasing the size, power and scope of government costs YOU more money and takes away YOUR Liberties with no advantage to the citizen.

Notsosmart likes to harp on one side of the accounting ledger and conveniently ignoring the other side. He and I both know that we cannot stop welfare... the best option, so we've got to figure out the best solution.

Forcing people to give up their God given RIGHTS in order to get back money that was stolen through fraud and duress only exacerbates the original issue. Notsosmart likes to emphasize a hatred for the people who have to utilize the system instead of the powers that perpetuate the injustice.


----------



## Inor

The Resister said:


> Inor,
> 
> By putting the government under scrutiny, you *ARE* watching the welfare recipients. The facts are that most welfare recipients do not vote. Most welfare recipients are not stealing; they are following the lead of government. Allow me to give you an example:
> 
> My wife has a son that absolutely will not work. Recently, DFACS had a meeting with this POS and suggested ways he could milk the system so that they could put his step-son back into the home. My wife pays $750 a month so this mofo can sit on his ass, smoking cigarettes and watching Springer. So, DFACS says they cannot put the child back into the home unless he has an apartment and DFACS suggests that the dirtbag hit us up for more money to get an apartment with.
> 
> DFACS has not once, not even once suggested that this 28 year old lazy mofo get a GED, a job and start EARNING HIS KEEP. He isn't smart enough to steal from you... he's like a mangy dog that is only taking what his masters are willing to part with. He's not the exception, Inor. He is the RULE! Inor, YOU voted for the people in office. So, if the government is helping people steal, it's because voters are asking their representatives to do idiotic things. That gives me another example:
> 
> Inor when you stated "_I.E. They lose their right to vote. They lose their 2nd Amendment rights._.." it shed a lot of light on WHY you should not express a political opinion at this time. You certainly have a Right to, but that don't make it right to do it. You should know, there is NO "Right" to vote. That is a privilege of citizenship.
> 
> Now, as to gun Rights, you are advocating National Socialism. The government did not give us a "Right" to keep and bear Arms. Read what the *United States Supreme Court RULED* on this:
> 
> "_The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> 
> United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
> 
> Lower courts had ruled the same way. Take this ruling for instance:
> 
> "_The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power_." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
> 
> Finally, read this:
> 
> "_The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the *right of the people at large or considered as individuals*.... It establishes some rights of the individual as *unalienable* and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of_." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)
> 
> Inor, your solutions cannot pass constitutional muster. You don't understand the Constitution. Maybe you don't understand the welfare issue either, so maybe you should do a bit more research. You cannot take away a person's *unalienable* Rights.


I think you may have missed the point of my diatribe. Welfare rats and maybe more correctly "welfare rights advocates" are using the government as a weapon for stealing from me and every other working American.

I love it when somebody says "you do not understand..." because it usually means I understand better than they want me to. If you will recall my earlier post on this subject, I DO NOT WANT WELFARE AT ALL. Welfare itself is unconstitutional. When the Founders wrote the "General Welfare clause" they were not referring to handouts from the government to individuals or corporations. (Yes - I loathe corporate welfare as much, if not more, than the gutter snipes who demand their government handouts.) I thought you, of all people, would understand and agree that you cannot take something like government handouts that are unconstitutional, immoral, illegal (and a number of other adjectives) and somehow dress it up to be okay.

The point of my last post was to point out that if the welfare rats (and their advocates both in and out of government) are willing to throw away the Constitution and use the government as a weapon against me, then I am prepared to do the same with them. If they want to follow laws and not men, then we will end all government welfare, and I have no fight with them. But if they are going to continue to enact policies that steal from me, I am plenty okay with enacting policies that DO deprive them of their unalienable rights and anything else I can think of to dissuade them from VOLUNTARILY seeking the government's help robbing me. (Edit --) One idea that crossed my mind after I wrote the last post was to invade Haiti and send all of the welfare rats there and just let them screw themselves into the sand.

But one point that you are very correct on Resister: I do not have ANY experience with welfare. I have never been on welfare or unemployment. I do not think I have ever known anybody, at least in my immediate circle of family and friends that has. But I do know that every year for the last 17 years, I have sent the IRS tax checks large enough to buy a fully tricked out Ford F-150 Raptor every year and still have plenty of money left over to fill it with gas (that would be about the same amount as for a loaded BMW 5-series for you legal types ). It pisses me off to the extreme. If the GAO is to be believed, about a third of that money was pissed away to pay the living expenses for welfare jerk-offs.


----------



## SARGE7402

The Resister said:


> Casie almost stole my thunder, but here it is:
> 
> "_The* right* of the people to be secure in their *persons*, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized_." Fourth Amendment
> 
> *WHERE* is the probable cause to believe that just because a person falls on hard times that they do illegal drugs?
> 
> "_No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; *nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself*, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation_." Fifth Amendment
> 
> You did not have to do a drug test in order to pay for the benefit AND it is YOUR money. So, what in the Hell justifies forfeiting a constitutional Liberty in order to get something you are owed by virtue of paying the tax? Does the Constitution not account for *anything* so long as you get your political agenda addressed??? Can't you see the long term ramifications of weakening the Bill of Rights? Really?
> 
> How is it even relevant that a person does drugs if they genuinely need help? Try me better idea:
> 
> The social worker assigned to your case should have to get you off welfare asap. Their promotions and even their jobs should hinge on that one thing. The social worker should monitor your progress once you become a public charge. If a welfare recipient cannot find a job, the social worker should be looking into what skills the recipient has or does not have and address that aspect of it. Their job hunt should be documented and the social worker should verify the recipient is getting out of bed and actually looking. If a person is being denied job opportunities, the company should be queried in order to make sure welfare recipients are not being discriminated against.
> 
> WE could do a LOT to make sure welfare is scaled back, but forfeiting constitutional Liberties was plain stupid by any standards... unless you are a socialist. BTW, I do not do drugs... I don't even drink coffee nor smoke cigarettes.


Resister you are right about having to prove your innocence. You are not right on having to take mandatory drug tests to earn it. When I moved to Corps HQ in 97 they had a mandatory rand0m (guess they had it at my other job too) drug tests every month. Got to wonder about it's randomness when in a twelve month period I got selected 8 times. and I don't know of any PD job here in VA for a big city or state that you don't have to pee in a bottle to get the job.


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> Resister you are right about having to prove your innocence. You are not right on having to take mandatory drug tests to earn it. When I moved to Corps HQ in 97 they had a mandatory rand0m (guess they had it at my other job too) drug tests every month. Got to wonder about it's randomness when in a twelve month period I got selected 8 times. and I don't know of any PD job here in VA for a big city or state that you don't have to pee in a bottle to get the job.


Just because one is being *forced *to forfeit their Rights does NOT in any way, shape, fashion or form make it legal or right. You cannot perpetuate tyranny and profess Freedom in the hopes of saving America.

When you take a job for the government, you fall under another category of persons and you voluntarily agree to give up some of your constitutional guarantees. The difference, as I keep pointing out with welfare is that each of is us* FORCED *to pay into the system. It is absolutely ludicrous for you guys to keep lobbying for tyranny in favor of the government by telling me I have to give up my *unalienable Rights* in order to recoup MY money which was taken by *FORCE*.

Random drug tests, "_background checks_" in order to exercise a constitutional Right, warrant less searches, a drug test in order to get a job and things of such nature run contrary to the* Fourth Amendment* to the Constitution. The government may have the *Power* to enforce such laws, but they lack the *AUTHORITY* to do so. In a de jure (lawful) Republic each of us has a Right, a duty and an obligation to oppose unconstitutional laws. Let me leave you with the *United States Supreme Court's* take on this:

"_The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows_:

_The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

*No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it*_."

Unconstitutional Official Acts (16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256)


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> The government is forcing the taxpayer to pay into the system; therefore, the constitutional provisions *DO* apply. IF welfare were voluntary, then you'd be right. You fail once again.
> 
> The National Socialists are speaking up loud and clear, but the reality remains: Increasing the size, power and scope of government costs YOU more money and takes away YOUR Liberties with no advantage to the citizen.
> 
> Notsosmart likes to harp on one side of the accounting ledger and conveniently ignoring the other side. He and I both know that we cannot stop welfare... the best option, so we've got to figure out the best solution.
> 
> Forcing people to give up their God given RIGHTS in order to get back money that was stolen through fraud and duress only exacerbates the original issue. Notsosmart likes to emphasize a hatred for the people who have to utilize the system instead of the powers that perpetuate the injustice.


Once again, no one is FORCING anyone to give up their God Given Rights. They are not making anyone take drug test to pay into welfare, only if you VOLUNTARILY want to take money out of it. Frankly I think the ones protesting the loudest about it are those who go for decades without working and for some reason THEY start screaming about THEIR Constitutional Rights when it comes to taking a drug test in order take money from others. They DON'T have a Constitutional Right to welfare and it is NOT violating their God Given Rights to make them take a drug test if they want to get free money. It's entirely up to them. Don't want to take a drug test? GET A JOB.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

The Resister said:


> I support your Right to voice your opinion. It is, nonetheless, a socialist proposition. We still have a presumption of innocence in this country and your position still violates three guaranteed Rights in the Constitution. But, then what the Hell... What do you need a Constitution for???


And welfare is NOT a "socialist proposition"?
You can't have it both ways.


----------



## The Resister

rice paddy daddy said:


> And welfare is NOT a "socialist proposition"?
> You can't have it both ways.


Have you ever, even once had a lucid thought? If so, it sure as Hell hasn't been on this board. I have, at the very least, stated that NO WELFARE is the best possible solution. *HOWEVER*, the majority of the voters will *never, ever *allow that to happen. So, you go with the best possible option left on the table.

Since the money to fund welfare *comes out of the pocket of taxpayers,* then the taxpayers have a Right to draw upon that fund if they become unemployed and need financial assistance within the parameters by which the money was collected. For instance, welfare is for the needy not the greedy nor the lazy mofos that simply don't want to work.

Dim bulbs like Notsosmart want you to believe that if a person is drug free, they should be able to get welfare. He and I differ on that point. I think that welfare should be used as hand up, not a hand out. I personally don't give a flying **** if you have never done drugs, don't smoke, drink coffee, and never cursed a day in your life. If you are not actively trying to be productive with your life, you should not get welfare.

With that in mind, the best way to solve the problem is to make sure that those who dole out welfare payments earn their money by *taking people off the welfare dole*. You'd be surprised how resourceful a person could get if their job, promotions and raises were tied to the number of people they took off the dole and put back to work.

But, I'm not a socialist for realizing that you cannot insure Liberty by building a bigger and more intrusive government. That rice paddy daddy is the ultimate expression of stupidity in our never ending debate. How many times does your dumb ass have to be told, that in theory, I would vote to eliminate welfare? How many ****ing times? Are you plain stupid OR do you assume everyone else is just because you got a burr up your ass when I vote NOT to increase the size, power and scope of government???


----------



## The Resister

Slippy said:


> Hey Resister,
> I've had enough of your shit. Shut the **** up and try and understand where the man is coming from. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and I know you understand some of the basics of the Constitution but you are way out of line in regards to RPD. Apologize right the **** now dipshit.


Eat me. You should mind your own damn business. RPD accused me of something you and he both know full well I didn't say. You want to defend your lover? Try doing it with something besides a keyboard commando challenge. **** you and the horse you rode in on.


----------



## The Resister

There seems to be an effort to derail this thread because a few people cannot read the English language nor can they offer HONEST criticisms. Now, slippy wants to pretend to be a bad ass.

The people who are trying to criticize me have one consistency: Regardless of the issue they want to increase the size, power and scope of government. They propose to increase taxes, take away your constitutional Liberties, and take a giant shit on the Constitution. Since they cannot defend themselves, they have to lie to you about what I said; they have to change the subject; they want to turn every thread that challenges their love of BIG GOVERNMENT into a pissing match.

I'll say this one more time: * I WILL NEVER SUPPORT ANY LEGISLATION THAT INCREASES THE SIZE, POWER AND / OR SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT*.

Expecting government officials to be held accountable and earn their jobs, promotions and raises is no vice. It does not jeopardize the Constitution. When I'm *FORCED* to put money into a fund that I need to "_prove_" I'm not a criminal in order to take that money out is unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, reprehensible, and indefensible. THAT and no other reason is why this thread had to degenerate into a personality contest instead of an honest exchange. Rice Paddy Daddy started it with a lie and his democrat friends won't let this end without an attempt to give that lie credibility by repeating it over and over.... was that not a technique used by Hitler????


----------



## rice paddy daddy

Slippy said:


> Ain't no keyboard commando challenge, you know that and I know that. So shut the **** up and apologize to the man that you are not worthy to carry his jock strap. You can act like you are some big time shit and I've defended your ass many times on this forum so do the right thing.


It don't mean nothin', Slippy.
I scrape "Resister" off the bottom of my boots every time I leave the barn.
He's just a legend in his own mind.


----------



## The Resister

rice paddy daddy said:


> It don't mean nothin', Slippy.
> I scrape "Resister" off the bottom of my boots every time I leave the barn.
> He's just a legend in his own mind.


You've got a few people here believing you are some kind of legend so you keep the personality contest going. I will repeat my post over and over:

There seems to be an effort to derail this thread because a few people cannot read the English language nor can they offer *HONEST* criticisms. Now, slippy wants to pretend to be a bad ass.

The people who are trying to criticize me have one consistency: Regardless of the issue *they want to increase the size, power and scope of government*. They propose to increase taxes, take away your constitutional Liberties, and take a giant shit on the Constitution. Since they cannot defend themselves, they have to lie to you about what I said; they have to change the subject; they want to turn every thread that challenges their love of BIG GOVERNMENT into a pissing match.

I'll say this one more time:* I WILL NEVER SUPPORT ANY LEGISLATION THAT INCREASES THE SIZE, POWER AND / OR SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT.*

Expecting government officials to be held *accountable and earn* their jobs, promotions and raises is no vice. It does not jeopardize the Constitution. When I'm *FORCED* to put money into a fund that I need to "_prove_" I'm not a criminal in order to take that money out is unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, reprehensible, and indefensible. *THAT* and no other reason is why this thread had to degenerate into a personality contest instead of an honest exchange. Rice Paddy Daddy started it with a lie and his democrat friends won't let this end without an attempt to give that lie credibility by repeating it over and over.... was that not a technique used by Hitler????


----------



## Deebo

I am not justifying this rant, or any behavior, I will say this, "they" want us to argue, instead of make solutions.
I have stated my say, I am nobody. I do regularly chit chat with some great guys and galls on a forum, and hope that my opinion matters, and would ask that we try to be civil. 
If not, ANAL cavity searches for everyone. If you arent doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.


----------



## Deebo

And, please notice, that I do not say FREE anal cavity searches, becouse we will send you the bill. Would you like any lubrication? (extra, not covered by obamacare).


----------



## rice paddy daddy

The Resister said:


> You've got a few people here believing you are some kind of legend so you keep the personality contest going.


Nope. I've never claimed to be anything but what I am in real life. A former truck driver who never got beyond the 12th grade. 
But I do have one attribute that is found in most Vietnam veterans - a highly developed bull shit detector.
Have a nice day!

RPD's word for the day is -- DILLIGAF. Does anyone know the definition? Show of hands, please!


----------



## The Resister

rice paddy daddy said:


> Nope. I've never claimed to be anything but what I am in real life. A former truck driver who never got beyond the 12th grade.
> But I do have one attribute that is found in most Vietnam veterans - a highly developed bull shit detector.
> Have a nice day!
> 
> RPD's word for the day is -- DILLIGAF. Does anyone know the definition? Show of hands, please!


Your bullshit detector is that mustache under your nose smelling what you ate during your last meal. You were a grunt, but you don't want to acknowledge the service of others. I wonder what that would make you.

As for myself, I've had to document virtually every day of my life just to get some semblance of respect. You think a stint as a basic grunt (sorry intel officers have more than a high school education) gives you a monopoly on human virtue. Every time you lose an argument on the facts, you run back to your fail safe - Oh the Resister registers high on my bullshit meter. What a ****ing joke!
*
EVERY* solution and I mean* EVERY solution* you've backed where we disagree ends up with you advocating a bigger and more intrusive government. If anyone with an IQ above 50 would stop to smell the rat, they'd want to ask themselves HONESTLY, why can't good ol' RPD stick to the issue before us and respond to the FACTS.

The fact is, you cannot tell the people *WHY* it's wrong to hold the government accountable and require them to earn their money by taking people off welfare. Your solution is to build a bigger and more intrusive government. The other issue we disagreed on... the one where the shit in your mustache gave you fits... what was it about? Wasn't it YOU defending spending TRILLIONS of dollars on an issue the Ds and Rs disagree with you on? And you wanted to give them more money to do an even shitter job *PLUS* use your very lobbying effort to take down constitutionalists!!!!!

Dude, you really need to take a reality check. I'm not the one trying to empower the federal government. I'm not the one attacking the Fourth and Fifth Amendments on this issue. You really think that stealing from the American people and then not allowing them any recourse is patriotic?? Stealing from taxpayers and then forcing them to give up Rights to get back what they're due is okay? Really? I know why this has to remain a personality contest.

If you didn't give a **** about screwing with me, you would learn how to ignore me. What you're really afraid of is that someone might want to look up the facts. If it weren't for the personality contests, they might actually ask themselves what this is all about.


----------



## The Resister

Deebo said:


> I am not justifying this rant, or any behavior, I will say this, "they" want us to argue, instead of make solutions.
> I have stated my say, I am nobody. I do regularly chit chat with some great guys and galls on a forum, and hope that my opinion matters, and would ask that we try to be civil.
> If not, ANAL cavity searches for everyone. If you arent doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide.


I'm trying my best to be civil, but it gets hard when you have a few people that want to hurl false accusations at you. Yeah, I get mighty perturbed and a few people here do tend to make me fly into a rage.

But, really, I get pissed off when someone attacks me for trying to bring some sanity into these issues. Some people rely on popularity contests and emotion laden buzz words while ignoring the bigger issue. They simply don't understand the big picture with regards to law (especially precedent law); have no knowledge of history; cannot define the difference between a privilege and an *unalienable Right*.

A majority of the American people do not understand the Fourth Amendment. But, the big picture is that the Bill of Rights stands or falls as one BILL. It is the BILL OF *RIGHTS*. If warrant less searches and the forfeiture of Fourth Amendment Rights are allowed to stand, it won't be long before giving up your firearms are a prerequisite to getting your Socialist Security check. Again, *the Bill of Rights is all one law.* If you have no right to recoup welfare money after being forced to pay into it (unless you forfeit your Fourth Amendment Rights) is no different than forfeiting your Second Amendment Rights to get a Socialist Security check or your veteran benefits.


----------



## Inor

The Resister said:


> Have you ever, even once had a lucid thought? If so, it sure as Hell hasn't been on this board. I have, at the very least, stated that NO WELFARE is the best possible solution. *HOWEVER*, the majority of the voters will *never, ever *allow that to happen. So, you go with the best possible option left on the table.
> 
> Since the money to fund welfare *comes out of the pocket of taxpayers,* then the taxpayers have a Right to draw upon that fund if they become unemployed and need financial assistance within the parameters by which the money was collected. For instance, welfare is for the needy not the greedy nor the lazy mofos that simply don't want to work.
> 
> Dim bulbs like Notsosmart want you to believe that if a person is drug free, they should be able to get welfare. He and I differ on that point. I think that welfare should be used as hand up, not a hand out. I personally don't give a flying **** if you have never done drugs, don't smoke, drink coffee, and never cursed a day in your life. If you are not actively trying to be productive with your life, you should not get welfare.
> 
> With that in mind, the best way to solve the problem is to make sure that those who dole out welfare payments earn their money by *taking people off the welfare dole*. You'd be surprised how resourceful a person could get if their job, promotions and raises were tied to the number of people they took off the dole and put back to work.
> 
> But, I'm not a socialist for realizing that you cannot insure Liberty by building a bigger and more intrusive government. That rice paddy daddy is the ultimate expression of stupidity in our never ending debate. How many times does your dumb ass have to be told, that in theory, I would vote to eliminate welfare? How many ****ing times? Are you plain stupid OR do you assume everyone else is just because you got a burr up your ass when I vote NOT to increase the size, power and scope of government???


This is well over the line. RPD was making a very valid point about you wanting it both ways - opposing welfare, but not wanting to do anything (like drug tests) to shrink it. But apparently you do not care to debate and explore our understanding of a subject; you just want to put your opinion out and anybody that challenges you causes you to throw invective after invective. That is something I have noticed over and over again with you. Just a few days ago I called you out for making a post with a link (or a search term) for a picture of yourself at the Supreme Court, then a couple hours later, on the same thread, bitching about losing your anonymity. As my friend RPD says: you cannot have it both ways.

I have read and re-read many of your posts on this site many times. You have criss-crossed your own logic so many times I really do not know from one day to the next what your core beliefs are. Most of us, on this site, live in the real world. We are too busy doing our jobs, building our businesses, taking care of our families and generally enjoying life to spend the time that you obviously spend twisting reality into a pretzel to get it to conform to your looter beliefs.

Yes - YOU ARE A LOOTER (and that is the worst title that I know to bestow on anybody). The several paragraphs you wrote in response to my challenges on this thread illustrate that in glaring detail. You wrote several paragraphs directly to my post that your son was a welfare rat and a loser but that he should still get welfare. Where did he learn that? He didn't learn it from me.

The fact that you would call out RPD or any other vet that was simply questioning your logic is obscene. RPD and millions like him offered their lives to allow YOU the opportunity to spout your bullshit from any street corner you choose. For you to attack him as being "just a grunt" proves what a **** you really are! **** You! **** your sister! And **** your mother! You are nothing but an intellectually dishonest, ungrateful ****!


----------



## The Resister

Slippy said:


> So we meet somewhere in your neck of the woods off of GA 400 and two old guys square off bareknuckles in some gas station parking lot? You bring a couple of your militia boys and I bring a couple of my boys from Academi who set up 1000 yards away with their .338 Lapua Magnums? One of my boys is a black guy. I don't believe in karma but I sure laughed when I watched that stupid TV show My Name is Earl. Slippy ain't no bad ass but being a bad ass is all relative now ain't it? When you and your buddy walk up to the bear all you have to do is outrun your buddy so does that make you a bad ass? It is well documented who you are and like I said, I agree with lots of things you say but your methodology is piss poor bad.
> 
> Most people on this forum are realists, not socialists. Most are not for increasing the size of government and you know that. Change your methodology and you might get something accomplished.
> 
> Slippy The Bad Ass? Hmmmm, I like that but lots of years being a Smart Ass would go to waste.


The thing is slippy: I don't need no militia boys to back me up. I prefer to solve my problems one on one.


----------



## The Resister

Inor said:


> This is well over the line. RPD was making a very valid point about you wanting it both ways - opposing welfare, but not wanting to do anything (like drug tests) to shrink it. But apparently you do not care to debate and explore our understanding of a subject; you just want to put your opinion out and anybody that challenges you causes you to throw invective after invective. That is something I have noticed over and over again with you. Just a few days ago I called you out for making a post with a link (or a search term) for a picture of yourself at the Supreme Court, then a couple hours later, on the same thread, bitching about losing your anonymity. As my friend RPD says: you cannot have it both ways.
> 
> I have read and re-read many of your posts on this site many times. You have criss-crossed your own logic so many times I really do not know from one day to the next what your core beliefs are. Most of us, on this site, live in the real world. We are too busy doing our jobs, building our businesses, taking care of our families and generally enjoying life to spend the time that you obviously spend twisting reality into a pretzel to get it to conform to your looter beliefs.
> 
> Yes - YOU ARE A LOOTER (and that is the worst title that I know to bestow on anybody). The several paragraphs you wrote in response to my challenges on this thread illustrate that in glaring detail. You wrote several paragraphs directly to my post that your son was a welfare rat and a loser but that he should still get welfare. Where did he learn that? He didn't learn it from me.
> 
> The fact that you would call out RPD or any other vet that was simply questioning your logic is obscene. RPD and millions like him offered their lives to allow YOU the opportunity to spout your bullshit from any street corner you choose. For you to attack him as being "just a grunt" proves what a **** you really are! **** You! **** your sister! And **** your mother! You are nothing but an intellectually dishonest, ungrateful ****!


Inor,

If you took you, RPD, slippy and the whole lot that think like you and turned your brains into dynamite you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose. Furthermore, to bring one's family into a dispute is pure cowardice - it makes you lower than any human being on this board and if ANYONE else thinks that families are fair game in a pissing contest, I would not want to share an America with you either.

Insofar as me "_wanting to have it both ways_," I would tell anyone here to read this thread. Inor and RPD are a couple of guys that are not only dishonest with you, they cannot read. I've qualified this many times on this thread alone. The ideal situation is to get rid of welfare. The reality is, getting rid of welfare is not going to happen. IF any person on this thread disagrees with that, you live in a fantasy world. I'm sorry. Welfare is not going away by popularity vote.

Clamping down on welfare via the people that dole out the money is the second best option IF you want to succeed. People follow the path of least resistance. Make it a burden to collect welfare and people will gradually look for a job on their own rather than to have to keep detailed records and answer to someone who is pushing them all the time. AND, my critics here have not told you what is wrong with requiring those who dole out welfare to have their jobs, promotions and raises tied to how many people they can take off welfare.

Finally, as stated earlier, the *Bill of Rights* is all one law. It stands or falls as one law. IF we require people to undergo a "_background check / drug test_" in order to recoup money taken by FORCE, then that precedent will follow throughout the entire Constitution. If you ignore the Fourth Amendment, the Second Amendment won't be worth the paper it's written on.

Socialist Security and Medicare are entitlement programs:

Are Social Security and Medicare 'entitlement' programs? (Julie Mack column) | MLive.com

Veterans benefits are entitlements:

Veterans Benefit / Entitlement Assistance

Welfare is an entitlement. You don't really want a link for that do you?

Under the equal protection of the laws (14th Amendment) IF we have to undergo a warrant less search and submit to a "drug test" in order to get a welfare check, then a law requiring vets to undergo a psychiatric evaluation in order to get their benefits is fair game... AND if that evaluation determines the vet is a nutcase, their Second Amendment Rights could be "_taken away_" before the vet qualifies for their benefits. I could name a hundred scenarios where you could lose valuable Rights and benefits by supporting this socialistic notion that you have to forfeit your Rights in order to get money you paid into the system.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> Eat me. You should mind your own damn business. RPD accused me of something you and he both know full well I didn't say. You want to defend your lover? Try doing it with something besides a keyboard commando challenge. **** you and the horse you rode in on.


There is only one person on this forum that I am aware of who is such a low life scumbag piece of crap who would do something like take someone's quote and then add lines to it so that it looks like they said something that they didn't, and that's YOU.

Oh yeah, and once again implying that someone who disagrees with you is gay. As often as you do it, it is apparent that someone (you) is actually a butt humping rump ranger who hasn't come out of the closet or is afraid that the rest of the losers in the trailer park would give him a hard time about it.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> I'm trying my best to be civil, but it gets hard when you have a few people that want to hurl false accusations at you. Yeah, I get mighty perturbed and a few people here do tend to make me fly into a rage.
> 
> But, really, I get pissed off when someone attacks me for trying to bring some sanity into these issues. Some people rely on popularity contests and emotion laden buzz words while ignoring the bigger issue. They simply don't understand the big picture with regards to law (especially precedent law); have no knowledge of history; cannot define the difference between a privilege and an *unalienable Right*.
> 
> A majority of the American people do not understand the Fourth Amendment. But, the big picture is that the Bill of Rights stands or falls as one BILL. It is the BILL OF *RIGHTS*. If warrant less searches and the forfeiture of Fourth Amendment Rights are allowed to stand, it won't be long before giving up your firearms are a prerequisite to getting your Socialist Security check. Again, *the Bill of Rights is all one law.* If you have no right to recoup welfare money after being forced to pay into it (unless you forfeit your Fourth Amendment Rights) is no different than forfeiting your Second Amendment Rights to get a Socialist Security check or your veteran benefits.


You are the *MOST* uncivil person on this forum and the first to start calling people names.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> The thing is slippy: I don't need no militia boys to back me up. I prefer to solve my problems one on one.


Really hero? Do you remember sending me a message that if we met face to face I wouldn't say some of things I do, to which I replied that I would be traveling through Atlanta and would be more then happy to meet you at a place of your choosing? Remember? I still have the exchange if you would like me to post it. What was your reply? NOTHING. It's because of losers like you that most people think that a majority of militias are just a bunch of whacked out wanna-be losers who are a waste of space.


----------



## Leon

I tried to get some disability while I was laid up in bed for 8 months, my bank acct drained and out of work from SOULLESS employers who frankly couldn't understand that being half crushed by a minivan is half crushed by a minivan. These sons of bitches would not could not and didn't want to even look at me. One day I had my family take me up to the office to appeal their bullshit refusals against my doctors orders and who is sitting next to me? Some loser asshole faking a back problem and they awarded him disability but not me, the guy in the wheelchair with the horrible scars all over his legs and the hundred or so documents and x-rays to prove it.

At this point, I'm just going to risk sounding racist because that is what goes on in these places.

EVERYONE who worked in that office was black. Everyone. No exceptions. They treat anyone white in there like trash, are rude to you, and hell if you're all laid up in a bad way in a wheelchair and your face is white because they have their own little club going in the welfare office and that club is called screw ******. These communists gave the guy FAKING the back problem disability without even a question but told me I'm able to work and refused to hear my argument or look at my medical records. At the end of it I called them out on it, point out how they operate and they act all shocked as if nobody in the room had eyes or ears.


----------



## Beach Kowboy

Leon said:


> I tried to get some disability while I was laid up in bed for 8 months, my bank acct drained and out of work from SOULLESS employers who frankly couldn't understand that being half crushed by a minivan is half crushed by a minivan. These sons of bitches would not could not and didn't want to even look at me. One day I had my family take me up to the office to appeal their bullshit refusals against my doctors orders and who is sitting next to me? Some loser asshole faking a back problem and they awarded him disability but not me, the guy in the wheelchair with the horrible scars all over his legs and the hundred or so documents and x-rays to prove it.
> 
> At this point, I'm just going to risk sounding racist because that is what goes on in these places.
> 
> EVERYONE who worked in that office was black. Everyone. No exceptions. They treat anyone white in there like trash, are rude to you, and hell if you're all laid up in a bad way in a wheelchair and your face is white because they have their own little club going in the welfare office and that club is called screw ******. These communists gave the guy FAKING the back problem disability without even a question but told me I'm able to work and refused to hear my argument or look at my medical records. At the end of it I called them out on it, point out how they operate and they act all shocked as if nobody in the room had eyes or ears.


Yup, look at most government agencies. Unemployment,SS,dmv,welfare or whatever. The majority of them are minorities and liberals. They give one another benefits like they are growing on trees but if you are a white male. You are ****ed!! That is how they are destroying the country from the inside!!


----------



## PaulS

This thread has gone quite a way from the original topic of mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients but I am going to go back to that, if only for a moment.

Mandatory drug testing is the same unlawful act that is going on at the airports. It is an unlawful search. That being said I feel (an emotional response) that testing welfare recipients is an acceptable act because they are taking someone elses money to live on. It seems a just course of action where the airport searches 1. have never prevented a terrorist from boarding a plane and 2. are a grievous breach of civil rights for people wanting to travel mail routes. (one of our freedoms)

Do I think the government should be able to test randomly for drug usage? NO! absolutely not! I also feel that welfare should be abolished and the private sector allowed to retake that process like was done before welfare existed. I do not believe the federal government should have the power to take my money and distribute it to others - regardless of the reason.

So, we can get rid of the welfare problem two ways, get rid of welfare or test recipients for drugs but limit those powers to medical professionals with proper knowledge and facilities. Restrict the testing to only active recipients as an integrated process to receive the moneys and benefits.

We should also do away with the TSA and DHS.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> Really hero? Do you remember sending me a message that if we met face to face I wouldn't say some of things I do, to which I replied that I would be traveling through Atlanta and would be more then happy to meet you at a place of your choosing? Remember? I still have the exchange if you would like me to post it. What was your reply? NOTHING. It's because of losers like you that most people think that a majority of militias are just a bunch of whacked out wanna-be losers who are a waste of space.


That is a lie and you know it. Travel through the Atlanta area? Call me.


----------



## The Resister

Slippy said:


> Resister,
> As I said, you are your own enemy. You posted multiple times about your stepson being trash, you posted multiple times and bragged about who you are. Look within...the problem is not outward, it is inward. My prayers are that you find the salvation that you seek but look within for the solution.


When I have relatives that are scum sucking maggots, I call it like I see it. Insofar as trying to make myself out to be a "hero," you are an absolute mother ****ing LIAR. People badgered me when I told them I had actual experience in the subject matter I was writing about. End of story. RPD has not offered a DD214 for your perusal; however, because he said what you wanted to hear, you never challenged his credentials. Having one person to demand you prove who you are, etc. and then condemning them is absolute B.S. and you know it.

Now, what's the matter? You try with every posting to make this a personal issue because your side cannot answer the basic facts. The facts remain:

1) *EVERY* issue my critics disagreed with me on is one where my critics wanted to increase the size, power and / or scope of government

2) You continue to live in a fantasy world, believing that you can outlaw welfare on one hand and believing that even if you could do so it would not affect the Rights of others.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> When I have relatives that are scum sucking maggots, I call it like I see it. Insofar as trying to make myself out to be a "hero," you are an absolute mother ****ing LIAR. People badgered me when I told them I had actual experience in the subject matter I was writing about. End of story. RPD has not offered a DD214 for your perusal; however, because he said what you wanted to hear, you never challenged his credentials. Having one person to demand you prove who you are, etc. and then condemning them is absolute B.S. and you know it.
> 
> Now, what's the matter? You try with every posting to make this a personal issue because your side cannot answer the basic facts. The facts remain:
> 
> 1) *EVERY* issue my critics disagreed with me on is one where my critics wanted to increase the size, power and / or scope of government
> 
> 2) You continue to live in a fantasy world, believing that you can outlaw welfare on one hand and believing that even if you could do so it would not affect the Rights of others.


Please explain just how outlawing welfare would affect anyone's rights? No one has a right to Government hand outs.


----------



## The Resister

Leon said:


> I tried to get some disability while I was laid up in bed for 8 months, my bank acct drained and out of work from SOULLESS employers who frankly couldn't understand that being half crushed by a minivan is half crushed by a minivan. These sons of bitches would not could not and didn't want to even look at me. One day I had my family take me up to the office to appeal their bullshit refusals against my doctors orders and who is sitting next to me? Some loser asshole faking a back problem and they awarded him disability but not me, the guy in the wheelchair with the horrible scars all over his legs and the hundred or so documents and x-rays to prove it.
> 
> At this point, I'm just going to risk sounding racist because that is what goes on in these places.
> 
> EVERYONE who worked in that office was black. Everyone. No exceptions. They treat anyone white in there like trash, are rude to you, and hell if you're all laid up in a bad way in a wheelchair and your face is white because they have their own little club going in the welfare office and that club is called screw ******. These communists gave the guy FAKING the back problem disability without even a question but told me I'm able to work and refused to hear my argument or look at my medical records. At the end of it I called them out on it, point out how they operate and they act all shocked as if nobody in the room had eyes or ears.


Here's the deal:

You are absolutely right. The government has this black version of the old style "_good ol' boys network_" they non-whites accuse the whites of. America is the only place where we will pay able bodied people not to work. Meanwhile, the deserving are ignored. Now, the best you've heard from the "_social conservatives_" is to drug test the welfare recipient.

Honestly, do you believe giving you a drug test would have helped your problem? OR, had the stupid ass people at the welfare office had their job, their promotion and their salary dependent upon getting some others OFF the dole been a better help to you? We don't have the political clout to get rid of the worthless pieces of scatalogical waste in the government sector but we can make their job security dependent upon their ability to be productive.

If you are still having problems, PM me and maybe we can discuss ways to work your way up the food chain until you get the help you need.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> Please explain just how outlawing welfare would affect anyone's rights? No one has a right to Government hand outs.


Notsosmart:

Had you READ this thread, I *did* answer that. Let's go over this again. Thomas Paine, one of America's founding fathers stated:

"_He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." Source: THOMAS PAINE, Dissertation on First Principles of Government, The Writings of Thomas Paine, ed. Moncure D. Conway, vol. 3, p. 277 . Originally published in 1795

FACT: The Bill of Rights is all ONE LAW. Whatever affects one Amendment affects *every *Amendment. The Bill of Rights was ratified as* one* bill in 1791.

Now, suppose that you ignore the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and argue that welfare recipients must undergo a drug test in order to receive an entitlement. Bear in mind Socialist Security, Medicare, veterans benefits AND welfare are all entitlements. Therefore, if you can require a drug test for welfare, then you can require any other manner of warrant less search (which is what the drug test is) for ANY OTHER ENTITLEMENT.

Uncle Scam would love to disarm you. So, what better way to force you to undergo a mental evaluation / drug test (another form of warrant less search) to find out if you should own a firearm. You supported the the drug test for welfare recipients, so now a shrink claims that you are not mentally qualified to own a firearm. Hmmm... a warrant less search is a warrant less search is a warrant less search. If the Fourth Amendment cannot protect the welfare recipient, it cannot protect the veteran who wants to apply for their entitlements. How would you fight against a precedent YOU help set???

Again, we have already answered this. Read post #50. Why do we keep reinventing the wheel?

The legal precedent is simple:

If we can require one kind of warrant less search before a person can get ONE entitlement (one of those government granted "rights") then all other entitlements are fair game to a warrant less search / restriction. AND Notsosmart, unless you want to retract your statements, I believe that you think the government can revoke and / or restrict *unalienable Rights*, do you not?


----------



## Beach Kowboy

I started this thread and will state my opinion. I am against welfare and other "food stamp programs" But they are here to stay for the tie being. So, if we can lower the people that are milking the ****ing system and using our hard earned dollars to pay for them and their piece of shit families bills by them them taking a drug test. I am all for it. Sure, it is all bullshit but it is here. Maybe if we can lower it by having the pieces of shit that are milking the system to take a drug test. I will be behind it.. Personally, I wish them and their entire bloodline would die a slow horrible death. Men,women and children.. **** them!!!!

I am all for someone that is working 2 or 3 jobs and still having a problem making ends meet. Let's help them. Or a single parent working at least 40 or more hours and still can't do it. I am all for help. Maybe not trhu the government but certain people need help.

I have NEVER collected not one ****ing dime from the government. I have worked mostly in the agriculture field after I was int he private security and commercial scuba diver field and have not worked les that 60-70 hrs and usually over 100 hrs a week.. That is the problem these days. People want to work 30hr a week in the ac and make $100k a year. It doesn't work that way..

If you are not lazy and willing to work and put the time in. You can make a decent income. The rest are ****ing lazy and want to milk the system and personaly, I hope they die a slow horrible painfull death with the rest of their family!!!!!!

Work pays off and laziness deserves exactly what they ****ing get!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Beach Kowboy

Paula Dean and Sterling are for the most part victims.. Any black,liberal or other minority can say whatever the **** they want and it is ok..Jay Z banned white people from attending his after party (he is an owner too)and it is ok.. Google it.. You can bet your ****ing ass that the MSM didn't talk about it though.. Blacks and minorities are alowed to say whatever the **** they want and it is just fine. have a "white person" say something about a person of color and it is a ****ing act of congress!!

I will say this on the record. I am so ****ing glad that that Trayvon was killed. He was a piece of shit thief that was coming from the store buying skittles and other stuff to make drugs. It's too bad Jackson and Sharpton haven't been killed as well. They are race baiters looking to start shit in this country.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> Notsosmart:
> 
> Had you READ this thread, I *did* answer that. Let's go over this again. Thomas Paine, one of America's founding fathers stated:
> 
> "_He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." Source: THOMAS PAINE, Dissertation on First Principles of Government, The Writings of Thomas Paine, ed. Moncure D. Conway, vol. 3, p. 277 . Originally published in 1795
> 
> FACT: The Bill of Rights is all ONE LAW. Whatever affects one Amendment affects *every *Amendment. The Bill of Rights was ratified as* one* bill in 1791.
> 
> Now, suppose that you ignore the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and argue that welfare recipients must undergo a drug test in order to receive an entitlement. Bear in mind Socialist Security, Medicare, veterans benefits AND welfare are all entitlements. Therefore, if you can require a drug test for welfare, then you can require any other manner of warrant less search (which is what the drug test is) for ANY OTHER ENTITLEMENT.
> 
> Uncle Scam would love to disarm you. So, what better way to force you to undergo a mental evaluation / drug test (another form of warrant less search) to find out if you should own a firearm. You supported the the drug test for welfare recipients, so now a shrink claims that you are not mentally qualified to own a firearm. Hmmm... a warrant less search is a warrant less search is a warrant less search. If the Fourth Amendment cannot protect the welfare recipient, it cannot protect the veteran who wants to apply for their entitlements. How would you fight against a precedent YOU help set???
> 
> Again, we have already answered this. Read post #50. Why do we keep reinventing the wheel?
> 
> The legal precedent is simple:
> 
> If we can require one kind of warrant less search before a person can get ONE entitlement (one of those government granted "rights") then all other entitlements are fair game to a warrant less search / restriction. AND Notsosmart, unless you want to retract your statements, I believe that you think the government can revoke and / or restrict *unalienable Rights*, do you not?


Your "reasoning" is a stretch at best. NO ONE has a RIGHT to be supported by the Government. NO WHERE in the Bill of Rights or anywhere in the Constitution does it give ANYONE the right to Welfare. It is a privilege. It may not be politically feasible, but it would be perfectly LEGEL if a law was passed ending welfare tomorrow. If you do not want to take a drug test before getting welfare, then you don't have to. It's your choice.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> Your "reasoning" is a stretch at best. NO ONE has a RIGHT to be supported by the Government. NO WHERE in the Bill of Rights or anywhere in the Constitution does it give ANYONE the right to Welfare. It is a privilege. It may not be politically feasible, but it would be perfectly LEGEL if a law was passed ending welfare tomorrow. If you do not want to take a drug test before getting welfare, then you don't have to. It's your choice.


My reasoning is supported by both case law, precedent and knowing the way the liberals think. Between you and I 34 court cases have been won. Of those, how many did YOU win?

Belittling my experience does not make you a winner, Notsosmart. There is no "s_tretch_" to my reasoning. On this board, you have heard people call for taking away the Second Amendment Rights of others (see Inor's post # 21.) Oh you did not question him regarding *unalienable Rights* now, did you??? So people on the right think that the Second Amendment is not *unalienable* (the word does have a meaning.) What you're arguing is withholding constitutional Liberties in order to get an *entitlement*. Well, under your "_logic_" (if what you present could ever be construed to be logical) the Fourth and Fifth Amendments can be ignored if a person tries to get welfare... BUT, what happens if the liberals want restrictions on YOU should you apply for Socialist Security, Medicare, or veterans benefits???

The word entitlement means the applicant is *ENTITLED* to the benefit. It is a civil right and the "_social conservatives_" did NOT challenge the ruling in federal court when the judge ruled in favor of civil rights over the property Rights of land owners.

If the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are not inviolable when it comes to applying for an entitlement, *neither are any* of the other Bill of Rights. It's that simple, sir. The liberals will contend that if you apply for Socialist Security, VA benefits, etc. you could be subject to a "_background check"_ citing the drug test to get welfare. So, a Vietnam era applies for their VA benefits only to be told they have PTSD because some shrink hates guns. So, in order to get your VA benefits, you have to surrender privately held weapons, your CCW and lose your Second Amendment Rights... and YOU CREATED THE PRECEDENT! End of story sir.


----------



## Beach Kowboy

**** "Case Law" "Entitlement' and 'Precident" Itis all some bullshit that an attorney made up to twist shit... Lawyers,Politicians(which are mostly lawyers) and scientists are to Majority of the people that are ruining this country.. They stand behind laws that THEY made up and enforce!! Personally, I would like to see the majority of the attorneys and judges inthis country have heart attacks so we can start over...

Look at both the criminal and civil systems.. 
Say it is civil and a person is in a car accident and truly hurt.. The victim has insurance and the one at fault has $1m. The insurance company of the person at fault might offer the victim say what $20,000

Now, the victim gets an attorney. The attorney has them see several doctors and specialists. Several years later, it makes it to court or they make a settlement of say $300,000. People think wow, they got a lot of money. But the attorney gets 40% and the doctors get their fees. The "victim" might get $25-40k after 2-3 years.. The only ones to make money are the attorneys and doctors... That victim couldn't get that $300,000 WITHOUT the attorney but doesn't benefit by getting them.. Attorneys and judgest set it up for them to benefit...

There is something to be said about there are more people in law school than prison!!!


----------



## machinejjh

I pay in to Social Security, making me entitled to benefits. Veterans pay into VA benefits by serving. Where the **** do generational welfare abusers pay into anything?


----------



## The Resister

machinejjh said:


> I pay in to Social Security, making me entitled to benefits. Veterans pay into VA benefits by serving. Where the **** do generational welfare abusers pay into anything?


Income taxes
Property taxes (if a renter they pay through rental payments)
Sales taxes

I'd make a list, but we'd be here for hours. Again this was asked and answered in post # 50 (which describes how Socialist Security, Medicare and VA benefits are entitlements just like welfare... and what applies to one entitlement applies to all of them.)

Lat thing: I work within the system to use their laws against them. I am an anti-lawyer. Once you've done your research, you know how the story ends unless you act in a manner to defeat the liberals running the system. The lawyer lobby (the American Bar Association) is the most liberal and communistic organization in the United States. They have the power to shut all of us down. I don't plan on helping them to do so. My critics apparently WANT to play into their hands by ignoring reality... or at least the reality practiced by those who are in power.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> My reasoning is supported by both case law, precedent and knowing the way the liberals think. Between you and I 34 court cases have been won. Of those, how many did YOU win?
> 
> Belittling my experience does not make you a winner, Notsosmart. There is no "s_tretch_" to my reasoning. On this board, you have heard people call for taking away the Second Amendment Rights of others (see Inor's post # 21.) Oh you did not question him regarding *unalienable Rights* now, did you??? So people on the right think that the Second Amendment is not *unalienable* (the word does have a meaning.) What you're arguing is withholding constitutional Liberties in order to get an *entitlement*. Well, under your "_logic_" (if what you present could ever be construed to be logical) the Fourth and Fifth Amendments can be ignored if a person tries to get welfare... BUT, what happens if the liberals want restrictions on YOU should you apply for Socialist Security, Medicare, or veterans benefits???
> 
> The word entitlement means the applicant is *ENTITLED* to the benefit. It is a civil right and the "_social conservatives_" did NOT challenge the ruling in federal court when the judge ruled in favor of civil rights over the property Rights of land owners.
> 
> If the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are not inviolable when it comes to applying for an entitlement, *neither are any* of the other Bill of Rights. It's that simple, sir. The liberals will contend that if you apply for Socialist Security, VA benefits, etc. you could be subject to a "_background check"_ citing the drug test to get welfare. So, a Vietnam era applies for their VA benefits only to be told they have PTSD because some shrink hates guns. So, in order to get your VA benefits, you have to surrender privately held weapons, your CCW and lose your Second Amendment Rights... and YOU CREATED THE PRECEDENT! End of story sir.


Trying to compare receiving welfare to the being on par with the 2nd amendment goes beyond ludicrous to being downright bizarre. As I stated, although it would be politically impossible for Congress to end welfare, it would not be UNCONSTITUTIONAL for them to do so. It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL for them to try to cancel the 2nd amendment. To say that welfare recipients pay into the system through income taxes (which they wouldn't be paying if they were on welfare), rent (that is just asinine), and sales tax, is laughable. Your argument is infantile.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> Trying to compare receiving welfare to the being on par with the 2nd amendment goes beyond ludicrous to being downright bizarre. As I stated, although it would be politically impossible for Congress to end welfare, it would not be UNCONSTITUTIONAL for them to do so. It would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL for them to try to cancel the 2nd amendment. To say that welfare recipients pay into the system through income taxes (which they wouldn't be paying if they were on welfare), rent (that is just asinine), and sales tax, is laughable. Your argument is infantile.


Well, just because you disagree doesn't mean I'm wrong. It simply means you are Notsosmart. Pay attention one more time:

VA benefits, Medicare, Socialist Security and welfare are *entitlements*. IF you can jeopardize ONE ENTITLEMENT by forcing someone to forfeit a constitutional Liberty, then *ALL entitlements* are subject to the same legal standard. This line of logic is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment which provides:

"_No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;* nor shall any State deprive any person of life*, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the *equal protection of the laws*_."

What you advocate is to force a person to forfeit both their Fourth and Fifth Amendment guarantees in order to get a welfare check... and you accuse me of providing an "infantile" argument. How many cases have YOU argued in court?

If we can compel any person to forfeit a constitutional Liberty as a prerequisite to receiving an entitlement, then everyone is subject to the same standard. If you don't understand that concept, then you're the ONLY person on this board that can't. Since you can't grasp the concept with the Second Amendment, let's apply the KISS principle for you:

Let's say Rice Paddy Daddy gets cancer. The only thing that will relieve the pain he's in is an illegal drug. But, in order to receive his entitlements (VA benefits, Medicare and a Socialist Security check) the government demands that he submit to a drug test. So, he is forced to be a witness against himself, forfeiting his constitutional Liberties and must decide whether to live in excruciating pain or get the benefits to which the government says he's entitled.

If you would quit being a dumb ass for a moment and read what I'm writing you know we would not be arguing. I've *never* said that welfare was constitutional; *never* said that every person is entitled to the benefits of government entitlements (be it VA benefits, Medicare, Socialist Security, or welfare) ... NOT from a *personal* perspective. IF you could be successful at eliminating welfare, I'd be all for you. I'd laugh my ass off at some of the people I know that would give up drugs for a guaranteed check when I know full well the mofos are capable of working.

All you seem to want is to subject people to a drug test. That won't eliminate welfare. It just means that people will use homeopathic or naturopathic concoctions before applying for welfare. We don't have the votes to outlaw welfare. So, what is the best way to get people off welfare? Put the son of a bitches to work. Under my plan, the government could determine if a welfare recipient is being denied a job so that an employer can hire undocumented workers. It would tell whether the recipient needs some kind of training. It would require the lazy ass maggots that dole the money out to actually WORK for their paycheck. When the burden of complying with regulations for one to get educated and get a job outweigh the benefit, the numbers of people on welfare will drop. It's that simple. If you could make $10 an hour working on a job versus making the equivalent of $8 an hour and having some bureaucrat riding your ass every day, making sure you spent 40 hours a week looking for a job and taking some kind of classes, most would choose the higher paying job.

Here's the funny thing: While we could implement my idea, we're arguing. At the end of the day, the courts will over-rule most of the provisions of this new law. You will not get anything except the satisfaction of being popular in an argument... one that will end with you having pissed away your lobbying efforts when you could have done something productive.


----------



## Notsoyoung

Well resistor, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I am wrong and you are right. "VA benefits, Medicare, Socialist Security and welfare are entitlements." One of these is not like the other. Can we guess which one? VA benefits: In order to get the benefits you must have served in the military for a certain amount of time and received a Honorable discharge. Medicare and Social Security: You must pay into the system in order to receive benefits from it. Welfare: Nada. The only thing you must be is alive, and there are allot of checks made out to people who don't even meet that criteria. 

The fallacy in your opinion is that no matter how well the economy is, no matter how high the wages are, there are still people who will put more effort into getting out of work and letting the government support them then they will put towards getting a job. I do not see any problem, Constitutionally or morally, with making sure that someone who is willing to let others support them are not using that support to buy drugs. It is not an accident that the neighborhoods where the highest percentage of welfare recipients live is also where the highest amount of illegal drug activity takes place. If you want to take illegal drugs, that's your choice, just don't expect me to pay for it. 

When you expect someone to support you, you have already given up much of your liberty. Anyone who depends on the government for free handouts in order to live is at best an indentured servant if not a slave of the government. You can try to tie in getting welfare as somehow being equitable to someone who receives V.A. benefits, Social Security, or Medicare, but IT IS NOT. In order to get V.A. benefits, Social Security, or Medicare you must perform a service or pay into the system. Not so welfare. You just have to fill out the paperwork. They are NOT the same. It is NOT a violation of the U.S. Constitution for you to be required to pass a drug test in order to get welfare money, no more the it was a violation of MY Constitutional Rights to spend 20 years in the Military spending long periods of time away from my family, being sent to locations where I really didn't want to go, including war zones, and taking DRUG TESTS in order to get my military retirement. At any time I could have decided that I had enough and gotten out. If welfare recipients don't want to take submit to a drug test the answer is simple. Don't do it. Of course you will have to get a job.

I can see why some people who go for nearly a decade if not more without working would be upset about it. Too bad. By the way, you seem to believe that because you have posted something it is the deciding authority on the subject. It's not. I have read your posts and have discounted most of them as bull.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> Well resistor, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I am wrong and you are right. "VA benefits, Medicare, Socialist Security and welfare are entitlements." One of these is not like the other. Can we guess which one? VA benefits: In order to get the benefits you must have served in the military for a certain amount of time and received a Honorable discharge. Medicare and Social Security: You must pay into the system in order to receive benefits from it. Welfare: Nada. The only thing you must be is alive, and there are allot of checks made out to people who don't even meet that criteria.
> 
> The fallacy in your opinion is that no matter how well the economy is, no matter how high the wages are, there are still people who will put more effort into getting out of work and letting the government support them then they will put towards getting a job. I do not see any problem, Constitutionally or morally, with making sure that someone who is willing to let others support them are not using that support to buy drugs. It is not an accident that the neighborhoods where the highest percentage of welfare recipients live is also where the highest amount of illegal drug activity takes place. If you want to take illegal drugs, that's your choice, just don't expect me to pay for it.
> 
> When you expect someone to support you, you have already given up much of your liberty. Anyone who depends on the government for free handouts in order to live is at best an indentured servant if not a slave of the government. You can try to tie in getting welfare as somehow being equitable to someone who receives V.A. benefits, Social Security, or Medicare, but IT IS NOT. In order to get V.A. benefits, Social Security, or Medicare you must perform a service or pay into the system. Not so welfare. You just have to fill out the paperwork. They are NOT the same. It is NOT a violation of the U.S. Constitution for you to be required to pass a drug test in order to get welfare money, no more the it was a violation of MY Constitutional Rights to spend 20 years in the Military spending long periods of time away from my family, being sent to locations where I really didn't want to go, including war zones, and taking DRUG TESTS in order to get my military retirement. At any time I could have decided that I had enough and gotten out. If welfare recipients don't want to take submit to a drug test the answer is simple. Don't do it. Of course you will have to get a job.
> 
> I can see why some people who go for nearly a decade if not more without working would be upset about it. Too bad. By the way, you seem to believe that because you have posted something it is the deciding authority on the subject. It's not. I have read your posts and have discounted most of them as bull.


I don't know whether or not you realize it, but when it comes to the facts, your cheering section has disappeared on you. And, honestly, I don't give a shit what you think. You obviously have not read the Constitution. If you really want to debate facts instead of personalities, let me leave you with a quote from our founding fathers. If it is not applicable in the areas we disagree on, please explain ONE time in history the warning did apply:

"_He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." Thomas Paine

Can we get off the *non-issues*? Welfare is an entitlement because the law says so. It don't have shit to do with me. The law says who is qualified to draw out of it and who isn't. Even if you pay into something, you may get more than you pay in whereas someone else don't get squat. The reason for that is simple: Welfare is pure socialism. ****ing others out of their constitutional Liberties will not make your position any more morally or legally justifiable. It only means that you should carefully READ the Constitution.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> I don't know whether or not you realize it, but when it comes to the facts, your cheering section has disappeared on you. And, honestly, I don't give a shit what you think. You obviously have not read the Constitution. If you really want to debate facts instead of personalities, let me leave you with a quote from our founding fathers. If it is not applicable in the areas we disagree on, please explain ONE time in history the warning did apply:
> 
> "_He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." Thomas Paine
> 
> Can we get off the *non-issues*? Welfare is an entitlement because the law says so. It don't have shit to do with me. The law says who is qualified to draw out of it and who isn't. Even if you pay into something, you may get more than you pay in whereas someone else don't get squat. The reason for that is simple: Welfare is pure socialism. ****ing others out of their constitutional Liberties will not make your position any more morally or legally justifiable. It only means that you should carefully READ the Constitution.


My "cheering section"? If I had a cheering section, that's more then you can say. As I Continue to say, and with all of your quotes that you throw that does not apply to this situation, the Congress could end welfare tomorrow without any legal or Constitutional consequences. The same could not be said for V.A. benefits, Social Security, or Medicare. It they tried it with those programs they would have to compensate the people invested in them. NO ONE is invested in welfare. There is no special taxes or contributions for welfare. I have read the Constitution hundreds of times without finding things written between the lines as you seem to find. YOU are not the authority on the Constitution, especially not on this forum. People DO NOT have a Constitutional Right to welfare, nor do they have an Unalienable Right to it. It is NOT infringing on anyone's rights to make them pass a drug test in order to suck money out of a system that most of them have never paid in to, or if they have, very little. Unalienable Rights DOES NOT mean that the government will support you or for that matter mean that you can live where you want, provide you housing, or feed you.

Not only do I NOT GIVE A SHIT what you think, I doubt if many other people do either.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

Notsoyoung said:


> Not only do I NOT GIVE A SHIT what you think, I doubt if many other people do either.


You can add me to that list.


----------



## The Resister

rice paddy daddy said:


> You can add me to that list.


Then why do you keep coming back to this thread? If Notsosmart was so cocksure of himself, he would not bother either. But, once you check the facts and you check the record, I have an uncanny way of being right.

By the number of views this thread gets, someone is interested in the discussion. Notsosmart needs to come up with a different line. His old one is getting old. He sounds so much like Rice Paddy Daddy that one gets to wondering: Are they one and the same?

I have to say gentlemen, your desperation level has raised to a point that you are losing any semblance of reality. For instance, I have *never, not once* argued that welfare is constitutional, an *unalienable Right* ...; I don't even think you should call it an entitlement. But, Uncle Scam calls welfare an entitlement; therefore, my strategy related to keeping my money has to be predicated on that reality.

The National Socialists among us get all worked up. They burn, they sizzle, get their boxers in a bunch, rant, curse, attack people's family, they boil, they stew, get hot under the collar, fly off the handle, hit the roof, and raise the ceiling. But, no matter how many times they declare their fantasies, they cannot escape the truth.

The truth is, my critics have *consistently* argued for a bigger and more intrusive government as a way to resolve their issue. EVERY solution they proffer begins with "_let's pass another law and make the government bigger_." Once you investigate that and read the thread, you begin to see the dishonesty that RPD and Notsosmart have to address this thread with. They have accused me of being a socialist while they demand to empower the government as the *ONLY* solution that is acceptable for them. The National Socialists, in a vain effort to discount other solutions, try to manufacture side issues. NOBODY on this thread argues that welfare is constitutional. Nobody has ever claimed, not even once, that welfare is an *unalienable Right*. *By law*, welfare is a civil right. Of course the dumb asses wanting you to believe they don't care what I have to say will come back and make the false claim that I said welfare is a civil right - all the while trying to convince you that they read what the government's position is (see post #50)

RPD and Notsosmart cannot bring one, single, solitary new thing to the table. All they can do is lie to the posters and hope that you will be too ignorant to look up the facts. The fact is, just because I can tell you the law AND how those in power are going to interpret it, does not, in any way, shape, fashion or form tell you whether or not I agree with Uncle Scam. The people who keep posting lies and absolute bullshit on this board have not had the moral courage to ask me one simple question. They have never asked me if I agree with the government. It's obvious. Only one of us is a constitutionalist... and it most assuredly is NOT the guys who are lying about what my position is. Those who stand against the Constitution might just be those who stood silent while the liars attacked my family, proving that silence is consent. So gentlemen, families are fair game.

"_The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground_." Thomas Jefferson

Don't expect Resister to stand for any ideology where Liberty has to yield to a bigger and more intrusive government.


----------



## MrsInor

Resistor argues/discusses like a liberal.
If you don't agree with what he says, he says it again - louder.
Still disagree? Then starts the name calling.

I think it is even too late for bacon.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

MrsInor said:


> Resistor argues/discusses like a liberal.
> If you don't agree with what he says, he says it again - louder.
> Still disagree? Then starts the name calling.
> 
> I think it is even too late for bacon.


He's just a broken record, parroting the same lame crap over and over and over.
And you are right, when he gets frustrated all he can come up with obscinities. And THAT is a sure sign of limited intelligence.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

MrsInor said:


> I think it is even too late for bacon.


It may indeed be too late for bacon, but I'll give it a shot.
How about some vintage Texas Country Reporter and a segment on chicken fried bacon?


----------



## The Resister

MrsInor said:


> Resistor argues/discusses like a liberal.
> If you don't agree with what he says, he says it again - louder.
> Still disagree? Then starts the name calling.
> 
> I think it is even too late for bacon.


So do the people you support... Just saying


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> Then why do you keep coming back to this thread? If Notsosmart was so cocksure of himself, he would not bother either. But, once you check the facts and you check the record, I have an uncanny way of being right.
> 
> By the number of views this thread gets, someone is interested in the discussion. Notsosmart needs to come up with a different line. His old one is getting old. He sounds so much like Rice Paddy Daddy that one gets to wondering: Are they one and the same?
> 
> I have to say gentlemen, your desperation level has raised to a point that you are losing any semblance of reality. For instance, I have *never, not once* argued that welfare is constitutional, an *unalienable Right* ...; I don't even think you should call it an entitlement. But, Uncle Scam calls welfare an entitlement; therefore, my strategy related to keeping my money has to be predicated on that reality.
> 
> The National Socialists among us get all worked up. They burn, they sizzle, get their boxers in a bunch, rant, curse, attack people's family, they boil, they stew, get hot under the collar, fly off the handle, hit the roof, and raise the ceiling. But, no matter how many times they declare their fantasies, they cannot escape the truth.
> 
> The truth is, my critics have *consistently* argued for a bigger and more intrusive government as a way to resolve their issue. EVERY solution they proffer begins with "_let's pass another law and make the government bigger_." Once you investigate that and read the thread, you begin to see the dishonesty that RPD and Notsosmart have to address this thread with. They have accused me of being a socialist while they demand to empower the government as the *ONLY* solution that is acceptable for them. The National Socialists, in a vain effort to discount other solutions, try to manufacture side issues. NOBODY on this thread argues that welfare is constitutional. Nobody has ever claimed, not even once, that welfare is an *unalienable Right*. *By law*, welfare is a civil right. Of course the dumb asses wanting you to believe they don't care what I have to say will come back and make the false claim that I said welfare is a civil right - all the while trying to convince you that they read what the government's position is (see post #50)
> 
> RPD and Notsosmart cannot bring one, single, solitary new thing to the table. All they can do is lie to the posters and hope that you will be too ignorant to look up the facts. The fact is, just because I can tell you the law AND how those in power are going to interpret it, does not, in any way, shape, fashion or form tell you whether or not I agree with Uncle Scam. The people who keep posting lies and absolute bullshit on this board have not had the moral courage to ask me one simple question. They have never asked me if I agree with the government. It's obvious. Only one of us is a constitutionalist... and it most assuredly is NOT the guys who are lying about what my position is. Those who stand against the Constitution might just be those who stood silent while the liars attacked my family, proving that silence is consent. So gentlemen, families are fair game.
> 
> "_The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground_." Thomas Jefferson
> 
> Don't expect Resister to stand for any ideology where Liberty has to yield to a bigger and more intrusive government.


"_Then why do you keep coming back to this thread? If Notsosmart was so cocksure of himself, he would not bother either._... How in the world does this make any sense whatsoever? Why do YOU keep coming back resistor? Someone must be off his meds again.

"_RPD and Notsosmart cannot bring one, single, solitary new thing to the table. All they can do is lie to the posters and hope that you will be too ignorant to look up the facts._..... Let me get this straight, the low life who replied to another's post and added lines to the guys quote so that it looked like he said something that he didn't is accusing others of lying? This from a guy who did one of the lowest and most dishonest thing that I ever seen on any forum? That alone tells everyone what kind of person he is.

The one who keeps posting lies and absolute bullshit on this board is resistor. So now "Mr Hero in his own mind" is threatening to attack peoples families. What a douche.


----------



## MrsInor

Resistor - I think everyone here would like to know why you keep coming in to a prepper site when you do not ever post anything about prepping?
If you want to practice your name calling - go find a conservative site to blather your repetitive spiel.


----------



## The Resister

"_The right of the people to be *secure in their persons*, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, *but upon probable cause*, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized_." Fourth Amendment

"_No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; *nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself*, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation_" Fifth Amendment

"_No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_." Fourteenth Amendment

The lefties can use their friends and family to come to bat for them... even accuse me of the very wrongs they themselves are perpetuating. We can keep this up until they decide to let the posters check the facts for themselves. Damned if I let the REAL LIBERALS keep repeating lies over and over (Neo Nazi style) without a response.

!) Welfare is a socialist proposition; HOWEVER, the people do not have enough public support to outlaw welfare (though that would be ideal)

2) Taking illegal drugs is a crime. Despite that fact, no person can be compelled to testify against themselves

3) In a de jure (lawful) Republic you do not have to agree to give up your Fourth Amendment Rights

4) IF the Fourth Amendment does not apply to protection of your person when you apply for entitlements, the law cannot protect you from the warrant less searches by the NSA. Either your person is protected from a warrant less search or it is not

5) By the government's interpretation, welfare is an *entitlement*. It is a political argument to argue against it. I can only tell you that *the law says* people are entitled. If you are entitled to get welfare, but must give up your constitutional guarantees there, it only stands to reason you will have to give them up when you buy a ticket to ride on any public conveyance. End of story.

Read this thread and decide which America you would rather be working in.


----------



## The Resister

MrsInor said:


> Resistor - I think everyone here would like to know why you keep coming in to a prepper site when you do not ever post anything about prepping?
> If you want to practice your name calling - go find a conservative site to blather your repetitive spiel.


Ms. Inor,

Prepping includes preparing not to live under a yoke of tyranny. When Jesus went into the temple and faced the moneychangers he labeled them, he exposed them, flipped over their tables and beat the beans out of them. I would do no less.

Allowing the left here to lobby for the laws they want would nullify any credible way to prep since it would ultimately be illegal to do so... you know without those protections of the 4th and 5th Amendments.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> "_The right of the people to be *secure in their persons*, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, *but upon probable cause*, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized_." Fourth Amendment
> 
> "_No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; *nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself*, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation_" Fifth Amendment
> 
> "_No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_." Fourteenth Amendment
> 
> The lefties can use their friends and family to come to bat for them... even accuse me of the very wrongs they themselves are perpetuating. We can keep this up until they decide to let the posters check the facts for themselves. Damned if I let the REAL LIBERALS keep repeating lies over and over (Neo Nazi style) without a response.
> 
> !) Welfare is a socialist proposition; HOWEVER, the people do not have enough public support to outlaw welfare (though that would be ideal)
> 
> 2) Taking illegal drugs is a crime. Despite that fact, no person can be compelled to testify against themselves
> 
> 3) In a de jure (lawful) Republic you do not have to agree to give up your Fourth Amendment Rights
> 
> 4) IF the Fourth Amendment does not apply to protection of your person when you apply for entitlements, the law cannot protect you from the warrant less searches by the NSA. Either your person is protected from a warrant less search or it is not
> 
> 5) By the government's interpretation, welfare is an *entitlement*. It is a political argument to argue against it. I can only tell you that *the law says* people are entitled. If you are entitled to get welfare, but must give up your constitutional guarantees there, it only stands to reason you will have to give them up when you buy a ticket to ride on any public conveyance. End of story.
> 
> Read this thread and decide which America you would rather be working in.


If you don't want to take a drug test, no one is going to force you to. You just won't get to sponge off the taxpayer. It is not in anyway violating your Rights. If you don't want to, don't do it. Don't know how to make it much simpler then that.


----------



## Inor

The Resister said:


> "_The right of the people to be *secure in their persons*, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, *but upon probable cause*, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized_." Fourth Amendment
> 
> "_No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; *nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself*, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation_" Fifth Amendment
> 
> "_No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_." Fourteenth Amendment
> 
> The lefties can use their friends and family to come to bat for them... even accuse me of the very wrongs they themselves are perpetuating. We can keep this up until they decide to let the posters check the facts for themselves. Damned if I let the REAL LIBERALS keep repeating lies over and over (Neo Nazi style) without a response.
> 
> !) Welfare is a socialist proposition; HOWEVER, the people do not have enough public support to outlaw welfare (though that would be ideal)
> 
> 2) Taking illegal drugs is a crime. Despite that fact, no person can be compelled to testify against themselves
> 
> 3) In a de jure (lawful) Republic you do not have to agree to give up your Fourth Amendment Rights
> 
> 4) IF the Fourth Amendment does not apply to protection of your person when you apply for entitlements, the law cannot protect you from the warrant less searches by the NSA. Either your person is protected from a warrant less search or it is not
> 
> 5) By the government's interpretation, welfare is an *entitlement*. It is a political argument to argue against it. I can only tell you that *the law says* people are entitled. If you are entitled to get welfare, but must give up your constitutional guarantees there, it only stands to reason you will have to give them up when you buy a ticket to ride on any public conveyance. End of story.
> 
> Read this thread and decide which America you would rather be working in.


For crying out loud, take a Midol and get over it!


----------



## machinejjh

One would think the jacked up Lincoln Navigator with the spinning wheels parked in a Section 8 housing parking lot would be enough "probable cause" to investigate the welfare fraud. But hey, what do I know? I haven't won any court cases, or even stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.


----------



## Notsoyoung

Let's not ever forget.....resistor replied to someone's post and added lines to the guys post as though he said something that he didn't. That should tell everyone what kind of guy he is.


----------



## MrsInor

Is there a way to petition the admin's here for a ban?


----------



## Beach Kowboy

The government says that it would cost too much to actually investigate welfare abuse. You would think the money they saved from the pieces of shit sucking the system dry would cover it.. I am totally against it but IF they are going to have it. They might as well keep at least drug users from using our money. Saying that gives the government more control is a cop out. They already have control. Then you have attorneys using precidence.. All that is is a piece of shit liberal judge that rules in favor of a bullshit claim. Once they make that ruling, the rest of the lawyers and judges can use it.

It is too bad about 90% of judges and lawyers aren't killed in drive by shootings with the rest of criminals... If we were only so lucky!!!

Attorneys/Judges are inthe top 5 people that have and are ruining this country. They make laws to help themselves abusing the system.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

MrsInor said:


> Resistor - I think everyone here would like to know why you keep coming in to a prepper site when you do not ever post anything about prepping?
> If you want to practice your name calling - go find a conservative site to blather your repetitive spiel.


He actually has his own forum. I went to it once, it seemed to be just him and another guy stroking their egos.
That is probably why he comes here, he has a bigger audience.
The link to it is his signature line.


----------



## MrsInor

Well I intend to ignore the sob. I know I have said it before, but practice makes perfect.


----------



## Notsoyoung

I intend to keep on pointing out that he replied to a guys post by adding lines to his quote as though he said something that he didn't. Something that only a lowlife scumbag would do. Every time he posts.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> I intend to keep on pointing out that he replied to a guys post by adding lines to his quote as though he said something that he didn't. Something that only a lowlife scumbag would do. Every time he posts.


You have cited no such example, so you are a lying son of a bitch.


----------



## The Resister

MrsInor said:


> Well I intend to ignore the sob. I know I have said it before, but practice makes perfect.


Oh "MrsInor" you never said such a thing... Oh wait... Mr. and MrsInor are one and the same. As long as you keep posting, you must not be ignoring me. You just want to clutter the thread with non-related shit and your personality contest. This is not about me.


----------



## The Resister

Beach Kowboy said:


> The government says that it would cost too much to actually investigate welfare abuse. You would think the money they saved from the pieces of shit sucking the system dry would cover it.. I am totally against it but IF they are going to have it. They might as well keep at least drug users from using our money. Saying that gives the government more control is a cop out. They already have control. Then you have attorneys using precidence.. All that is is a piece of shit liberal judge that rules in favor of a bullshit claim. Once they make that ruling, the rest of the lawyers and judges can use it.
> 
> It is too bad about 90% of judges and lawyers aren't killed in drive by shootings with the rest of criminals... If we were only so lucky!!!
> 
> Attorneys/Judges are inthe top 5 people that have and are ruining this country. They make laws to help themselves abusing the system.


That is all the more reason that a strategy must be developed to always put the system on the defensive. Empowering the government to save you from abuses created by the lawyer lobby will not save us.


----------



## MrsInor

Just a reminder from the forum rules.

3. No Religious, Racial, Sexist, abusive or foul language and disrespectful comments. This will not be tolerated. You will be silenced from the site depending on the nature and severity, if severe enough (according to the moderators), you could be banned. There will be a Religious as well as political section at one point and just remember that its ok to disagree with someone, but its down right rude and disrespectful to show any hatred, ill manners, belittle, sarcastic tone towards someones opinions.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> I intend to keep on pointing out that he replied to a guys post by adding lines to his quote as though he said something that he didn't. Something that only a lowlife scumbag would do. Every time he posts.


Yeah, well let's get the story straight if I'm a scumbag. Here is the *REAL* story:

http://www.prepperforums.net/forum/general-talk/8384-apology-re-casie.html

What does that have to do with the fact that every piece of legislation you've disagreed with me on has you supporting an *increase* in the size, power and / or scope of government? What does that have to do with welfare? You were silent when someone here brought my dead family members into this. What does that make you, sir?


----------



## The Resister

MrsInor said:


> Just a reminder from the forum rules.
> 
> 3. No Religious, Racial, Sexist, abusive or foul language and disrespectful comments. This will not be tolerated. You will be silenced from the site depending on the nature and severity, if severe enough (according to the moderators), you could be banned. There will be a Religious as well as political section at one point and just remember that its ok to disagree with someone, but its down right rude and disrespectful to show any hatred, ill manners, belittle, sarcastic tone towards someones opinions.


After people posting **** your mother and **** your sister ON THIS THREAD, I don't think you have a very good case. We can ask the mods to review the entire thread. If you complain about it, don't expect to be getting away with posting lies about me and doing the things you accuse me of.... Mr/s Inor.


----------



## Inor

The Resister said:


> After people posting **** your mother and **** your sister ON THIS THREAD, I don't think you have a very good case. We can ask the mods to review the entire thread. If you complain about it, don't expect to be getting away with posting lies about me and doing the things you accuse me of.... Mr/s Inor.


She did not post that you cocksucker. I did. And I stand by it.

If you want to attack my wife I promise you that I will **** with you so badly you will beg to be back going against the feds and the SPLC, Jimmy. They play by the rules. I don't.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

The Resister said:


> You have cited no such example, so you are a lying son of a bitch.


That is just one example of your immature, rude, obscene behavoir.
There are plenty more, just in this thread alone.


----------



## The Resister

Inor said:


> She did not post that you cocksucker. I did. And I stand by it.
> 
> If you want to attack my wife I promise you that I will **** with you so badly you will beg to be back going against the feds and the SPLC, Jimmy. They play by the rules. I don't.


You proved in an earlier thread, Mr. Bates, that you and Mrs. Inor are one and the same. You appear to be a cross-dresser with personality issues, but seriously I'm not a psychiatrist so I can't help you. If you make your threat a promise and tell me to name the time and the place, I am more than willing to accommodate you. If you're serious, take it to PM.

So Mr/S. Inor, does your wife think that a person's mother and sister are fair game in these disputes. Does your other personality believe that we should drag family into our personal discussion board issues?

What does any of the personality stuff have to do with the fact that you advocate a bigger and more intrusive government in order to deal with issues? Don't you understand that the government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have? What's the point of prepping if you're going to hand everything over to the community organizer?


----------



## The Resister

rice paddy daddy said:


> That is just one example of your immature, rude, obscene behavoir.
> There are plenty more, just in this thread alone.


Speaking of immaturity - *YOU* are the guy that initiated this hostile environment in this thread by knowingly, willingly and deliberately making false accusations against me.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> Speaking of immaturity - *YOU* are the guy that initiated this hostile environment in this thread by knowingly, willingly and deliberately making false accusations against me.


This from the guy who replied to a post and added lines to the quote as though the guy had said something that he didn't. What kind of low life does that?


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> You proved in an earlier thread, Mr. Bates, that you and Mrs. Inor are one and the same. You appear to be a cross-dresser with personality issues, but seriously I'm not a psychiatrist so I can't help you. If you make your threat a promise and tell me to name the time and the place, I am more than willing to accommodate you. If you're serious, take it to PM.
> 
> So Mr/S. Inor, does your wife think that a person's mother and sister are fair game in these disputes. Does your other personality believe that we should drag family into our personal discussion board issues?
> 
> What does any of the personality stuff have to do with the fact that you advocate a bigger and more intrusive government in order to deal with issues? Don't you understand that the government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take all you have? What's the point of prepping if you're going to hand everything over to the community organizer?


Another example of resistor implying that someone is gay. HHHHMMMMM, as often as he does it, makes you think that he just might be overcompensating for his own impulses, doesn't it? Maybe it's time for him to come out of the closet of his double-wide. He keeps talking about his "militia". I can see it now, them swishing and prancing down the street during their little "gay pride parade", wearing their lavender colored berets, their pink camouflaged patterned fatigues, and white high heeled jump boots. I wonder if they call themselves the "pansy platoon"? Maybe "butt hunting battalion" or the "dick diver division". Don't laugh or they will pummel you with their purses.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

The Resister said:


> Speaking of immaturity - *YOU* are the guy that initiated this hostile environment in this thread by knowingly, willingly and deliberately making false accusations against me.


Excuse me? What are you talking about?
With all due respect, perhaps you need some professional counseling.
Or are you just going to change the words of a quote like you have with others?


----------



## Notsoyoung

rice paddy daddy said:


> Excuse me? What are you talking about?
> With all due respect, perhaps you need some professional counseling.
> Or are you just going to change the words of a quote like you have with others?


He has a habit of doing that, doesn't he? I really do think that there are some mental problems there.


----------



## MrsInor

I sounded off to one of the mods yesterday so maybe he is gone.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

MrsInor said:


> I sounded off to one of the mods yesterday so maybe he is gone.


Thanks, and a tip of the hat to MrsInor.


----------



## The Resister

MrsInor said:


> I sounded off to one of the mods yesterday so maybe he is gone.


Yeah, you like censorship when you cannot discuss a topic without the personal attacks. You can attack me with personal attacks, but I'm not supposed to respond. It's all part of that democracy thing, you know.

Liberals, according to Hush Bimbo (Rush Limbaugh) love to team up on conservatives and demand their air time while denying it to those they disagree with. The facts stand:

Igor and RPD believe in a bigger and more intrusive government. Every issue we disagree on goes back to me saying that the individual is the best solution to his / her problem while the critics claim we need more government.

A true prepper would never suggest we support any program that increases the size, power and / or scope of government. The more power we give the government, the more novel ways they will find to abuse it and use against the very people that sought it as a means of protection.

Benjamin Franklin once said that anyone that would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR Safety. In my lifetime I have learned WHY this is so: If you give up Liberty you end up with neither. AND, if you could not foresee it, after repeated warnings, you deserved to lose both.


----------



## MrsInor

The Resister said:


> Igor and RPD believe in a bigger and more intrusive government. Every issue we disagree on goes back to me saying that the individual is the best solution to his / her problem while the critics claim we need more government.


1. It is Inor not Igor.
2.I know neither of them support a bigger and more intrusive government, so please support your statement.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> Yeah, you like censorship when you cannot discuss a topic without the personal attacks. You can attack me with personal attacks, but I'm not supposed to respond. It's all part of that democracy thing, you know.
> 
> Liberals, according to Hush Bimbo (Rush Limbaugh) love to team up on conservatives and demand their air time while denying it to those they disagree with. The facts stand:
> 
> Igor and RPD believe in a bigger and more intrusive government. Every issue we disagree on goes back to me saying that the individual is the best solution to his / her problem while the critics claim we need more government.
> 
> A true prepper would never suggest we support any program that increases the size, power and / or scope of government. The more power we give the government, the more novel ways they will find to abuse it and use against the very people that sought it as a means of protection.
> 
> Benjamin Franklin once said that anyone that would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR Safety. In my lifetime I have learned WHY this is so: If you give up Liberty you end up with neither. AND, if you could not foresee it, after repeated warnings, you deserved to lose both.


Ben Franklin also said "A penny saved is a penny earned". Neither statement is germane to this argument. Making parasites take a drug test has nothing to do with either safety nor pennies.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

The Resister said:


> Yeah, you like censorship when you cannot discuss a topic without the personal attacks. You can attack me with personal attacks, but I'm not supposed to respond. It's all part of that democracy thing, you know.
> 
> Liberals, according to Hush Bimbo (Rush Limbaugh) love to team up on conservatives and demand their air time while denying it to those they disagree with. The facts stand:
> 
> Igor and RPD believe in a bigger and more intrusive government. Every issue we disagree on goes back to me saying that the individual is the best solution to his / her problem while the critics claim we need more government.
> 
> A true prepper would never suggest we support any program that increases the size, power and / or scope of government. The more power we give the government, the more novel ways they will find to abuse it and use against the very people that sought it as a means of protection.
> 
> Benjamin Franklin once said that anyone that would give up Essential Liberty for the promise of Temporary Safety deserves neither Liberty NOR Safety. In my lifetime I have learned WHY this is so: If you give up Liberty you end up with neither. AND, if you could not foresee it, after repeated warnings, you deserved to lose both.


With all due respect, mr. resister, you certainly seem to be intelligent enough to make your points without foul language or name calling. This forum is visited by a wide variety of people ranging from teenagers to senior citizens, from athiests to the pious, all manner of individuals, some of whom take offense at coarse language.
I think you will find that people will treat you the way you treat them.


----------



## The Resister

MrsInor said:


> 1. It is Inor not Igor.
> 2.I know neither of them support a bigger and more intrusive government, so please support your statement.


If you require every person who applies for welfare to forfeit their Rights you have to hire millions of people to do the testing - or in the alternative, monitor it, record it, validate it, quantify it, and then, finally who is going to pay for it??? If a single mother and two kids apply for welfare and she don't have the money to pay for the drug test, WHO pays? Do the children get tested too? OR do you let them starve?

MrsInor, Nothing personal but, at this stage I don't who is being square with me. RPD and your husband (?) disagreed with me on the immigration issue. THAT is why they have fought me so hard here. But, bottom line, the immigration issue cost us *TRILLIONS* of dollars in additional taxes, have cost us most of our fundamental Liberties and the Establishment Republicans have declared war on the anti - immigrant lobby just as I predicted years ago. The Tea Party will lose and we could have won the fight had it been fought the right way.

Today, we are at the issue of drug tests. It serves no purpose. In Georgia, the issue will be moot as the courts have consistently struck down these type of laws. They are divisive to us, but, at the end of the day, they do nothing by empower government, cost us more taxes and lead to a loss in our Liberties.


----------



## The Resister

rice paddy daddy said:


> With all due respect, mr. resister, you certainly seem to be intelligent enough to make your points without foul language or name calling. This forum is visited by a wide variety of people ranging from teenagers to senior citizens, from athiests to the pious, all manner of individuals, some of whom take offense at coarse language.
> I think you will find that people will treat you the way you treat them.


I am sure that it works both ways as well. I don't know what justification Mr.Inor attacked my sister and mother when they have nothing to do with this and both of them died last year. My sister died of cancer and it destroyed my mother. She died on June 21 last year, only two days before her 84th birthday.

The name calling is counterproductive. Still, I am nobody's liberal. I simply came from a time when many people learned the legal system and threw monkey wrenches at it. We won the Supreme Court case involving Cheek v. U.S. over income taxes; Louis Beam defended himself over sedition charges and won; I won in the U.S. Supreme Court as well. I can't give you a legal education in two or three threads. I'm definitely not on the side of the system.

Any time you want to stop, restart and begin at the beginning, we can. You might learn how the Establishment works and how to defeat it. You see, the reason I keep winning is a simple strategy: I can argue the other guy's position better than he can, still hold onto my view and defeat him when there is no censorship nor limitations put on the discussion.

I'm sorry that I had to respond with increasing degrees of anger, but I felt like I was attacked first. Having been beaten, jailed, shot, run through the system twice, lost many friends and few family members (some murdered by the system), my toleration level of being accused for things I'm not guilty of doesn't set well.

The people you are getting your talking points from took control of the movement just over a decade ago. You can't tell me a single accomplishment they have that wasn't ultimately used against them.

So, you want to call a truce, back up and try again?


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> If you require every person who applies for welfare to forfeit their Rights you have to hire millions of people to do the testing - or in the alternative, monitor it, record it, validate it, quantify it, and then, finally who is going to pay for it??? If a single mother and two kids apply for welfare and she don't have the money to pay for the drug test, WHO pays? Do the children get tested too? OR do you let them starve?
> 
> MrsInor, Nothing personal but, at this stage I don't who is being square with me. RPD and your husband (?) disagreed with me on the immigration issue. THAT is why they have fought me so hard here. But, bottom line, the immigration issue cost us *TRILLIONS* of dollars in additional taxes, have cost us most of our fundamental Liberties and the Establishment Republicans have declared war on the anti - immigrant lobby just as I predicted years ago. The Tea Party will lose and we could have won the fight had it been fought the right way.
> 
> Today, we are at the issue of drug tests. It serves no purpose. In Georgia, the issue will be moot as the courts have consistently struck down these type of laws. They are divisive to us, but, at the end of the day, they do nothing by empower government, cost us more taxes and lead to a loss in our Liberties.


The only reason that the immigration issue has cost us trillions is because illegal aliens keep coming into the country illegally. Trying to secure our borders has not cost us our fundamental Liberties and as for the "Establishment Republicans declaring war on the "anti-immigrant" lobby...Huh? You mean that Establishment Republicans are FOR illegal aliens, and does that mean that Establishment Democrats are against illegal aliens? When did that happen?

Funny that all of a sudden the only reason that you are against illegal aliens and drug testing is because of the cost? Call me skeptical.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> The only reason that the immigration issue has cost us trillions is because illegal aliens keep coming into the country illegally. Trying to secure our borders has not cost us our fundamental Liberties and as for the "Establishment Republicans declaring war on the "anti-immigrant" lobby...Huh? You mean that Establishment Republicans are FOR illegal aliens, and does that mean that Establishment Democrats are against illegal aliens? When did that happen?
> 
> Funny that all of a sudden the only reason that you are against illegal aliens and drug testing is because of the cost? Call me skeptical.


I'm not against aliens because of any cost. I'm just not into creating a crime where no crime exists - even if the foreigner is my worst enemy. You don't read my posts. If you would try reading them you might get it. I'm not saying you'll agree, but you'd get it. Immigration is all civil law. It isn't criminal. I'm skeptical that you could outlaw Liberty. You keep putting words into my mouth, but not even once have you answered my question:

If immigration were illegal, *how come Congress tried to change the word from improper to unlawful in the Code?*

I can still do what you claim you want to do without this stuff costing us *TRILLIONS of dollars*. If you recall, my objection to building up this insanely large government on the pretext of saving you from is that all the laws the *anti - immigrant laws have supported have cost the lives of more right wing activist Americans than all the other groups you thought they were going to target combine*d!!! Now, here is the answer to your other question regarding the Establishment Republicans and the Tea Party. Just in case you don't know (and I'm not trying to be smart ass) you move your cursor over the link and click the left hand side of the mouse. The stories will appear:

Immigration Reform 2014: Ted Cruz, Tea Party Republicans Hold ?Secret? Meeting On Immigration, GOP Leadership

Republicans eye immigration reform after budget deal exposes party rift | World news | theguardian.com

Immigration reform 'love': Did Jeb Bush comment change shape of 2016 race?

Now, let us get back to welfare:

Any time you give the government more power, they abuse it, widen it to include more people and more situations than what was intended. I realize that you can't understand it (studying law takes YEARS), but what ever injustices you put on welfare recipients will affect veterans, Social Security recipients and anyone else who applies for any entitlement. It don't matter to the government that one person put their life on the line in defense of their country and another is a lazy mofo that wants to milk the system. An entitlement is an entitlement and the government will burden everyone who applies for one with requirements that you cannot fathom.

Obama IS trying to take the guns from vets. If welfare recipients are required to forfeit their Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights, then vets drawing a VA check COULD be required to submit to a mental health evaluation *because both recipients are getting entitlements as far as Uncle Scam is concerned*. The fact that the vet earned his or hers is irrelevant to Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, etc. Obama wants the guns of vets:

http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/obama-threatening-veterans-gun-rights/

If the welfare measure you support ever sticks, mark my words, it will open the doors to any person who gets an entitlement check to have their lives disrupted because we did not lobby strategically.


----------



## The Resister

duplicate post


----------



## Notsoyoung

Bull. If you come here illegally you are a criminal. NO one who comes here ILLEGALLY should be allowed to stay. Your parents brought you here as a child and the United States is the only country you know? TOO BAD. Blame your parents for doing you a terrible disservice.

Making welfare recipients take a drug test or even work for their money is NOT a violation of their rights. If they don't want to meet the conditions in order to receive the benefits they don't have to.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> Bull. If you come here illegally you are a criminal. NO one who comes here ILLEGALLY should be allowed to stay. Your parents brought you here as a child and the United States is the only country you know? TOO BAD. Blame your parents for doing you a terrible disservice.
> 
> Making welfare recipients take a drug test or even work for their money is NOT a violation of their rights. If they don't want to meet the conditions in order to receive the benefits they don't have to.


Immigration is civil law, not criminal law. Would you like me to quote the legal authority on it...yet again???

Insofar as welfare goes, the courts have *consistently* ruled against your position. Hopefully they will do again. Nobody in a de jure (lawful) constitutional Republic can be forced to comply with a warrant less search. Sorry, but that's in the Constitution. It does not matter that they applied for an entitlement. The fact that the controlling word is entitlement ought to tell you something: If the Constitution says you are entitled to Due Process, it doesn't matter who you are or what you did you are entitled. Same word... entitlement. The government says entitlements are civil rights (government privileges aka "rights" for 14th Amendment citizens) so if you're entitled, then you're entitled and not subject to a forfeiture of Rights to apply for that Uncle Scam says you're entitled to.

If you don't believe it, you should ask your lawyer rather than keep this bickering going back and forth.


----------



## machinejjh

Criminal, civil, whatever. If you come here and they deport you- you aren't supposed to be here. If you come here, as prescribed, they make you a citizen. See how that works? One way leads to May-hee-co, the other leads to the land of dreams. One is incorrect, however the jacked up law terms it. And the other is correct.


----------



## The Resister

machinejjh said:


> Criminal, civil, whatever. If you come here and they deport you- you aren't supposed to be here. If you come here, as prescribed, they make you a citizen. See how that works? One way leads to May-hee-co, the other leads to the land of dreams. One is incorrect, however the jacked up law terms it. And the other is correct.


Okay, this is a topic about welfare and we're back to immigration.

For the 100th time at least, YES, it does matter if an offense is criminal or civil. IF the government is given a green light to treat every civil offense as if it were a crime, then all civil laws will carry the same types of penalties. It then becomes a socialist proposition to keep advocating a criminal penalty for a civil offense. That is the first part of the equation.

If foreigners don't belong here, then it boggles the mind that you would argue it's okay, provided it's "_legal_." There is a big difference between something being _"legal"_ and being constitutional. The danger here is not about immigration; the danger is about the application of the law. You cannot separate the application of the law from the Constitution. The 14th Amendment (albeit illegally ratified) provides the equal protection of the laws. For example, one of those foreign day workers was arrested and questioned... found guilty on the basis of his own statements. His case was over-turned and for a long time afterward, EVERYBODY charged with any crime had to have their Rights read to them. Citizen, non-citizen, black, white, misdemeanor crime, felony, etc. the law was the same based upon one guy and one felony statute. It is that simple.

If people are not supposed to be here, why let them come at all? If your issue is that this is about citizenship, then the Establishment Republicans are going to help you out. They will make all people citizens and that will end your argument on that count. I don't understand the obsession with forcing people to become citizens. You've pissed them off with the political banter. Give them a privilege to vote and you are history in the 2016 election.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> Okay, this is a topic about welfare and we're back to immigration.
> 
> For the 100th time at least, YES, it does matter if an offense is criminal or civil. IF the government is given a green light to treat every civil offense as if it were a crime, then all civil laws will carry the same types of penalties. It then becomes a socialist proposition to keep advocating a criminal penalty for a civil offense. That is the first part of the equation.
> 
> If foreigners don't belong here, then it boggles the mind that you would argue it's okay, provided it's "_legal_." There is a big difference between something being _"legal"_ and being constitutional. The danger here is not about immigration; the danger is about the application of the law. You cannot separate the application of the law from the Constitution. The 14th Amendment (albeit illegally ratified) provides the equal protection of the laws. For example, one of those foreign day workers was arrested and questioned... found guilty on the basis of his own statements. His case was over-turned and for a long time afterward, EVERYBODY charged with any crime had to have their Rights read to them. Citizen, non-citizen, black, white, misdemeanor crime, felony, etc. the law was the same based upon one guy and one felony statute. It is that simple.
> 
> If people are not supposed to be here, why let them come at all? If your issue is that this is about citizenship, then the Establishment Republicans are going to help you out. They will make all people citizens and that will end your argument on that count. I don't understand the obsession with forcing people to become citizens. You've pissed them off with the political banter. Give them a privilege to vote and you are history in the 2016 election.


*If foreigners don't belong here, then it boggles the mind that you would argue it's okay, provided it's "legal." * What boggles the mind is that your argument is that if ANYONE who is an immigrant is allowed in the Country, then you should let ANYONE into the Country, no questions asked.

That would be similar to a stranger comes knocking on my door wanting to come inside. After questioning him I find out that he is the repairmen that I called to come in to repair my furnace. Using your reasoning, if I let him in, if another stranger comes knocking on my door I have to let them in too, but without even asking them who they are and what they want. It is ludicrous.

There is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution that gives ANYONE the RIGHT to immigrate to this Country. If they do so illegally they should be sent back to their country of origin. Period.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> *If foreigners don't belong here, then it boggles the mind that you would argue it's okay, provided it's "legal." * What boggles the mind is that your argument is that if ANYONE who is an immigrant is allowed in the Country, then you should let ANYONE into the Country, no questions asked.
> 
> That would be similar to a stranger comes knocking on my door wanting to come inside. After questioning him I find out that he is the repairmen that I called to come in to repair my furnace. Using your reasoning, if I let him in, if another stranger comes knocking on my door I have to let them in too, but without even asking them who they are and what they want. It is ludicrous.
> 
> There is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution that gives ANYONE the RIGHT to immigrate to this Country. If they do so illegally they should be sent back to their country of origin. Period.


Okay, like I said, this is a thread about welfare. When I disproved your position the last time, one of the mods deleted my entire thread. Hours of hard work were lost. This thread isn't even about immigration, but let me do this for you:

At the end of my posts is a link. If you go to that link, register and go to the debate forum, I will be glad to debate you for as long as you wish. I will prepare myself for finding out what it is you think I haven't heard the first time.

You keep saying "_they_" don't belong here. Okay, I'll play along. You just tell us where I get it wrong or right in your eyes. You wrote:

"_What boggles the mind is that your argument is that if ANYONE who is an immigrant is allowed in the Country, then you should let ANYONE into the Country, no questions asked_..."

In what sentence, in what thread and on what board in the eleven years we've been debating this did I advocate letting people into the U.S. "_no questions asked_"??? Please be so kind as to tell us where I wrote that?

Okay, what questions do you want us to ask? If someone wants to come here bad enough, don't you think they would lie about it? If their government wanted them to come here, don't you think that government would lie as well?

Are you aware that the *government* of Mexico printed comic books teaching their citizens how to avoid immigration officials and enter the United States? So, again, what questions do you want to ask them?

Now, let me respond to this part of your post:

"_There is NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution that gives ANYONE the RIGHT to immigrate to this Country. If they do so illegally they should be sent back to their country of origin. Period_"

*RESPONSE*: There are a lot of things that aren't in the Constitution, but have a constitutional basis for existing. But, I'll give you a preview of the Rights of man and the Constitution. The following is a quote from a *UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASE*:

"T_he first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words:_ '*We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness*.' _While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and_* it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government*.'"

Cotting v. Goddard, 183 US 79 (1901)

The U.S. Supreme Court was applying the sentiment of our founding fathers:

"_The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man_."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Adams Wells, May 12, 1821

The ruling of the United States Supreme Court makes it abundantly clear that *every human being* is entitled to Liberty. So, while we can regulate the flow of immigration, I'm trying to find out here where you get the notion that people don't belong here. Make this clear to me:

Are you saying that no man has *unalienable Rights* unless he is a citizen of the United States?


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution grants immigrants free access to our country. It would be suicide for our nation to do so. Free borders where anyone can come in as they please would turn us into a 3rd world country. Try it at home. Leave your door open, better yet, take it off it's hinges and remove it entirely. Removed all fences and any guard dpgs that you may have. Do not say anything to anyone who comes in. See how long it takes for you home to turn into a garbage dump.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> The Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution grants immigrants free access to our country. It would be suicide for our nation to do so. Free borders where anyone can come in as they please would turn us into a 3rd world country. Try it at home. Leave your door open, better yet, take it off it's hinges and remove it entirely. Removed all fences and any guard dpgs that you may have. Do not say anything to anyone who comes in. See how long it takes for you home to turn into a garbage dump.


Would you care to quit making stuff up and respond to my questions? Let me help you out once more:

You wrote:

"_What boggles the mind is that your argument is that if ANYONE who is an immigrant is allowed in the Country, then you should let ANYONE into the Country, no questions asked._.."

In what sentence, in what thread and on what board in the eleven years we've been debating this did I advocate letting people into the U.S. "no questions asked"??? Please be so kind as to tell us where I wrote that?

The deal with *unalienable Rights* is that neither the Constitution, Declaration of Independence NOR the United States Supreme Court have the authority to grant them.

Could you please return to my previous post and answer my questions? There is no point in making stuff up at this juncture. Let's figure out what it is YOU are saying relative to my questions. Please answer them. I've always answered yours.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> Would you care to quit making stuff up and respond to my questions? Let me help you out once more:
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> "_What boggles the mind is that your argument is that if ANYONE who is an immigrant is allowed in the Country, then you should let ANYONE into the Country, no questions asked._.."
> 
> In what sentence, in what thread and on what board in the eleven years we've been debating this did I advocate letting people into the U.S. "no questions asked"??? Please be so kind as to tell us where I wrote that?
> 
> The deal with *unalienable Rights* is that neither the Constitution, Declaration of Independence NOR the United States Supreme Court have the authority to grant them.
> 
> Could you please return to my previous post and answer my questions? There is no point in making stuff up at this juncture. Let's figure out what it is YOU are saying relative to my questions. Please answer them. I've always answered yours.


Just what stuff am I "making up"? Illegal aliens DO NOT have "Unalienable Rights" to come into the United States as they please. IT IS NOT AN UNALIENABLE RIGHT.


----------



## Beach Kowboy

These cocksuckers that come here without going thru the correct process and abuse the system.. Personally, just let them take a bullet behind their ear along with their entire family.. If someone wants to come here and make a better life for themselves. I am all for it. As long as they go thru the correct process. But these pieces of shit that jump the fence and come here and pop babies out so they can stay. Let them all die....


----------



## The Resister

Beach Kowboy said:


> These cocksuckers that come here without going thru the correct process and abuse the system.. Personally, just let them take a bullet behind their ear along with their entire family.. If someone wants to come here and make a better life for themselves. I am all for it. As long as they go thru the correct process. But these pieces of shit that jump the fence and come here and pop babies out so they can stay. Let them all die....


Thank you for your well thought out response. But, it has nothing to do with the issue before us. - Unless everybody wants to turn this into a rant about immigration.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> Just what stuff am I "making up"? Illegal aliens DO NOT have "Unalienable Rights" to come into the United States as they please. IT IS NOT AN UNALIENABLE RIGHT.


Let me repeat my question for you (after I give you the proper context that you were writing about):

Notsoyoung wrote: _"What boggles the mind is that your argument is that if ANYONE who is an immigrant is allowed in the Country, then you should let ANYONE into the Country, no questions asked_..."

I responded: "_In what sentence, in what thread and on what board in the eleven years we've been debating this did I advocate letting people into the U.S. "no questions asked"??? Please be so kind as to tell us where I wrote that?_"

Now then, you are saying that people you call "_illegal aliens_" do not have *unalienable Rights*. Am I safe to say that, according to your opinion, *unalienable Rights* only apply to citizens of the U.S.? Do you know what an *unalienable Right* is?


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> Let me repeat my question for you (after I give you the proper context that you were writing about):
> 
> Notsoyoung wrote: _"What boggles the mind is that your argument is that if ANYONE who is an immigrant is allowed in the Country, then you should let ANYONE into the Country, no questions asked_..."
> 
> I responded: "_In what sentence, in what thread and on what board in the eleven years we've been debating this did I advocate letting people into the U.S. "no questions asked"??? Please be so kind as to tell us where I wrote that?_"
> 
> Now then, you are saying that people you call "_illegal aliens_" do not have *unalienable Rights*. Am I safe to say that, according to your opinion, *unalienable Rights* only apply to citizens of the U.S.? Do you know what an *unalienable Right* is?


I think that if anyone reads your previous posts they know exactly what I am talking about. If you say that they are not illegal aliens and that they have Unalienable Rights to be here and are protected under the Constitution, then you are calling for open boarders.


----------



## Beach Kowboy

The Resister said:


> Thank you for your well thought out response. But, it has nothing to do with the issue before us. - Unless everybody wants to turn this into a rant about immigration.


YOU my friend are the one that always brings up immigration.. About how there is no such thing as "illegal immigration". You bring up immigration in about every post you write. You talk about rights and what not.. You say aliens are not here illegally.. And that it is not against the law for them to be here.. People like you are the ones that are wrong with this country. Always looking for loopholes and technicalities.. There is no wonder the majority of Americans can't stand attorneys!! Which I would bet my left nut you are one or used to be one.


----------



## The Resister

Beach Kowboy said:


> YOU my friend are the one that always brings up immigration.. About how there is no such thing as "illegal immigration". You bring up immigration in about every post you write. You talk about rights and what not.. You say aliens are not here illegally.. And that it is not against the law for them to be here.. People like you are the ones that are wrong with this country. Always looking for loopholes and technicalities.. There is no wonder the majority of Americans can't stand attorneys!! Which I would bet my left nut you are one or used to be one.


As stated many times before, I am an anti-attorney. Yeah, I got a legal education. But, I don't work for the Bar.

Now, with respect to your allegation regarding the immigration topic:

Notso... and a couple of others jumped on this thread just to bully me. They didn't give a rat's ass about the topic. They came here to be bullies over the fact that they got their asses kicked on that one issue. That is not trying to turn this thread into an immigration thread; it isn't even an invitation for people like you to jump on their bandwagon. I'm all for getting back on topic.

Beach Kowboy, let me tell you a little something I learned as a kid:

"_He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is a shame and a folly unto him_." Proverbs 18 : 13

I personally do not care about the foreigners. I'm not apathetic; I simply have other things on my plate. So, why write about immigration? It's because* I know*, from personal experience, that when you apply c*riminal standards to civil actions*, the courts require that across the board. Now, all these people keep yelling and claiming that improper entry makes one "_illegal,_" but, they refuse to answer one simple question: IF IMMIGRATION WERE ILLEGAL AS PER 8 USC 1325, HOW COME CONGRESS TRIED TO CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE STATUTE FROM IMPROPER TO UNLAWFUL ENTRY?

It's a simple question.


----------



## machinejjh

im·prop·er
[im-prop-er] 
adjective
1. not proper; not strictly belonging, not applicable, not correct, etc.; erroneous
2. not in accordance with propriety of behavior, manners, etc
3. unsuitable or inappropriate, as for the purpose or occasion 
4. abnormal or irregular

My guess is they are trying to change the word because the original framers didn't realize that some people would take one word and find a loophole in it. People knew what the difference between proper and improper was. This argument is like Clinton debating what "is" is.


----------



## Notsoyoung

_"Notso... and a couple of others jumped on this thread just to bully me. They didn't give a rat's ass about the topic. They came here to be bullies over the fact that they got their asses kicked on that one issue. That is not trying to turn this thread into an immigration thread; it isn't even an invitation for people like you to jump on their bandwagon. I'm all for getting back on topic._"

Frankly, I don't know how to respond. Come on a thread, attack everyone who disagrees with you, call them names, then if they respond they are "bullies".

Perhaps it is all a big misunderstanding. Perhaps it would clear things up if Resister would simply tells us what he thinks should be done about controlling our borders and immigration, and what to do about those who come here without following the process.

So clear it up for us, and tell us exactly what YOU think should be done. No court precedence, no quotes from others that may or may not be applicable, tells what YOU think should actually be done for the following: 1) Our borders: patrols? Fences? Just vehicle inspections? Nothing? 2) Immigrants who come here without following the process: Deport them? Do nothing?

Tells us. Tell us exactly what should be done, no platitudes, no ramblings, just what YOU think should be done.


----------



## The Resister

machinejjh said:


> im·prop·er
> [im-prop-er]
> adjective
> 1. not proper; not strictly belonging, not applicable, not correct, etc.; erroneous
> 2. not in accordance with propriety of behavior, manners, etc
> 3. unsuitable or inappropriate, as for the purpose or occasion
> 4. abnormal or irregular
> 
> My guess is they are trying to change the word because the original framers didn't realize that some people would take one word and find a loophole in it. People knew what the difference between proper and improper was. This argument is like Clinton debating what "is" is.


At least you bothered to look the word up. Improper, unlawful and illegal mean different things:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Understanding the Law 2

That will explain the importance of the subject. The legal system nitpicks on words. Again, I don't have a dog in the fight in this fight my critics are implying. I'm doing exactly what the founding fathers admonished us to do:

"_He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself_." Thomas Paine

Our founding fathers were some of the most learned men in that era of history. The current law on improper entry was drafted by well educated people who were *anti-immigrant*. So, it's hard to make the argument that they didn't know. We did not even have numerical limits on foreigners coming in until 1924. Between 1924 and the 1950s was when the sentiment was to draft laws to get rid of the Hispanics.

At issue here is not whether or not we should have regulation of incoming immigrants. That is an issue that resides solely in the imagination of my critics. What is at issue is simply this: Do we want to impose a criminal penalty to a civil action, knowing that some day OUR RIGHTS may be on the chopping block?

If your only complaint is that someone did not come here properly, then Congress heard you. They will make the foreigners back up, fill out some paperwork and make them all legal and all... AND whether your or I or the man in the moon likes it, the liberals have the votes to get it done. I could have done you a better deal WITHOUT making all those people citizens. But, T*HAT IS NOT THE POINT!* My issue is, study the law enough so that you can see the long term ramifications and cost of putting a criminal penalty to a civil action.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> _"Notso... and a couple of others jumped on this thread just to bully me. They didn't give a rat's ass about the topic. They came here to be bullies over the fact that they got their asses kicked on that one issue. That is not trying to turn this thread into an immigration thread; it isn't even an invitation for people like you to jump on their bandwagon. I'm all for getting back on topic._"
> 
> Frankly, I don't know how to respond. Come on a thread, attack everyone who disagrees with you, call them names, then if they respond they are "bullies".
> 
> Perhaps it is all a big misunderstanding. Perhaps it would clear things up if Resister would simply tells us what he thinks should be done about controlling our borders and immigration, and what to do about those who come here without following the process.
> 
> So clear it up for us, and tell us exactly what YOU think should be done. No court precedence, no quotes from others that may or may not be applicable, tells what YOU think should actually be done for the following: 1) Our borders: patrols? Fences? Just vehicle inspections? Nothing? 2) Immigrants who come here without following the process: Deport them? Do nothing?
> 
> Tells us. Tell us exactly what should be done, no platitudes, no ramblings, just what YOU think should be done.


I cannot tell you what to do about borders, protection of the citizenry, etc. until your side comes clean and answers my questions.

If only 14th Amendment subject / citizens have *unalienable Rights*, then the government is going to make that decision based upon a popularity vote of the American people. I disagree with my critics. I believe that _all men are created equal_ as per the Declaration of Independence. I believe that our Rights are bestowed upon us by our *Creator *(our God, whomever we deem that to be) as per the DOI.

As such, the best people qualified to regulate the flow of immigration into the United States is the citizenry, NOT the government. IF you will do your research, back in 2003 when this first became an issue, the anti - immigrant lobby (run by Jim Gilchrist, Chris Simcox, J.T. Ready, etc.) caved in and allowed the government to take control of privately held land and gave this issue over to the government.

Now, me, my "_borders_" begin at my property line. If you or anyone else thinks they can trespass over my land (especially if it's posted) I'm going to be considering shooting your ass. Of course, because the anti-immigrant lobby caved on that point, if you do protect your private land (your personal borders) you will be arrested and charged with a crime. So, what would I do to protect the borders?

The first thing I'd do is to have you take the time to go back to the scene of the crime as it were and see when and *HOW* we lost control of this to begin with. You want an easy answer, but you cannot solve a problem that is a decade old and has tens of thousands of pages of legislation passed during that time that take control from the citizen and gives it to Uncle Scam.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> I cannot tell you what to do about borders, protection of the citizenry, etc. until your side comes clean and answers my questions.
> 
> If only 14th Amendment subject / citizens have *unalienable Rights*, then the government is going to make that decision based upon a popularity vote of the American people. I disagree with my critics. I believe that _all men are created equal_ as per the Declaration of Independence. I believe that our Rights are bestowed upon us by our *Creator *(our God, whomever we deem that to be) as per the DOI.
> 
> As such, the best people qualified to regulate the flow of immigration into the United States is the citizenry, NOT the government. IF you will do your research, back in 2003 when this first became an issue, the anti - immigrant lobby (run by Jim Gilchrist, Chris Simcox, J.T. Ready, etc.) caved in and allowed the government to take control of privately held land and gave this issue over to the government.
> 
> Now, me, my "_borders_" begin at my property line. If you or anyone else thinks they can trespass over my land (especially if it's posted) I'm going to be considering shooting your ass. Of course, because the anti-immigrant lobby caved on that point, if you do protect your private land (your personal borders) you will be arrested and charged with a crime. So, what would I do to protect the borders?
> 
> The first thing I'd do is to have you take the time to go back to the scene of the crime as it were and see when and *HOW* we lost control of this to begin with. You want an easy answer, but you cannot solve a problem that is a decade old and has tens of thousands of pages of legislation passed during that time that take control from the citizen and gives it to Uncle Scam.


Wow, really slick way to dodge those questions...not. Until told otherwise and given your stance in the past we can all conclude that you are for open boarders and unrestricted immigration. After all, you repeatedly have stated, they have Unalienable Rights, and since you keep saying it we can conclude that you believe that one of their Unalienable Rights is to come to this country with out following the rules.


----------



## sparkyprep

So THATS how this thread got such long legs! It turned into another Resister rant! LOL


----------



## Beach Kowboy

How often does a man say 'Eat me? I can't think of a time when any man I know or myself ever said it. Saying it means you have a pussy but I thought you were a "male"?? Must be a liberal!!!


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> Wow, really slick way to dodge those questions...not. Until told otherwise and given your stance in the past we can all conclude that you are for open boarders and unrestricted immigration. After all, you repeatedly have stated, they have Unalienable Rights, and since you keep saying it we can conclude that you believe that one of their Unalienable Rights is to come to this country with out following the rules.


 _"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him_." Proverbs 18: 13

You can believe whatever in the hell you want to believe Notsosmart. But, you've still got to live with the truth. The truth is, since the coming of Jim Gilchrist on his proverbial white horse back in 2003 your side has lost consistently. You've lost not only on the immigration issue, but everything connected to it. The truth is, all of it could be avoided.

Your side begged for "_border security_" and the anti-immigrant lobby (including Tea Party favorite Glenn Beck, among many others) supported the _Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act._ According to an article describing this law under the section of "border security" we find these words:

"_Title IV_ {Border security} _amends the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to give more *law enforcement *and investigative *power* to the United States Attorney General and to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)_."

Patriot Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Instead of solving your own problems, you support measures that empower the government, disenfranchise the citizenry and cost us TRILLIONS in new taxes. And what are the fruits of your labors? The last time I checked the anti - immigrant lobby lost their ass in the elections; have nothing but despair and defeat to show for their efforts; have cost the American Citizens many of their God given Rights. And, while I could dismiss all of you as fringe lunatics - because the liberals are kicking your collective asses, I'm here trying to reason with you.

The *ONLY* thing you've argued for is blind obedience to laws that have been used more times against constitutionalists than the people you thought were going to be targeted. When in the history of mankind did MORE GOVERNMENTgain us more freedoms and Liberties?


----------



## The Resister

Old SF Guy said:


> Obviously Resister is well versed in the verbiage of the Constitution and even more obvious is his willingness to fight back at the masses for lashing out at him (whether rightly or wrongly). Before I further wade into to the continued escalation of vitriol, let me state a couple things. First and fore most. I dislike Welfare but in full disclosure...My mother took welfare for six months following her divorce from my father... I was 8 at the time. She had three kids and she took it for six months until she got back on her feet and then never took it again. SO whereas Welfare had helped me personally, I still dislike it at its core. So to Resisters position, as I understand it....We pay taxes so therefore if we ever have a need for welfare the government has no right to limit our access to it by imposing any discriminator such as drug testing (as he sees it as a violation of the 4th amendment of unlawful search and seizer...is there merit there? some yes.
> To the other side...too many abuse this system and take welfare without paying in, a desire to do so, a remorse for doing so, and while also enjoying expending our tax money on illegal substances, etc. WHere as I say that taxation is mandatory and has no bearing on rights since our constitution allows for the taxing of its citizens. Welfare by its definition is voluntary you have to apply for it and be accepted for it. THere is no guarantee of receiving Welfare. Just as no guarantee of a Job...just the guarantee that I cannot be discriminated against getting one because of my race, sex, religion, etc... A qualifier for that job can lawfully be the submission to a drug test, polygraph, background investigation, or other requirement that involves a seizure of my information, bodily fluids, or biometric data. Placing an equal qualifier on reacquiring taxes rendered under the offer of welfare has no further socialistic ramifications as the offering of the welfare has in itself. WHere I can agree that placing restriction on applying for programs offered by the government can lead us to a dark place...I question that the dark place is any darker than having that social program in the first place. Legally and constitutionally welfare is not a right...it is a program. You have a right to not be discriminated unfairly from that program based on many factors....but it is still a program. Not a guaranteed right To qualify for that program the government can apply many metrics which can involve the voluntary access to data, bodily fluids, etc just as a federal Job or state Job. One can argue that Constitutionally decreed mandate to provide for the defense requires jobs, which requires offers of employment by the government, which implies you cannot take my fluids because its mandated...I pay taxes and my job is funded by my taxes so therefore it is mandated...damn this gets loopy.
> *SO in closing.*..Resister, I understand where you are coming from and the overall concern of socialism. But IMHO...just having Welfare is socialism...placing a burden on those enjoying it to prove they deserve it is merely the peoples checks and balances on that socialism. As long as it is constitutionally adopted and not just a congressional decree...which means the States get a say.


Here's the deal SF Guy:

I have consistently agreed that we'd be better off with* NO* welfare. I'm also a realist. We're stuck with welfare. So, the issue *ought to be*:

HOW CAN WE SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON WELFARE?

My critics come up with "_drug tests_" which are another form of warrant less searches. In the* government's eyes*, welfare, VA benefits, Medicare, and so on are entitlements. It does not matter, in the least, who paid their dues and earned their check and who is going to get a check just because some overpaid bureaucrat in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption said so. The danger is, if we allow the government to do warrant less searches for drugs we do two things:

We nullify the doctrine that a person is innocent until proven guilty and
We nullify the Fourth and Fifth Amendments against self incrimination and the Right not to have to submit to warrant less searches.

The "logic" of my critics (if you can call it that) is that people should not sign up for the entitlement. In the *government's eyes* an entitlement is an entitlement. They have the power to enforce that doctrine. So, if you can be denied welfare for refusal to forfeit your Rights, then it is equally true that the government can put restrictions on your other Rights as well. If they cut you out of your VA check because you own a firearm or you don't eat a specific diet that they determine you should eat, would you do so? If not, and presume they use the precedent that was just set, is your argument going to be I "earned my entitlement?" Let me assure you, it won't make a damn to that left wing Democrat doling out the money. With them, an entitlement is an entitlement and if you don't kiss their ass, forfeit your Rights and do what they want, they will take your money.

Finally, like most of you, I have relatives that are too lazy to work. Drugs are not their problem. They are willing to kiss ass and obey masters if they get a monthly check. The courts have already ruled out forcing them to have to work for it with services rendered to government, so what's left? Again, put the burden on the government. Require those to dole the money out to get people off the rolls or the bureaucrat will not get promoted, will not get a pay raise and may even lose their job. Do that and see how resourceful they can become at getting their charges off their asses, going to school and looking for real work.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> _"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him_." Proverbs 18: 13
> 
> You can believe whatever in the hell you want to believe Notsosmart. But, you've still got to live with the truth. The truth is, since the coming of Jim Gilchrist on his proverbial white horse back in 2003 your side has lost consistently. You've lost not only on the immigration issue, but everything connected to it. The truth is, all of it could be avoided.
> 
> Your side begged for "_border security_" and the anti-immigrant lobby (including Tea Party favorite Glenn Beck, among many others) supported the _Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act._ According to an article describing this law under the section of "border security" we find these words:
> 
> "_Title IV_ {Border security} _amends the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to give more *law enforcement *and investigative *power* to the United States Attorney General and to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)_."
> 
> Patriot Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Instead of solving your own problems, you support measures that empower the government, disenfranchise the citizenry and cost us TRILLIONS in new taxes. And what are the fruits of your labors? The last time I checked the anti - immigrant lobby lost their ass in the elections; have nothing but despair and defeat to show for their efforts; have cost the American Citizens many of their God given Rights. And, while I could dismiss all of you as fringe lunatics - because the liberals are kicking your collective asses, I'm here trying to reason with you.
> 
> The *ONLY* thing you've argued for is blind obedience to laws that have been used more times against constitutionalists than the people you thought were going to be targeted. When in the history of mankind did MORE GOVERNMENTgain us more freedoms and Liberties?


Still dodging the questions. As for "reasoning" with us, is that what you think it is?


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> Still dodging the questions. As for "reasoning" with us, is that what you think it is?


You are accusing me of dodging questions? I asked questions first. If I'm misreading your ideology, it is only because you failed to answer me. Let's try again:

You wrote:

"_What boggles the mind is that your argument is that if ANYONE who is an immigrant is allowed in the Country, then you should let ANYONE into the Country, no questions asked_..."

I_n what sentence, in what thread and on what board in the eleven years we've been debating this did I advocate letting people into the U.S. "no questions asked"??? Please be so kind as to tell us where I wrote that?_ (see post # 121)

I'm willing to play along, but let's play fair. If you want answers, please provide same when asked - especially when I ask you first. You've been good at presenting me as what I'm not. My hat's off to you. Did you do it honestly? No. That is why you cannot answer the question without realizing it.

I'll give you all the answers you want.


----------



## The Resister

Old SF Guy said:


> The final thing I will say to you on this Resister is this...Is Welfare a Right or a privilege? Now if its a privilege? then replace every part of your discussion of surrendering your rights to get a privilege. If you say its a right...then you will get no argument from me on your position other than I disagree. If its a right...under which article of the constitution? is it inalienable? Do not argue the search and seizure...since I know they can't make you give it...but they can take your job for not giving it because that is not guaranteed and it is a pre-condition. Do I agree with it...actually I do. You should have to prove certain things to do certain jobs...I'm not drunk, I am not high, I am trustworthy...some jobs are just that important. And some costs are that impactive.


I've read what you've said. Here is what I would say to you:

There are three ways to look at every issue: the legality of the issue, the morality of the issue and the reality of the issue.

The *legality* of the issue is that welfare is called for in the Constitution (it's in the Preamble), but *ONLY* general welfare. The intent was never to simply provide for these mofos that will not get a job and work. Never have I suggested that welfare is a Right. It is not. That is why I said the only roadblock we have to getting rid of it is the votes.

The *morality* is that we should help our fellow man in times of need. We should give a hand up, NOT a hand-out.

The *reality* is that we have welfare and an out of control government that tells people they are "_entitled_" to it just you would be entitled to a VA disability check for getting injured while serving this country. It's a deplorable situation compounded by the insult that the courts have consistently ruled that welfare riders don't have to earn their checks via public service (picking up trash on the roads, cleaning the courthouse, etc.)

You cannot point to a single event in history where building a bigger and more intrusive government has ever resulted in the solution of any problem. What is unconstitutional about the entire situation is that *searches* must be based upon probable cause. Once you take that Right away on welfare, it WILL be employed in instances that you cannot begin to imagine.

Oh, pick my fights? I'm only looking for a few good people that want to start the process of resisting the NEW WORLD ORDER / ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT and helping to build a future for themselves and their posterity. I get my ass kicked here every week. That is true. Then again, the masses have never been right. I'm confident that Georgia's courts will over-rule this new law (FOR THE WRONG REASONS) and we will have wasted an opportunity for understanding in lieu of a popularity contest. Sorry SF Guy but the only things building up a bigger government have accomplished is to empower government. Thanks for being civil in the discourse.


----------



## Notsoyoung

I believe that in the Preamble to the Constitution where is says " promote the General Welfare" was never intended as a right, it was meant more as a statement of one of the reasons for having a Constitution. It seems a little hypocritical to me that those who focus on "the General Welfare" will totally disregard the part that says "Provide for the Common Defense". Notice the two words promote and provide. 

Promoting the General Welfare in no way means "The Government will take care of you". I believe that when the welfare program was first started they chose that name purposely, so that it would seem that it has some tenuous tie to the preamble of the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps it would help if the name was changed to "Government Charity", "Living off your Neighbors", or "The parasite program". Of course if you did that it would hurt those people's "feelings". Gee, too bad.

I fail to see how requiring people to pass drug tests in order to receive tax payer money in any way infringes upon their rights. Don't want to do it? DON'T. Support yourself. I feel the same way about making people work in order to get welfare. How terrible, make people work in order to get money. What a concept. It's okay to take money AWAY from people who had to work for it, but it is somehow violating peoples Right's to make others WORK in order to RECEIVE the money that was taken from those who had to work for it in the first place? Yeah, that makes allot of sense.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> I believe that in the Preamble to the Constitution where is says " promote the General Welfare" was never intended as a right, it was meant more as a statement of one of the reasons for having a Constitution. It seems a little hypocritical to me that those who focus on "the General Welfare" will totally disregard the part that says "Provide for the Common Defense". Notice the two words promote and provide.
> 
> Promoting the General Welfare in no way means "The Government will take care of you". I believe that when the welfare program was first started they chose that name purposely, so that it would seem that it has some tenuous tie to the preamble of the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps it would help if the name was changed to "Government Charity", "Living off your Neighbors", or "The parasite program". Of course if you did that it would hurt those people's "feelings". Gee, too bad.
> 
> I fail to see how requiring people to pass drug tests in order to receive tax payer money in any way infringes upon their rights. Don't want to do it? DON'T. Support yourself. I feel the same way about making people work in order to get welfare. How terrible, make people work in order to get money. What a concept. It's okay to take money AWAY from people who had to work for it, but it is somehow violating peoples Right's to make others WORK in order to RECEIVE the money that was taken from those who had to work for it in the first place? Yeah, that makes allot of sense.


There you go again. See, you like these strawman arguments. Let's get this straight right here... right now and please don't misrepresent this issue. It will make it much easier to understand.

*THERE IS NO DAMN RIGHT IN THE CONSTITUTION NOR ANYWHERE ELSE IN AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE THAT ADDRESSES A WELFARE CHECK FOR THOSE WHO WON'T WORK*.

Is that bold enough so that you can read it?

The RIGHTS that are being jeopardized are the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. These Rights deal with your guaranteed Right against warrant less searches and your Right against self incrimination. In the *government's eyes*, welfare is an entitlement. That don't have a freaking thing to do with I think at a personal level. What I believe is irrelevant to this discussion. Personal opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. The only one that matters in dealing with this issue is what the government thinks.

As a prepper, I have to look at this issue for what it is today and how it *may be used against us in the future*. A lot of people on this board have a variety of opinions as to how the law may be applied, but none of you have litigated, researched nor been part of legal actions where this stuff was being decided in courts or legislatures. I have.

Now then, would you like to answer my questions or are you still trying to be a politician?


----------



## The Resister

Old SF Guy said:


> The final thing I will say to you on this Resister is this...Is Welfare a Right or a privilege? Now if its a privilege? then replace every part of your discussion of surrendering your rights to get a privilege. If you say its a right...then you will get no argument from me on your position other than I disagree. If its a right...under which article of the constitution? is it inalienable? Do not argue the search and seizure...since I know they can't make you give it...but they can take your job for not giving it because that is not guaranteed and it is a pre-condition. Do I agree with it...actually I do. You should have to prove certain things to do certain jobs...I'm not drunk, I am not high, I am trustworthy...some jobs are just that important. And some costs are that impactive.


The Rights you are surrendering are the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. There is no provision in the United States Constitution that allows the government to force you to surrender your *unalienable Rights* except as a punishment for a crime. Going on welfare is not a crime. An *unalienable Right* is a Right bestowed upon you by your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) and I'd like to quote you a United States Supreme Court decision that is relevant:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the *"high powers*" delegated directly to the citizen, and is* excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."*
Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

Now, while the ruling addresses the Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights is ONE LAW. The entire Bill of Rights stands or falls as one law. Each Amendment is equal. The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government. The word* unalienable* means:

"*Unalienable*: _incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred_." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523

You cannot transfer a God given Right to obtain something from the government. It is wholly unconstitutional.

"...._The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be *unalienable rights*_. United States v. Twin City Power Co., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)"

"_Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable rights*,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted_. ."

BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Read the following. It will illustrate the importance of this subject:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> The Rights you are surrendering are the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. There is no provision in the United States Constitution that allows the government to force you to surrender your *unalienable Rights* except as a punishment for a crime. Going on welfare is not a crime. An *unalienable Right* is a Right bestowed upon you by your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) and I'd like to quote you a United States Supreme Court decision that is relevant:
> 
> "The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the *"high powers*" delegated directly to the citizen, and is* excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."*
> Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)
> 
> Now, while the ruling addresses the Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights is ONE LAW. The entire Bill of Rights stands or falls as one law. Each Amendment is equal. The Bill of Rights is a limitation on government. The word* unalienable* means:
> 
> "*Unalienable*: _incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred_." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523
> 
> You cannot transfer a God given Right to obtain something from the government. It is wholly unconstitutional.
> 
> "...._The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be *unalienable rights*_. United States v. Twin City Power Co., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)"
> 
> "_Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable rights*,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted_. ."
> 
> BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
> 
> Read the following. It will illustrate the importance of this subject:
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process


Having prerequisites for receiving welfare does not violate ANYONES unalienable rights. You can post the definition of Unalienable Rights all you want, it is not germane to the conversation. NO ONE has a RIGHT to welfare. IT is in no way equable to the 2nd Amendment and the RIGHT to bear arms.

Also, posting a link to another post that you made on another forum is nothing but a waste of time.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> Having prerequisites for receiving welfare does not violate ANYONES unalienable rights. You can post the definition of Unalienable Rights all you want, it is not germane to the conversation. NO ONE has a RIGHT to welfare. IT is in no way equable to the 2nd Amendment and the RIGHT to bear arms.
> 
> Also, posting a link to another post that you made on another forum is nothing but a waste of time.


Well, we appreciate your opinion, but really, are you that insecure in your position that you want to tell others what is or is not germane to any issue? Do you speak for all the readers of this board? You mean you alone can evaluate all the information presented and make that determination for every reader of this board? Wow.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I love this guy Notsoyoung. I have nothing but the highest regard for him. That is the most sincere statement I can make. He single-handedly comes here and speaks for everyone. Do you see any dissent? Do you see anyone say, hey wait a minute pal. Let's weigh the evidence. He can tell us what is relevant and what is not relevant. He has conducted polls that have concluded that we no longer have* unalienable Rights*.

I'm on the wrong side of the argument. I see that. But, having been a strict constructionist for the past 35 plus years and active in fighting this stuff where it really matters, it's just ingrained into me. For example, William Penn once observed that "_Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants_."

Notsoyoung is hung up on straw man arguments. If it weren't for that, he would make the perfect leader. NOBODY on this thread has written one single sentence claiming that welfare was a Right. I'm agreeing with Notsoyoung and he's making straw man arguments using my posts as if the position he's taking is in those links.

I have to ask again, Notsoyoung: In what sentence, in what thread and on what board have I ever written that welfare is a Right?

The facts are these, whether you like them or not: In a de jure (lawful) constitutional Republic, *NOBODY* (especially the government) can take away your God given Rights for anything other than punishment for a crime. It's common sense that you cannot trade your Life or Liberties to someone so that your children can be rich. The reason? Such an arrangement would be unconstitutional. The government has NO authority over your First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Amendment Rights for the same, exact reason they cannot touch your Second Amendment Rights.

"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. ."

BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

When will Notsoyoung quit making straw man arguments, answer my questions and let us end this? The tit for tat should end this way: He and I agree to disagree. The posters can access the information provided and draw their own conclusions. Wouldn't that be a good deal?


----------



## Notsoyoung

How did welfare get started? Did someone say that we need to support people for the rest of their lives? Nope. 

Welfare started in WW2. In order to receive it you had to be a widow or child of someone in the Military who was killed while defending their country. What was happening is that men would join the military and make their parents the recipients of their G.I. Life insurance, then later getting married and forgetting to change their life insurance. Many service members got married before getting shipped out, and as sometimes happen, getting their new brides pregnant. Then the service members would get shipped off to war, get killed, and leave their wives and children without any means of support. 

In order to get the benefit of Welfare, someone had to give their life for their Country. FDR (not a fan of his) was reluctant to sign the bill because he was concerned that it would result in a dependent class. He was assured by Congressional Leaders, including LBJ, that people would not stay on it for longer then 6 months if for no other reason then they would be ashamed to do so. 

In the 60's LBJ started his "Great Society", and with the assistance of a Democrat Controlled Congress opened welfare up to anyone who couldn't/wouldn't support themselves. We now have 3rd going on 4th generation of welfare recipients who have never had a job in their lives.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> Well, we appreciate your opinion, but really, are you that insecure in your position that you want to tell others what is or is not germane to any issue? Do you speak for all the readers of this board? You mean you alone can evaluate all the information presented and make that determination for every reader of this board? Wow.
> 
> Ladies and Gentlemen:
> 
> I love this guy Notsoyoung. I have nothing but the highest regard for him. That is the most sincere statement I can make. He single-handedly comes here and speaks for everyone. Do you see any dissent? Do you see anyone say, hey wait a minute pal. Let's weigh the evidence. He can tell us what is relevant and what is not relevant. He has conducted polls that have concluded that we no longer have* unalienable Rights*.
> 
> I'm on the wrong side of the argument. I see that. But, having been a strict constructionist for the past 35 plus years and active in fighting this stuff where it really matters, it's just ingrained into me. For example, William Penn once observed that "_Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants_."
> 
> Notsoyoung is hung up on straw man arguments. If it weren't for that, he would make the perfect leader. NOBODY on this thread has written one single sentence claiming that welfare was a Right. I'm agreeing with Notsoyoung and he's making straw man arguments using my posts as if the position he's taking is in those links.
> 
> I have to ask again, Notsoyoung: In what sentence, in what thread and on what board have I ever written that welfare is a Right?
> 
> The facts are these, whether you like them or not: In a de jure (lawful) constitutional Republic, *NOBODY* (especially the government) can take away your God given Rights for anything other than punishment for a crime. It's common sense that you cannot trade your Life or Liberties to someone so that your children can be rich. The reason? Such an arrangement would be unconstitutional. The government has NO authority over your First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Amendment Rights for the same, exact reason they cannot touch your Second Amendment Rights.
> 
> "Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. ."
> 
> BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
> 
> When will Notsoyoung quit making straw man arguments, answer my questions and let us end this? The tit for tat should end this way: He and I agree to disagree. The posters can access the information provided and draw their own conclusions. Wouldn't that be a good deal?


Sigh. More drama and hysterics. I don't believe that I have ever claimed that I was speaking for everyone nor claim that I was the leader of other people. What I did say is that the volumes that you have written in regards to rights and then adding links to another post you made on another forum where you wrote even volumes more is not germane because, WEFARE IS NOT A RIGHT, and requiring someone to take a drug test in order to receive it DOES NOT VIOLATE THEIR RIGHTS. They do not have to take a drug test if they do not want to, but they won't get welfare if they don't. Is that really hard to understand? I guess it is for some.

Finally all of the "kind" things that you said about me and the "high regard" in which you hold me, please please please tell me that you are being sarcastic. I would find it extremely depressing of you were sincere.


----------



## SARGE7402

Sorry I missed most of this. Notso you seem to have done a great job of winding resister up. But what is welfare really? It's a contract between the State and the individual. Contracts have certain clauses where one side says they'll do something and the other side says they'll do something in return. All contracts have certain conditions and you as a party to a contract have the freedom to agree to or not agree to any and all conditions the other party (the State in this case) propose. Can an individual agree to give up his "Rights" as part and parcel to entering into a contract? Sure, it's done every day.


----------



## Notsoyoung

SARGE7402 said:


> Sorry I missed most of this. Notso you seem to have done a great job of winding resister up. But what is welfare really? It's a contract between the State and the individual. Contracts have certain clauses where one side says they'll do something and the other side says they'll do something in return. All contracts have certain conditions and you as a party to a contract have the freedom to agree to or not agree to any and all conditions the other party (the State in this case) propose. Can an individual agree to give up his "Rights" as part and parcel to entering into a contract? Sure, it's done every day.


As you well know, many people who raise their right hands and enter into a contract with Uncle Sam more commonly referred to as Enlisting, give up allot of their rights when they do so. What I do have trouble understanding is, at the present time, just what do welfare recipients have to do in order to fulfill their part of the contract?


----------



## SARGE7402

pee in the cup?


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> How did welfare get started? Did someone say that we need to support people for the rest of their lives? Nope.
> 
> Welfare started in WW2. In order to receive it you had to be a widow or child of someone in the Military who was killed while defending their country. What was happening is that men would join the military and make their parents the recipients of their G.I. Life insurance, then later getting married and forgetting to change their life insurance. Many service members got married before getting shipped out, and as sometimes happen, getting their new brides pregnant. Then the service members would get shipped off to war, get killed, and leave their wives and children without any means of support.
> 
> In order to get the benefit of Welfare, someone had to give their life for their Country. FDR (not a fan of his) was reluctant to sign the bill because he was concerned that it would result in a dependent class. He was assured by Congressional Leaders, including LBJ, that people would not stay on it for longer then 6 months if for no other reason then they would be ashamed to do so.
> 
> In the 60's LBJ started his "Great Society", and with the assistance of a Democrat Controlled Congress opened welfare up to anyone who couldn't/wouldn't support themselves. We now have 3rd going on 4th generation of welfare recipients who have never had a job in their lives.


So, instead of empowering the government further, why not begin limiting the classes of people that can get welfare. Again, it should only be a hand up not a hand out.


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> Sorry I missed most of this. Notso you seem to have done a great job of winding resister up. But what is welfare really? It's a contract between the State and the individual. Contracts have certain clauses where one side says they'll do something and the other side says they'll do something in return. All contracts have certain conditions and you as a party to a contract have the freedom to agree to or not agree to any and all conditions the other party (the State in this case) propose. Can an individual agree to give up his "Rights" as part and parcel to entering into a contract? Sure, it's done every day.


No sir, it is NOT done every day. Again, in a constitutional, de jure (*lawful*) Republic nobody is giving up their Rights in exchange for a damn thing. The people to whom you refer to are those who are, constitutionally, the exception. May I quote it for you:

"_I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials_."
- George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

During the ratification of the Constitution, you will notice that some public officials are exempted from constitutional guarantees due to the nature of their position within society. Since their Second Amendment Rights are regulated during such service, so are their other Rights. There is NOTHING in the Constitution nor in any of the debates wherein citizens can forfeit an *unalienable Right* in order to partake of a government program.

Do you really want people to be beholden to the government for everything? Hey, let me repeat where I started out:

Tell the government to give me my money. Then they can tell me no welfare, no Socialist Security, etc. I will be more than happy to provide for myself. What is wrong with that? I don't like welfare to the point that I will remove myself from the possibility of ever receiving it, provided the government will not tax me for it.


----------



## The Resister

Slippy said:


> I have to hand it to my friend Notsoyoung. He has put on a Clinic on how to wind Resister up and watch him go. Psychological manipulation at its finest.::clapping::


Actually, YOU got Notsoyoung on a tear with that demand and Notsoyoung went after me... then you slippyed out. That is okay. It gives me an opportunity to defend my position. So far, all we've witnessed in more than 150 posts are straw man arguments against positions that haven't been taken by anyone in any posting on this thread. All we agree on is that America would be better served if there were no welfare... except that someone don't want me to agree (though I did in my earliest posts on this thread.)


----------



## SARGE7402

Horse Hockey. All the major sports leagues do it to their players. Heck everyone that was on the US Olympic team this past early spring had to submit to drug testing. And don't worry about the last, Uncle Sam and the States and the municipalities will always find a way to tax you one way or the other. And every one incarcerated in jail has forfeited one or more rights. No one in jail has a right have a gun in the jail. Their right to free speech is severely limited with outgoing and incoming mail in a lot of cases opened and read. And that is the type of unwritten contract that all of us in this society have with the respective governments. Live by their rules/laws or suffer the consequences.

And Hedoublehockeysticks I don't want anyone on welfare. I'd rather we bring back the debtor's prisons.


----------



## Inor

The Resister said:


> Actually, YOU got Notsoyoung on a tear with that demand and Notsoyoung went after me... then you slippyed out. That is okay. It gives me an opportunity to defend my position. So far, all we've witnessed in more than 150 posts are straw man arguments against positions that haven't been taken by anyone in any posting on this thread. All we agree on is that America would be better served if there were no welfare... except that someone don't want me to agree (though I did in my earliest posts on this thread.)


Your position is indefensible, especially by somebody like you. You may have spent countless hours reading about Constitution, but your admission that you have accepted welfare proves that you will never understand a damn thing you read about it. You talk all high and mighty about unalienable rights, but then you turn right around and make a claim against your betters based solely on your need. You don't have the balls to steal from somebody directly, so you are more than happy to enlist the government to confiscate the property of the rightful owner through taxes to have it redistributed to you through you monthly welfare payment.

"Unalienable rights"? You traded yours for your first welfare check along with any claim you may have once had on humanity. Now you are nothing but a subhuman pseudo-intellectual piece of shit.

Have you ever done an honest day's work in your life?

Have you ever built a business?

Have you ever even created one thing of enough value that somebody would pay you for it?

Until you can answer any one of those question in the affirmative, your opinions on Constitution are meaningless. Now please go back to playing the pivot-man for your militia circle-jerks.


----------



## SARGE7402

::clapping::::clapping::::clapping::


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> Actually, YOU got Notsoyoung on a tear with that demand and Notsoyoung went after me... then you slippyed out. That is okay. It gives me an opportunity to defend my position. So far, all we've witnessed in more than 150 posts are straw man arguments against positions that haven't been taken by anyone in any posting on this thread. All we agree on is that America would be better served if there were no welfare... except that someone don't want me to agree (though I did in my earliest posts on this thread.)


The only one who has gotten me on a tear is YOU when you implied that Jack Kingston was a Nazi and affiliated with the KKK. I lived in Savannah for a few years and he was our Representative. I liked him. I didn't agree with everything he did, but he was neither a Nazi of a member of the kkk, as you implied in a weasely way.

What did Kingston suggest that got you so bent out of shape? That welfare recipients work for their welfare payments! I understand now why you were so upset about that idea.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> The only one who has gotten me on a tear is YOU when you implied that Jack Kingston was a Nazi and affiliated with the KKK. I lived in Savannah for a few years and he was our Representative. I liked him. I didn't agree with everything he did, but he was neither a Nazi of a member of the kkk, as you implied in a weasely way.
> 
> What did Kingston suggest that got you so bent out of shape? That welfare recipients work for their welfare payments! I understand now why you were so upset about that idea.


Now, why did you try to lie about me once again and threaten the peaceful process of simply agreeing to disagree? I never implied anything. What I stated is fact. Kingston is running on an idea that was lobbied for in Georgia by the Ku Klux Klan in the 1980s. Dude, you are running around trying to make me out to be the bad guy when all I did was speak the truth.

I personally had no problem with the idea. The courts, however, struck down the _workfare_ idea. That is a fact. If you support an idea that was initiated by someone then you are of like mind. I never stated nor implied that Kingston was swapping spit with them. At best I "_implied_" that Kingston is probably like a lot of people that try to run with three decade old ideas and not give credit to those who first developed and / or pioneered the idea in the first place.

Would I like to see "_workfare_" happen? Bet your ass. Am I swapping spit with David Duke? Nope. But, the man had a great idea and nobody should steal credit for it. BTW, had Kingston not supported getting rid of old cars (cash for clunkers aka old cars that could were running in many instances) and destroying them rather than letting the poor continue to use them, he might be my choice for Senate. However, I'm stuck with Paul Broun.

If you're still trying the straw man arguments, it's getting a bit old. You need some new material. You've been on a losing side for over a decade. It's time we started realizing that what you're doing (which is what the neo-cons and Tea Party types are doing) simply isn't working NOR will it work. It will not lead to any kind of solution.


----------



## The Resister

Inor said:


> Your position is indefensible, especially by somebody like you. You may have spent countless hours reading about Constitution, but your admission that you have accepted welfare proves that you will never understand a damn thing you read about it. You talk all high and mighty about unalienable rights, but then you turn right around and make a claim against your betters based solely on your need. You don't have the balls to steal from somebody directly, so you are more than happy to enlist the government to confiscate the property of the rightful owner through taxes to have it redistributed to you through you monthly welfare payment.
> 
> "Unalienable rights"? You traded yours for your first welfare check along with any claim you may have once had on humanity. Now you are nothing but a subhuman pseudo-intellectual piece of shit.
> 
> Have you ever done an honest day's work in your life?
> 
> Have you ever built a business?
> 
> Have you ever even created one thing of enough value that somebody would pay you for it?
> 
> Until you can answer any one of those question in the affirmative, your opinions on Constitution are meaningless. Now please go back to playing the pivot-man for your militia circle-jerks.


Sir, as an adult, I have never been on welfare in my life. WTF? Built a business? Try this:

Not only have I built businesses, but I rarely depend solely upon a regular "job" to get me through life. If you only work 40 hours a week and don't do anything for yourself, you probably won't have much to retire on. Right?


----------



## Inor

The Resister said:


> Sir, as an adult, I have never been on welfare in my life. WTF? Built a business? Try this:
> 
> Not only have I built businesses, but I rarely depend solely upon a regular "job" to get me through life. If you only work 40 hours a week and don't do anything for yourself, you probably won't have much to retire on. Right?


Whatever you say bigshot...


----------



## SARGE7402

Some one of you folks has gotten Resister Confused. He seems to think I'm not really me.:lol::lol::lol::lol:



The Resister said:


> Aren't you embarrassed to find out that not only have I built businesses, but I've never been on welfare?
> 
> Once I was in a catastrophic car wreck and laid out for two years. I racked up quite an impressive hospital bill AND owed $26,000 in credit card charges. I worked my way out of that without welfare OR bankruptcy.


You really need to get your doo doo together. You have me confused with one of the other posters. I guess it's hard to keep your stories Straight.


----------



## SARGE7402

Old SF Believe you are right. Nowhere in the constitution nor the Bill of rights does the term Unalienable rights ever get expressed. And those in the declaration of independence only enumerate life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Maybe there's a constitution that we're not aware of lurking out there somewhere? Bill of Rights Transcript Text


----------



## Slippy

SARGE7402 said:


> Some one of you folks has gotten Resister Confused. He seems to think I'm not really me.:lol::lol::lol::lol:
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> Sarge.
> There is a very good chance that Resister is confused all on his own. His doo doo is evidently strewn about the Georgia landscape and there is absolutely zero percent chance that he gets it together. Mental illness has set in and may be there to stay.
> Very sad especially since he is the founder and General Commander of the once proud and famous Georgia Militia.


----------



## Inor

SARGE7402 said:


> Some one of you folks has gotten Resister Confused. He seems to think I'm not really me.:lol::lol::lol::lol:
> 
> You really need to get your doo doo together. You have me confused with one of the other posters. I guess it's hard to keep your stories Straight.


My apologies Sarge. I expect that ol' Jimmy Resister may be confusing me with you for a couple of my posts. I expect that changing directions so often does start to get pretty confusing after a while. I just noticed tonight that he had changed a couple of his earlier posts on this thread. But to a guy like Jimmy Resister truth and history mean nothing.

I guess we should take it as an object lesson. Not all preppers have your back. Or as the parable says: "not everybody that shits on you is your enemy and not everybody that pulls you from the shit is your friend".


----------



## SARGE7402

Inor said:


> I guess we should take it as an object lesson. Not all preppers have your back. Or as the parable says: "not everybody that shits on you is your enemy and not everybody that pulls you from the shit is your friend".


First don't ever apologize for doing what is right. The apology should have come from elsewhere. Also that's a pretty deep statement. I'm going to have to think on that one for a while.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> *FWIW* on this topic:
> 
> Jack Kingston is running for the U.S. Senate in Georgia. He was endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. His BIG ISSUE on his tv ads is to make people work to earn their welfare check. Here's the rest of the story:
> 
> A man by the name of David ran an identical campaign. He came up with the idea known as "_workfare_." David once stood on city streets and solicited for members for the American Nazi Party while he was in college. Later he would become a major Ku Klux Klan figure and state representative. This all started back in the late 1970s and went until maybe the early 1990s. You may remember David Duke.
> 
> Workfare was struck down in the courts and, most likely, it will be struck down in Georgia for the wrong reasons. Usually judges strike down such legislation as it violates the "_civil rights_" of the people. Bad legislation only empowers the government and expands these idiotic "_civil rights_" over constitutional Liberties. I hate to break it to you, but if you give a rat's ass about the Constitution, that bill was definitely NOT a win for the Constitution. It's a net loss - and a bigger loss after the courts strike it down... and we won't even mention the PR nightmare.


It sure sounds like you are implying that Kingston is a Nazi and associated with the KKK. Another case of you posting something and then lying about it later.


----------



## The Resister

Old SF Guy said:


> LOL...This is an enjoyable thread.... Resister I will add this...Not as a fight but as my thoughts. The only "unalienable rights" I have every seen mentioned are in the Declaration of Independance of Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness...These are not laid out in the constitution as such and we have accepted that the Government can Take both your Life, and your Liberty, and can damn well limit yur pursuit of Happiness...so I say those are just lofty ideas and certainly not corner stones of our Republic. As far as I am concerned the constitution is the only document I care to debate...if I am wrong on the unalienable rights thing not being in the Constitution then please correct me. The 4th amendment certaintly applies when I am going about mt day to day protected endeavors....but the moment I wish to accept something from the Government or any potential employer I now have a choice. Either I submit to the request or I do not get the privilege...Note it is not a right to work for company X or get benefits from government program Y. The key difference is simple...when simply subsisting as a citizen I have all these rights...the moment I ask for something not guaranteed I have a choice to do or not do...and they have a right to ask or not ask. But I agree that that could lead to requiring too much. The Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders demand access to all social media accounts of their prospects. I find that too intrusive since personal data is contained.. PLEASE NOTE I use that as an example...I am not trying out for the Dallas Cheerleaders....but to verify that I am not violating the law via a whiz quiz. I find that acceptable. SO in the end I believe there is merit for urin sampling and I will be on guard for the time that the government takes it too far. and they lived happily ever after....The End.


Old SF Guy,

Had you accessed the links in my posts you would see the correlation between* unalienable Rights* and the Constitution. It would appear to me that you would want to know the truth regarding the Rights and the Constitution you once took an oath to support and defend. Sure, all of this other side stuff is entertaining, but of all the people on this board I really thought you would be the one to take some pride in principle foundations upon which this nation was built.

Just for chits and giggles though, we can straighten you out once again:

"The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these "*unalienable right*s with which they were endowed by their Creator."
U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

"_The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government. It 'derives its source,' to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 211_, " (also cited in the Cruikshank decision)

The first point being, Rights are not granted by the Constitution. They existed before the adoption of the Constitution. You owe no duty to exercise those Rights to government. Lawful government cannot take away those Rights. Read this link:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process

"... _it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government_.'"

Cotting v. Goddard, 183 US 79 (1901) Notice that is also a United States Supreme Court ruling.

Read this link:

Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Is the Declaration of Independence "Law?"

If you access the information in this posting, you will be light years ahead of most Americans and it will shed some light on the subject.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> Sir, as an adult, I have never been on welfare in my life. WTF? Built a business? Try this:
> 
> Not only have I built businesses, but I rarely depend solely upon a regular "job" to get me through life. If you only work 40 hours a week and don't do anything for yourself, you probably won't have much to retire on. Right?


Maybe the confusion is a result from that article about him that said he had been fired from Lucent for something like poor performance and then was unemployed for approximately 10 years before being hired as retail clerk at a gun store for a short period of time. No mention of being self-employed or owning a business. Or maybe the confusion is from somebody not telling the truth.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> Old SF Guy,
> 
> Had you accessed the links in my posts you would see the correlation between* unalienable Rights* and the Constitution. It would appear to me that you would want to know the truth regarding the Rights and the Constitution you once took an oath to support and defend. Sure, all of this other side stuff is entertaining, but of all the people on this board I really thought you would be the one to take some pride in principle foundations upon which this nation was built.
> 
> Just for chits and giggles though, we can straighten you out once again:
> 
> "The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these "*unalienable right*s with which they were endowed by their Creator."
> U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
> 
> "_The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government. It 'derives its source,' to use the language of Chief Justice Marshall, in Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 211_, " (also cited in the Cruikshank decision)
> 
> The first point being, Rights are not granted by the Constitution. They existed before the adoption of the Constitution. You owe no duty to exercise those Rights to government. Lawful government cannot take away those Rights. Read this link:
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Liberties, Unalienable Rights and Due Process
> 
> "... _it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government_.'"
> 
> Cotting v. Goddard, 183 US 79 (1901) Notice that is also a United States Supreme Court ruling.
> 
> Read this link:
> 
> Outcasts and Outlaws :: View topic - Is the Declaration of Independence "Law?"
> 
> If you access the information in this posting, you will be light years ahead of most Americans and it will shed some light on the subject.


Old SF GUY - Just a warning, those links just take you to posts that Resister has made on another forum. The "information" that will put you "light years" ahead of most Americans are HIS posts.


----------



## Notsoyoung

Inor said:


> My apologies Sarge. I expect that ol' Jimmy Resister may be confusing me with you for a couple of my posts. I expect that changing directions so often does start to get pretty confusing after a while. I just noticed tonight that he had changed a couple of his earlier posts on this thread. But to a guy like Jimmy Resister truth and history mean nothing.
> 
> I guess we should take it as an object lesson. Not all preppers have your back. Or as the parable says: "not everybody that shits on you is your enemy and not everybody that pulls you from the shit is your friend".


Just an observation, there is very few posts from him that actually deal with Prepping.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> It sure sounds like you are implying that Kingston is a Nazi and associated with the KKK. Another case of you posting something and then lying about it later.


I might advise that you either take a remedial reading class OR, if you would like to have a productive conversation, ASK people if they are implying something rather than to accuse them of it. All of this B.S. on this thread could be avoided if we could get past the name calling and false accusations.

Like I said, Dude, whether I agree with you or not is irrelevant at the moment. EVERYBODY agrees with you and so far not one person on this thread has had the courage to access and read the material I've provided. You've won. But, that does not make it right for you to misrepresent my position - a position you yourself have not had the courage to access. What if you actually READ the links and found out you didn't have all the information after all?

How can you call a man a liar without having had the courage to listen to what he said? Everybody with an IQ above 50 ought to be able to ascertain the truth. For you have not offered one, single, solitary *fact* that disputes the information provided in the links within my posts. Notsoyoung, you are cheating these people. You have blind obedience. You're able to sell snake oil without people having the courage to examine the facts. THAT'S what it takes to get elected and make a difference.

If I didn't know better, I'd say you are worried that someone WILL take a look at the links I've provided. What I don't understand is *WHY* you're here. I'm small potatoes; a has been. Nobody gives a shit about the Constitution, Freedom or Liberty. They care about what the masses want. Tell them what they want to hear without any regard for the incremental assaults on Liberty that lead to tyranny on the installment plan. Don't worry about the stupid mother ****ers you've already knocked down. What the Hell is wrong with you? Go on to something bigger and make a change that matters. Kicking a man after he's down will end up *costing* you support. After you knock someone down and they keep breathing, your supporters will eventually tire of you for continuing the beating when nothing else is going to change. Believe that. Run for public office. Do something with your life besides wasting it on a keyboard with someone that doesn't make a shit in the final outcome.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> Just an observation, there is very few posts from him that actually deal with Prepping.


This is where you're short sighted. The nation you build via your relationship with government is the most important step you'll take in your long term prepping. Let me give you an abstract example:

You are not opposed to warrant less searches. So, if it serves your agenda, you will lobby for them. Then one day, the liberals decide that Notsoyoung is eating the wrong diet (too much hydrogenated fat, red meat / steaks, too many milk shakes, etc.) or that he is overweight... or maybe he smokes. Now, armed with his National ID Card / debit card Notsoyoung finds it impossible to maintain his lifestyle AND get his Socialist Security check. Maybe the feds decide that they want to search his house as a prerequisite to him getting Medicare or VA benefits and they find he has an unacceptable amount of gold, silver or food in his house. Maybe the government wants to take his firearms.

The first question is, *why* did Notsoyoung actively lobby for laws that would lead to another law and eventually end in that scenario? Does prepping not include making it harder for tyrants to pursue you via the "_legal_" channels?

IF the system has to obtain a warrant to search you for possible illegal activities, it's harder, legally speaking, for the liberals to twist the law a ruling at a time to outlaw prepping altogether. Drug test for welfare, background check / mental evaluation for vets to get a VA check, search of your home and weapon confiscation for someother government entitlement (regardless of what differences you see in the entitlement program - Uncle Scam don't see them.)

What do you think prepping is?


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> Old SF GUY - Just a warning, those links just take you to posts that Resister has made on another forum. The "information" that will put you "light years" ahead of most Americans are HIS posts.


Do you continue to dabble in fear mongering for an ulterior purpose? OR are YOU lying? Yeah, I made the posts. Tell him the rest of the truth. There are about 75 or so links to other sources inside those links proving my position from the points of view of the founding fathers, court decisions and other historical resources.

How come you did not mention the fact that none of those two posts contain my own opinions, but rather the result of honest research? You talk about honesty. Man up, Notsoyoung. When you say my name at the top of the page, you didn't even access even one of the internal links. What are you really afraid of? OR, do you now presume that posters are too stupid to read and evaluate information without your guidance? Strike that. Hell, you might be right at this juncture. We'll wait and see if anyone wants to discuss this as a serious topic instead of a popularity contest.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> Maybe the confusion is a result from that article about him that said he had been fired from Lucent for something like poor performance and then was unemployed for approximately 10 years before being hired as retail clerk at a gun store for a short period of time. No mention of being self-employed or owning a business. Or maybe the confusion is from somebody not telling the truth.


Notsoyoung, Of all the lies that one can tell....

First, the article makes NO mention of me being unemployed for ten years

Second, just because I don't disclose to the media my sources of income does not mean I'm on welfare

Third, stating as fact a conclusion you came to on the basis of a lie will eventually harm your credibility

Fourth, you cannot believe all of what you read in the papers. For example, I was never a retail clerk. In subsequent articles they had to change that part of the story as I would not cooperate with it (for this VERY reason.) I worked selling large quantities of firearms, ammo, body armor, etc. to police and military units (but, that's not important)

Fifth, the guy who cost me that job was much like you: He dabbled in lies and false accusations. BTW, that company that fired me is no longer in business. Despite a thriving market back in 2003 they had to shut their doors. Do the wrong thing long enough and it catches up with you. What I don't tell the media about my personal life could fill volumes. Look at all the news stories that were written about me. What kind of home did they say I live in? Did they speak about a wife and kids? When they interviewed me, did they tell you I was driving a Mercedes Benz at the time? BTW, it was paid for outright.

Notsoyoung, those who throw stones have no business living in glass houses.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> Do you continue to dabble in fear mongering for an ulterior purpose? OR are YOU lying? Yeah, I made the posts. Tell him the rest of the truth. There are about 75 or so links to other sources inside those links proving my position from the points of view of the founding fathers, court decisions and other historical resources.
> 
> How come you did not mention the fact that none of those two posts contain my own opinions, but rather the result of honest research? You talk about honesty. Man up, Notsoyoung. When you say my name at the top of the page, you didn't even access even one of the internal links. What are you really afraid of? OR, do you now presume that posters are too stupid to read and evaluate information without your guidance? Strike that. Hell, you might be right at this juncture. We'll wait and see if anyone wants to discuss this as a serious topic instead of a popularity contest.


Fear mongering? What "fear mongering" Did I say that if they went to those links something evil would jump out of the screen and attack them DRAMA QUEEN?

What did I say that was untrue? Those are links to posts that you made on another forum, what is untrue about that? So your big complaint is that when I followed your link to another forum and the posts you made there, I didn't follow the links you had there to even more places? You gather information and platitudes with a scattergun approach, cobble it all together, and then try to apply it to situations in which they are not applicable.

You seem to think that if people disagree with you it couldn't possibly be because they think that you are wrong. Oh heck no! It must be some kind of popularity contest. Had that ego problem for long?


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> Notsoyoung, Of all the lies that one can tell....
> 
> First, the article makes NO mention of me being unemployed for ten years
> 
> Second, just because I don't disclose to the media my sources of income does not mean I'm on welfare
> 
> Third, stating as fact a conclusion you came to on the basis of a lie will eventually harm your credibility
> 
> Fourth, you cannot believe all of what you read in the papers. For example, I was never a retail clerk. In subsequent articles they had to change that part of the story as I would not cooperate with it (for this VERY reason.) I worked selling large quantities of firearms, ammo, body armor, etc. to police and military units (but, that's not important)
> 
> Fifth, the guy who cost me that job was much like you: He dabbled in lies and false accusations. BTW, that company that fired me is no longer in business. Despite a thriving market back in 2003 they had to shut their doors. Do the wrong thing long enough and it catches up with you. What I don't tell the media about my personal life could fill volumes. Look at all the news stories that were written about me. What kind of home did they say I live in? Did they speak about a wife and kids? When they interviewed me, did they tell you I was driving a Mercedes Benz at the time? BTW, it was paid for outright.
> 
> Notsoyoung, those who throw stones have no business living in glass houses.


Oh I stand corrected....I recall now that you said you couldn't have been a retail clerk because you made something like $36,500 that year. WOW! You hit the big time didn't you? And since you were making the big bucks you could afford to drive a Mercedes that was paid for. I am sure that we are all incredibly impressed! Oh, by the way, the same year my wife and I paid $54,000 in Federal Income taxes, but neither of us drive Mercedes that was paid for. Instead we made sure that our house was paid for. By the way, the reason for the high taxes was the company I was working for was making a major system upgrade and I was regularly putting in 100 hour weeks and went for 4 months without a day off. Nearly all of the overtime I made was taken by good old Uncle Sam to help support welfare parasites.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> Oh I stand corrected....I recall now that you said you couldn't have been a retail clerk because you made something like $36,500 that year. WOW! You hit the big time didn't you? And since you were making the big bucks you could afford to drive a Mercedes that was paid for. I am sure that we are all incredibly impressed! Oh, by the way, the same year my wife and I paid $54,000 in Federal Income taxes, but neither of us drive Mercedes that was paid for. Instead we made sure that our house was paid for.


I've owned home*s* outright since 1998 - free and clear from that point forward. The point about how much I made was relevant to the false accusation that I was a "retail clerk." So, what's your point? OR do you even have one? Are you still presuming your followers are too stupid to access information and evaluate it on their own? I respect your power as a leader, but tolerate your dishonesty only to a point. You and I know there are things about you that would not amuse the audience, but this thread is about welfare and my posts are about legal issues connected thereto. IF the people here knew, really knew, what I know about you, you would be the joke. You shouldn't keep making this about personalities.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> Fear mongering? What "fear mongering" Did I say that if they went to those links something evil would jump out of the screen and attack them DRAMA QUEEN?
> 
> What did I say that was untrue? Those are links to posts that you made on another forum, what is untrue about that? So your big complaint is that when I followed your link to another forum and the posts you made there, I didn't follow the links you had there to even more places? You gather information and platitudes with a scattergun approach, cobble it all together, and then try to apply it to situations in which they are not applicable.
> 
> You seem to think that if people disagree with you it couldn't possibly be because they think that you are wrong. Oh heck no! It must be some kind of popularity contest. Had that ego problem for long?


You really do need to take a remedial reading course. If you're going to "_disagree_" with a person and claim it's not predicated upon a *FACT*, then provide a counter... not some philosophical B.S. that amounts to majority opinion.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> This is where you're short sighted. The nation you build via your relationship with government is the most important step you'll take in your long term prepping. Let me give you an abstract example:
> 
> You are not opposed to warrant less searches. So, if it serves your agenda, you will lobby for them. Then one day, the liberals decide that Notsoyoung is eating the wrong diet (too much hydrogenated fat, red meat / steaks, too many milk shakes, etc.) or that he is overweight... or maybe he smokes. Now, armed with his National ID Card / debit card Notsoyoung finds it impossible to maintain his lifestyle AND get his Socialist Security check. Maybe the feds decide that they want to search his house as a prerequisite to him getting Medicare or VA benefits and they find he has an unacceptable amount of gold, silver or food in his house. Maybe the government wants to take his firearms.
> 
> "The first question is, *why* did Notsoyoung actively lobby for laws that would lead to another law and eventually end in that scenario? Does prepping not include making it harder for tyrants to pursue you via the "_legal_" channels?"
> 
> IF the system has to obtain a warrant to search you for possible illegal activities, it's harder, legally speaking, for the liberals to twist the law a ruling at a time to outlaw prepping altogether. Drug test for welfare, background check / mental evaluation for vets to get a VA check, search of your home and weapon confiscation for someother government entitlement (regardless of what differences you see in the entitlement program - Uncle Scam don't see them.)
> 
> What do you think prepping is?


The first question is, *why* did Notsoyoung actively lobby for laws that would lead to another law and eventually end in that scenario? Does prepping not include making it harder for tyrants to pursue you via the "_legal_" channels?

Just who did I actively "LOBBY" to? Is this just another thing that you pulled out of your buttocks? If you want to get welfare money from your fellow citizens, you need to pass a drug test. This DOES not violate anyone's rights. If you don't want to take the test, DON'T. About the only assistance you are giving for prepping is sharpening everyone's bs detectors when they read your posts.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> I've owned home*s* outright since 1998 - free and clear from that point forward. The point about how much I made was relevant to the false accusation that I was a "retail clerk." So, what's your point? OR do you even have one? Are you still presuming your followers are too stupid to access information and evaluate it on their own? I respect your power as a leader, but tolerate your dishonesty only to a point. You and I know there are things about you that would not amuse the audience, but this thread is about welfare and my posts are about legal issues connected thereto. IF the people here knew, really knew, what I know about you, you would be the joke. You shouldn't keep making this about personalities.


"IF the people here knew, really knew, what I know about you, you would be the joke. You shouldn't keep making this about personalities."

What do you "really KNOW" about me? Go ahead and tell everyone. Go for it. Just what is it that YOU really KNOW about me that no one else does?


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> The first question is, *why* did Notsoyoung actively lobby for laws that would lead to another law and eventually end in that scenario? Does prepping not include making it harder for tyrants to pursue you via the "_legal_" channels?
> 
> Just who did I actively "LOBBY" to? Is this just another thing that you pulled out of your buttocks? If you want to get welfare money from your fellow citizens, you need to pass a drug test. This DOES not violate anyone's rights. If you don't want to take the test, DON'T. About the only assistance you are giving for prepping is sharpening everyone's bs detectors when they read your posts.


Every time you come here to spar with me, you are lobbying. Your arrogance is amusing, Notsoyoung. Forcing people to take a drug test does violate their Fourth and Fifth Amendment guarantees. We've covered all of that in previous posts. Do you have any new material?


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> Every time you come here to spar with me, you are lobbying. Your arrogance is amusing, Notsoyoung. Forcing people to take a drug test does violate their Fourth and Fifth Amendment guarantees. We've covered all of that in previous posts. Do you have any new material?


Who would be "forcing" people to take a drug test? Would there be someone standing over them with a gun making them do it? Would someone hold them down and do it? No. It is NOT forcing anyone if you tell them that if they want to live off of their fellow citizens then they have to take a drug test. If they don't want to do it, then they don't have to. They just won't get money that was taken away from people who worked for it.

I don't need any new material. The material I use is more then enough.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> Every time you come here to spar with me, you are lobbying. Your arrogance is amusing, Notsoyoung. Forcing people to take a drug test does violate their Fourth and Fifth Amendment guarantees. We've covered all of that in previous posts. Do you have any new material?


Ah, of course. If I disagree with you then I must be a lobbyist. My arrogance? I am not the one who believes that everything he says is factual and those who disagrees with him are just going with what is "popular". I am not the one who believes that he is the final authority on everything and once he makes a statement about something it is settled. God save us from little men with hugely inflated egos.


----------



## SARGE7402

The Resister said:


> Every time you come here to spar with me, you are lobbying. Your arrogance is amusing, Notsoyoung. Forcing people to take a drug test does violate their Fourth and Fifth Amendment guarantees. We've covered all of that in previous posts. Do you have any new material?


Sorry to be such a PITA, but this is not much different from the situation that all of our Military face once they sign up (a contract) to Enlist in a Branch of the Military. First their liberty is restricted. They must go where their leaders say they must go and do what they're ordered to do. And for that acceptance of a limitation on their liberty, they receive various and assorted benefits. Now you can rant and rave and claim that "we've covered all of that in previous posts" but that doesn't change the fact that Millions of American Service Members have signed contracts that do not allow them all the same Unalienable (probably didn't spell that right) rights that you have.

And while were on the subject. Just because You say something is fact or previously settled doesn't mean squat to the majority of us. All it means is that you have locked in your position and no longer have an open mind about what anyone else has to say. It's my way or the highway. Picking a fight with folks that don't agree with your position and name calling and disparaging their education levels or what they've done in their lives is not how you win an argument or get someone to agree with your position.

And lastly I tried to go back thru this thread and find it, but I thought at one point you gave a reference to Workfare having been overturned by a court somewhere. For the life of me I could not find it.

Have a nice day, sit back in the shade of a nice tall tree, turn off the phone, sip n some pink lemonade and the world will be a better place


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> Sorry to be such a PITA, but this is not much different from the situation that all of our Military face once they sign up (a contract) to Enlist in a Branch of the Military. First their liberty is restricted. They must go where their leaders say they must go and do what they're ordered to do. And for that acceptance of a limitation on their liberty, they receive various and assorted benefits. Now you can rant and rave and claim that "we've covered all of that in previous posts" but that doesn't change the fact that Millions of American Service Members have signed contracts that do not allow them all the same Unalienable (probably didn't spell that right) rights that you have.
> 
> And while were on the subject. Just because You say something is fact or previously settled doesn't mean squat to the majority of us. All it means is that you have locked in your position and no longer have an open mind about what anyone else has to say. It's my way or the highway. Picking a fight with folks that don't agree with your position and name calling and disparaging their education levels or what they've done in their lives is not how you win an argument or get someone to agree with your position.
> 
> And lastly I tried to go back thru this thread and find it, but I thought at one point you gave a reference to Workfare having been overturned by a court somewhere. For the life of me I could not find it.
> 
> Have a nice day, sit back in the shade of a nice tall tree, turn off the phone, sip n some pink lemonade and the world will be a better place


You keep bringing up the same point over and over. It's been asked and answered, Sarge.

The exception was made for the military because they are in a different relationship with the government. People in the military and some public officials are no longer "_citizens_" during their time of service. It poses a conflict of interest and one of National Security. Go back and reread this thread.

Last year a federal judge in Orlando blocked Florida's law requiring welfare applicants be drug tested in order to receive benefits.

Judge Mary Scriven issued an injunction against the state, writing in a 37-page order that the law could violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on illegal search and seizure.

In her order, Scriven issued a scathing assessment of the state's argument in favor of the drug tests, saying the state failed to prove "special needs" as to why it should conduct such searches without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, as the law requires.


----------



## SARGE7402

The Resister;140074The exception was made for the military because they are in a different relationship with the government. People in the military and some public officials are no longer "[I said:


> citizens[/I]" during their time of service. It poses a conflict of interest and one of National Security. Go back and reread this thread.
> 
> .


You know R you really are a jail house lawyer. How did you arrive at the idea that Service men and women are no longer citizens while serving? What portion of the bill of rights has been suspended for them? I'll give you a hint. Not a single one. You know for a person with a supposed legal background .....

But your own argument defeats you. You say that no one can give up their rights, but every serviceman and woman today is a volunteer and signs a contract and you implication that they voluntarily agree to be non citizens for the duration of their contract. So if several million americans can voluntarily give up their rights as citizens under one contractural arrangement, that the welfare recipients can't give up theirs as part of their agreement with the government to receive welfare.

And am I missing something or did several of your posts get deleted?


----------



## SARGE7402

The Resister said:


> Last year a federal judge in Orlando blocked Florida's law requiring welfare applicants be drug tested in order to receive benefits.
> 
> Judge Mary Scriven issued an injunction against the state, writing in a 37-page order that the law could violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on illegal search and seizure.
> 
> In her order, Scriven issued a scathing assessment of the state's argument in favor of the drug tests, saying the state failed to prove "special needs" as to why it should conduct such searches without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, as the law requires.


Pay attention to the question R. I didn't ask about Drug testing, but it's funny that there's only one case and HUD has for their public housing agreements that folks with drug convictions can't be in public housing. My question had to do with requiring folks to work as part of getting TANF.

Are we going to fast for you?


----------



## Notsoyoung

"You keep bringing up the same point over and over. It's been asked and answered, Sarge."

Once again, you are not the final authority. Hard as it may be to accept, it is obvious that people have read your answers and disregarded them as being false. 

"Last year a federal judge in Orlando blocked Florida's law requiring welfare applicants be drug tested in order to receive benefits."

So one Federal judge made a decision and that's it? That's the law? Final word on the subject? Michigan passed a law stating that race could not be the deciding factor in granting acceptance into a State University. A Federal judge rule that it was illegal. The Supreme Court ruled that it wasn't. A State could pass a law confiscating all privately owned firearms and there would be a Federal Judge somewhere who would decide that it was perfectly legal. If you don't believe that is true then you are living in a dream world.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> "You keep bringing up the same point over and over. It's been asked and answered, Sarge."
> 
> Once again, you are not the final authority. Hard as it may be to accept, it is obvious that people have read your answers and disregarded them as being false.
> 
> "Last year a federal judge in Orlando blocked Florida's law requiring welfare applicants be drug tested in order to receive benefits."
> 
> So one Federal judge make a decision and that's it? That's the law? Final word on the subject? Michigan passed a law stating that race could not be the deciding factor in granting acceptance into a State University. A Federal judge rule that it was illegal. The Supreme Court ruled that it wasn't. A State could pass a law confiscating all privately owned firearms and there would be a Federal Judge somewhere who would decide that it was perfectly legal. If you don't believe that is true then you are living in a dream world.


Until a court of higher jurisdiction hears and rules on the case, that's the law.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> Until a court of higher jurisdiction hears and rules on the case, that's the law.


And until the appeal process has been gone through, it is not final.


----------



## Slippy

The Resister said:


> Until a court of higher jurisdiction hears and rules on the case, that's the law.


Resister,
I'm curious, how many court cases have you won?


----------



## Notsoyoung

Slippy said:


> Resister,
> I'm curious, how many court cases have you won?


I don't believe that he has ever claimed that he was a lawyer.


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> You know R you really are a jail house lawyer. How did you arrive at the idea that Service men and women are no longer citizens while serving? What portion of the bill of rights has been suspended for them? I'll give you a hint. Not a single one. You know for a person with a supposed legal background .....
> 
> But your own argument defeats you. You say that no one can give up their rights, but every serviceman and woman today is a volunteer and signs a contract and you implication that they voluntarily agree to be non citizens for the duration of their contract. So if several million americans can voluntarily give up their rights as citizens under one contractural arrangement, that the welfare recipients can't give up theirs as part of their agreement with the government to receive welfare.
> 
> And am I missing something or did several of your posts get deleted?


A jailhouse lawyer? LOL. You're a very funny man. I've never been a jailhouse lawyer. Maybe I misspoke, but that's small potatoes to a crowd that cannot tell you the difference between civil and criminal law. You are a very funny man. So, you think the Cub Scouts are military? Same diff, pal. I won't insult your experience if you don't insult mine.

I guess that Notsoyoung can address issues not in covered by the person he's quoting, but that advantage shall not be extended to me. Sorry, my bad. Just thought that ruling was well within the purview of this discussion.

Sarge, let me make this easy for you: I have as much legal experience as you have military experience. I'll show some class and not denigrate your assumed service record. I won't expect the same from you.

Back on point: When David Duke introduced workfare, it was voted down by BOTH parties who decide it was not worth pursuing due to constitutional challenges. In the U.K. they have fought this in their courts (and common law is similar between the two countries.) Workfare is thrown out every time there... and our SCOTUS is made up of the most liberal, communist assholes ever to be have that much authority in U.S. history.

Without quoting the UCMJ, it's safe to say there is a difference between that and being a regular civilian. Civilians are not judged by the UCMJ. I realize you're making a case for the* POLICE STATE*; I'm on the side of the constitutional Republic.

http://www.ehow.com/list_6708445_rights-army-soldiers.html

Sarge, WHY is this stuff always about me and not the information provided?


----------



## The Resister

Slippy said:


> Resister,
> I'm curious, how many court cases have you won?


Should I win the case I'm working now, I believe it will be 35 or so that I've won by myself. If you count the ones I've been a part of that were won in court, the number would be in the hundreds.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> I don't believe that he has ever claimed that he was a lawyer.


I tried to use the Like feature on this one. For whatever reason it isn't.

Notsoyoung is absolutely right. The American Bar Association is the most liberal, communistic organization in the United States. In 1999 I chose, of my own free will and volition to become an anti-lawyer because I despise everything that lobby represents. The Bible says no man can serve two masters.

Thanks for the grain of truth, Notsoyoung.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> And until the appeal process has been gone through, it is not final.


No, it's not final, but it's still the law. AND the case was decided on many of the points I bring up in the postings you admonish posters not to read. BTW, I did not read the ruling until yesterday. Funny how that worked out.


----------



## SARGE7402

The Resister said:


> A jailhouse lawyer? LOL. You're a very funny man. I've never been a jailhouse lawyer. Maybe I misspoke, but that's small potatoes to a crowd that cannot tell you the difference between civil and criminal law. You are a very funny man. So, you think the Cub Scouts are military? Same diff, pal. I won't insult your experience if you don't insult mine.
> 
> I guess that Notsoyoung can address issues not in covered by the person he's quoting, but that advantage shall not be extended to me. Sorry, my bad. Just thought that ruling was well within the purview of this discussion.
> 
> Sarge, let me make this easy for you: I have as much legal experience as you have military experience. I'll show some class and not denigrate your assumed service record. I won't expect the same from you.
> 
> Back on point: When David Duke introduced workfare, it was voted down by BOTH parties who decide it was not worth pursuing due to constitutional challenges. In the U.K. they have fought this in their courts (and common law is similar between the two countries.) Workfare is thrown out every time there... and our SCOTUS is made up of the most liberal, communist assholes ever to be have that much authority in U.S. history.
> 
> Without quoting the UCMJ, it's safe to say there is a difference between that and being a regular civilian. Civilians are not judged by the UCMJ. I realize you're making a case for the* POLICE STATE*; I'm on the side of the constitutional Republic.
> 
> Rights of Army Soldiers | eHow
> 
> Sarge, WHY is this stuff always about me and not the information provided?


Let's take the last Question first. My opinions and my thoughts on your postings are not about you. My postings have to do with what you have espoused. Not about you. You are the one that takes offense at anyone - RPD, Notso, Inor me, - that even remotely disagrees with the least little thing you post. You make claims about all of us that have no basis in fact, and accuse us of bullying you when we go back and look up the claims you've made and found out that you may not have told us the whole story, omitting a small but key point, or you flat out tell a bold faced lie. In one of your previous posts you stated you've practiced immigration law for many years, and in another you say that you've never passed the bar in any state cause your anti lawyer. Well I don't know of any state that allows someone to represent anyone - other than themselves - if they are not a bar certified lawyer.

No one is insulting your experience - In case you forgot I'm the guy that said GBI gave you a raw deal. However after reading your rants on this site and several others, I'm more inclined to think keeping you under surveillance might have been a very good idea

Funny my question was a really simple one. I thought you'd made mention in a previous note that the current work fare set in the 1996 change to the welfare law had been challenged and the courts ruled against it. I couldn't find the case in the limited search I did and asked you for the reference. Now the drug case is interesting, but it's only a stay until the appeal can be filed and argued.
The case you speak of in the UK is interesting, but it's just that. So far as I could find there has been no legal challenge to the work/welfare link from 96. If I'm misinformed perhaps you could enlighten me and the rest of this body.
Where did you ever get the idea that I'm making the case for a Police State? Not from anything I've said or written. Common R make the case.


----------



## SARGE7402

Slippy said:


> Resister,
> I'm curious, how many court cases have you won?


Just in his home state it looks like of the fourteen cases in and around his neck of the woods six losses, one win, one that looks like a draw and six with no info as the state system doesn't keep records on line back into the 80's


----------



## SARGE7402

The Resister said:


> After people posting **** your mother and **** your sister ON THIS THREAD, I don't think you have a very good case. We can ask the mods to review the entire thread. If you complain about it, don't expect to be getting away with posting lies about me and doing the things you accuse me of.... Mr/s Inor.


how about being a man and appologizing to the nice lady


----------



## Inor

SARGE7402 said:


> Just in his home state it looks like of the fourteen cases in and around his neck of the woods six losses, one win, one that looks like a draw and six with no info as the state system doesn't keep records on line back into the 80's


Thanks for the very important clarification Sarge.

One real win vs "35", with "hundreds" more that are not counted... I can see how you could confuse that.


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> Let's take the last Question first. My opinions and my thoughts on your postings are not about you. My postings have to do with what you have espoused. Not about you. You are the one that takes offense at anyone - RPD, Notso, Inor me, - that even remotely disagrees with the least little thing you post. You make claims about all of us that have no basis in fact, and accuse us of bullying you when we go back and look up the claims you've made and found out that you may not have told us the whole story, omitting a small but key point, or you flat out tell a bold faced lie. In one of your previous posts you stated you've practiced immigration law for many years, and in another you say that you've never passed the bar in any state cause your anti lawyer. Well I don't know of any state that allows someone to represent anyone - other than themselves - if they are not a bar certified lawyer.
> 
> No one is insulting your experience - In case you forgot I'm the guy that said GBI gave you a raw deal. However after reading your rants on this site and several others, I'm more inclined to think keeping you under surveillance might have been a very good idea
> 
> Funny my question was a really simple one. I thought you'd made mention in a previous note that the current work fare set in the 1996 change to the welfare law had been challenged and the courts ruled against it. I couldn't find the case in the limited search I did and asked you for the reference. Now the drug case is interesting, but it's only a stay until the appeal can be filed and argued.
> The case you speak of in the UK is interesting, but it's just that. So far as I could find there has been no legal challenge to the work/welfare link from 96. If I'm misinformed perhaps you could enlighten me and the rest of this body.
> Where did you ever get the idea that I'm making the case for a Police State? Not from anything I've said or written. Common R make the case.


You're worried about me, but this thread is about *WELFARE*. Now, you come here with your ego all blown up and you are going to put me in my place. YOU'RE pretending to be an attorney and you question my credentials. Who the **** are you? What are YOUR credentials?

I don't recall you asking me a question, but if Notsoyoung can avoid questions and not give a direct answer in 40 to fifty times asking it, why would you condemn me for missing ONE question when I'm being taken on by HOW MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

Now, for the last time. On my own, I have WON approximately 35 cases on my own. No, I am NOT a member of the Bar. I have been off grid so to speak since 1999. So, how did I manage to work in immigration law for six years? It's because it's *CIVIL LAW*, not criminal law and the Hispanics usually get "_notarios_" (and yep, it's pretty close to what you're thinking.) You can work with administrative agencies and so forth without joining the Bar. In addition, a person can represent themselves as an individual AND as a C.E.O. of a corporation. You can pretend that you checked 159 counties in Georgia and umpteen counties in a few other states. It would be an insult to call B.S, on your "_computer search_" because it simply isn't possible. I won't insult the readers of this site by telling them that what you wrote is exactly what you know it is.

I'm done trying to "prove" this and "prove" that. You guys that support the critics of me have *not had a legal or political WIN in eleven years*. So you want to ride my ass because you are *LOSERS*? I'm done with that shit. If you want to prove a damn thing to me, put your qualifications out there for public scrutiny. If not, take me on with the facts. This thread was about the Georgia law that deals with welfare. Well, dipshit you are on the losing end.

Let me explain the process:

There is an injunction at the FEDERAL level keep Florida's law from being implemented. It will end up in District Court. Until then, the injunction is the law. Regardless of who wins, the case will go to a District court and then to a Federal Appeals Court. Then the Appeals Court ruling will be the law... UNLESS / until a similar law in another state (like Georgia's) makes it way into a *different* Appeals Court. Should that happen AND if the rulings are not consistent, the U.S. Supreme Court may decide the law.

IF / WHEN the case ends up in the United States Supreme Court, those of you betting against me are going to lose your collective asses. That's what you need to know.

As for people calling me a "_jailhouse lawyer_" and then playing the role themselves, you ought to sue your ****ing brains for non-support. Now, I'm done with the personal shit. Sarge, if there is even ONE TIME I *FOUGHT* A CASE IN GEORGIA AND LOST IT, THEN IT SHOULDN'T BE TOO HARD TO LET US KNOW WHO THE ATTORNEY ON THE OTHER SIDE WAS. Remember if I fought the case, it should show me as either attorney of record OR PRO SE.


----------



## Notsoyoung

Bring me in on your rants as you stomp your little feet and wave your tiny hands. Right, we're the losers.


----------



## SARGE7402

SF I apologize if I did ride R a bit harder on a couple of items, but the Because I say so posts from R just got to me.

Welfare is a terrible thing. I see what it does to family's every single day I go to work. It saps the will out of folks, robs them of their self esteem and sees them treated like second class citizens. The only difference between Welfare (and that includes food stamps, TANF, Medicaid, SSI, unemployment and section 8 housing vouchers) and slavery is no one is forcing these folks into the fields to work.

But when you add up what a family of 4 including two school age children can rack up under the various programs, hedouble hockey sticks you'd have to be making a minimum of $15/hour to compete.

Resister, No I'm not a lawyer and have never claimed to be one. But over the past 20 years, I've been inside of a court room as part of the prosecution team for I would guess at least a thousand cases that were tried, including about 200 criminal cases. No I haven't passed the bar either, I do have a BS degree, been a Commissioned Officer in Uncle Sam's Army - now retired; been a licensed professional engineer, and a certified peace/police officer here in Virginia for going on 18 years. If you don't believe me that's up to you. And your demanding that I show you my credentials before you believe who I am just ain't going to happen. in 18 years of putting folks in the Gray Bar Hotel I do need to keep my life as private and secure as possible. You are welcome to your opinion that I'm a Loser, but we both know that's not the case. You can get angry all you like at me and it's not going to cause me to change my opinion of you, or what you say one way or the other.

I'd did call you a jail house lawyer and I probably shouldn't have, but that's done and can't be undone.

Someone asked why we are always arguing amongst our selves. It's who we are. Instead of badgering each other about our differences, or trying to turn someone's valid opinion around cause it doesn't agree with yours, we should be seizing upon those areas where we agree, and forge ahead with them. Based on the personalities of this austere group that's probably not going to happen very often.

Oh and on a different note, I wonder what I'm going to do without Chocolate if we really do experience a SHTF scenario?

Hope everyone had a happy mothers day


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> SF I apologize if I did ride R a bit harder on a couple of items, but the Because I say so posts from R just got to me.
> 
> Welfare is a terrible thing. I see what it does to family's every single day I go to work. It saps the will out of folks, robs them of their self esteem and sees them treated like second class citizens. The only difference between Welfare (and that includes food stamps, TANF, Medicaid, SSI, unemployment and section 8 housing vouchers) and slavery is no one is forcing these folks into the fields to work.
> 
> But when you add up what a family of 4 including two school age children can rack up under the various programs, hedouble hockey sticks you'd have to be making a minimum of $15/hour to compete.
> 
> Resister, No I'm not a lawyer and have never claimed to be one. But over the past 20 years, I've been inside of a court room as part of the prosecution team for I would guess at least a thousand cases that were tried, including about 200 criminal cases. No I haven't passed the bar either, I do have a BS degree, been a Commissioned Officer in Uncle Sam's Army - now retired; been a licensed professional engineer, and a certified peace/police officer here in Virginia for going on 18 years. If you don't believe me that's up to you. And your demanding that I show you my credentials before you believe who I am just ain't going to happen. in 18 years of putting folks in the Gray Bar Hotel I do need to keep my life as private and secure as possible. You are welcome to your opinion that I'm a Loser, but we both know that's not the case. You can get angry all you like at me and it's not going to cause me to change my opinion of you, or what you say one way or the other.
> 
> I'd did call you a jail house lawyer and I probably shouldn't have, but that's done and can't be undone.
> 
> Someone asked why we are always arguing amongst our selves. It's who we are. Instead of badgering each other about our differences, or trying to turn someone's valid opinion around cause it doesn't agree with yours, we should be seizing upon those areas where we agree, and forge ahead with them. Based on the personalities of this austere group that's probably not going to happen very often.
> 
> Oh and on a different note, I wonder what I'm going to do without Chocolate if we really do experience a SHTF scenario?
> 
> Hope everyone had a happy mothers day


Sarge:

ONLY because you tried to be respectful I can say this just for the record. I've won the cases I told you about. My original course in life was a minister. Between a short stint as a Justice of the Peace, a battle with a lawyer over fees - where I ended up fighting on my own and winning, AND then getting into a couple of political battles, law school seemed like a natural progression.

I went to an *unaccredited* law school, got involved as a right wing community organizer, but things didn't work out for me like they did for the ultimate community organizer on the left. But, working the law with an aspiration to some day become a legislator was where my head stayed at until mid way through my stint as the Commanding Officer of the Militia of Georgia. Bear in mind, my intent was to become a legislator, not a lawyer.

On this board my experiences were made public by way of links, all of which got deleted within a couple of days. The most recent link was to a story in Esquire where, a couple of years ago, I was on a board where people who think much like you, acted on their beliefs. I warned them months to years in advance what was going to happen. Lo and behold, the worst happened to them. Warned people on a board before that and their top leaders ended up either dead or in prison... a couple are professional snitches. I warned people about the anti - immigrant folks - yep, they were exactly who and what I told the people.

For whatever reason, my critics here had all the links deleted so I'm not trying that again here. I have my own little site now and can put the important stuff there without fear that it will get poked fun at and / or deleted. What you seem not to know is that some of the people here have followed me from thread to thread and the old battles are not going to let the personality contest die. He said this, the other said that. It's been done. So, if it really pisses them off, they always have the option of calling me out and saying, Resister tell me the time and the place. So, from here on out, I'm doing the personal stuff. They are just as guilty as I. I never intended to be mean, but I've been down this road for over a decade.

Having read the books our forefathers read and following their example, it is my opinion that there is but one road to Liberty and putting the government in charge of things you can better do yourself is not how it's done. What works for governing militaries don't work for civilians. Laissez-faire works better than a *POLICE STATE*. AND, in response to my chief critic here, I have supplied him with proof that legal authorities have interpreted these encroachments as violations of the Fourth Amendment. You can believe that warrant less searches are constitutional, but by virtue of the fact that they are unconstitutional under the circumstances ought to be enough to say my opinion is valid enough so that we should be discussing the law and history and NOT who called who what here or on another thread. 've watched a lot of people go down over the years. There is no easy way to say to any critic that they are wrong. But in order to be effective, there aren't many other options.


----------



## SARGE7402

Resister; Tried to be respectful? I don't believe I ever called you any names. I've referred to you a couple of times by certain nouns, but I've never once denigrated you, called your parentage into question, referred to you as some form of deviant, suggested you perform some unnatural act upon yourself or made reference to any of your kin folk. All I've ever done is to disagree with your point of view and to try and do that by building logical arguements and going back to - in the case of immigration - the actual federal statute.

You on the other hand feel free to stoop to name calling when ever someone dares to not swallow your load of ________________(I'll let you fill in the blank) hook line and sinker.

You also feel quite free to link me and my opinions and beliefs to those of some folks you had dealings with in Georgia some time ago. How you made that leap in logic is way beyond my ability to comprehend. But let someone try and link back to your actual posts on other web sites and you tell everyone how we don't know our a - - from a hole in the ground about your and your situations.

And funny you should try and make the connection between what works for the military won't work for Civilians. Did you know that Harry Truman ended racial segregation in the military in 1948 ( Executive Order 9981 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) whereas it took the SCOTUS until 1954 to do it for US School Children. Or that the basics of Miranda were in the 1951 version of the Uniform Code of Military Justice where as for the rest of the USofA it didn't happen until 1966. Funny thing both items were so good that the SCOTUS - those 9 exalted ones in the black robes - mandated them for all Americans.

And as for me advocating a Police State - this is another wild accusation based on no information.

But as far as the SCOTUS ruling on searches in welfare cases what about the ruling in 1971 for New York state and the recent decision out of California Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Welfare Searche And Siezure

I won't be expecting any concessions, admissions or apologies. But don't ever question my ability to research.


----------



## SARGE7402

Sorry SF, but it's hardwired into my being


----------



## The Resister

Old SF Guy said:


> ahhh damn....I knew that was coming.....
> 
> You know Maybe Resister is one of those folks like me that whenever I try to put my thoughts down in writing they come out a little too harsh or I say it in a way that gets taken wrong. I piss my wife off all the time via text messaging and even at work my bosses want to have me answer any email by sending it to them so they can tone it down into PC compliance. I don't know him well enough yet to say, but maybe thats it. And some hyper sensitivities to criticism from years of battles like this.


I have several problems here that SARGE7402 cannot relate to.

1) I was not the one who drew first blood on this thread

2) A moderator told me to steer clear of a couple of people as he was considering cleaning house so the personal contact has been avoided. If they like being here, they will probably do likewise

3) Instead of being able to discuss issues I spend a great deal of time entertaining many here at the expense of some people having their feelings bruised. At the same time, *NOBODY* has chastised those who would attack my dead family members. It's not unreasonable to draw conclusions about who sides with who on a given issue.

4) Even when the personal stuff has been dealt with, we never have been able to get back on track with the issue.

S.F. Guy, I watched the "_movement_" for lack of a more descriptive adjective literally shitcan James "Bo" Gritz. Gritz was the most decorated soldier of the Viet Nam era AND he was both a Green Beret and CIA operative. He spoke the truth and was beat down by those who would never say things to his face. Ditto for my mentor, Lt. Col. Gordon "Jack" Mohr (Mohr was the first American captured during the Korean Conflict. He was sentenced to death, beaten and tortured, but managed to escape a POW camp and return to active service where he wrote manuals on psycho-politics and brainwashing.)

Now, I can sit on my ass and go along to get along OR do something that will enhance understanding. If it makes most people hate me, then so be it. But, I learned nothing from watching the men I looked up to and admired being torn down by the people that should have respected them. Adding insult to injury, the very people tearing down the constitutionalists from the 1980s and 1990s led their people down the primrose path to despair, destruction and sometimes death.

Now, SARGE is trying to mislead us. He claims that in my last post I singled him out... pissed him off... made it personal. Why the Hell don't he READ the thread? He's not my chief critic. I was only explaining the pressure I've faced on this thread and why I've had to come off as crass and blunt. NOTHING could be construed as my comments as having a damn thing to do with him personally... except to the extent that he (nor anyone else) jumped in and said to some of my critics that family is not fair game in a pissing match.

I'm not going to ask for an apology. So, that way I don't have to offer one. To those people who side with those that think attacking the family members of posters is kosher, I would not want to share a foxhole with them. Neither are they the only people on this site. If we aren't going to have a meeting of the minds, don't you think it's time to address ONLY the merits of the thread topic? I don't know what else to do.


----------



## SARGE7402

But as far as the SCOTUS ruling on searches in welfare cases what about the ruling in 1971 for New York state and the recent decision out of California Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Welfare Search And Seizure

I guess this wasn't on point enough for you to notice.

Have a nice day resister.

But you are right in that it will be interesting to see what the appeals court for Florida has to say on the matter.


----------



## The Resister

Slippy said:


> Hey Resister,
> Who you gonna get kicked out? Do tell.


I'm getting someone kicked out? You and I both know it wasn't me. And what does that have to do with welfare? You see, nobody on this thread wants to address the issue at hand. In post #5 I made a vague reference to the absolute dumb asses in Georgia that attacked the Fourth Amendment. The only way they could have supported signing that bill was to be socialists. Period. Somebody took a pot shot at me and this has been about personalities ever since.

You seem to delight in watching the side show, but none of your posts have anything to do with welfare. How come? Do you not give a damn about the future of your country? After 223 posts, we have not touched the subject. All of these attempts to make me go ballistic may amuse you, but then again, you are the main pot stirrer. So, how do feel about people violating *YOUR* Rights and weakening the Constitution? How do you feel that the current federal ruling on drug tests are consistent with what I told you? Do you give a rat's ass about the Fourth Amendment?

Don't you think that building a bigger and more intrusive government will affect your ability to prep at some point? For instance: Should you qualify for VA benefits or Socialist Security, can't you see Uncle Scam wanting to search your home for possible contraband (weapons, extra food, medicine, etc.)??? OR maybe you too haven't studied the power of a legal precedent and how far reaching it can become?

Why are you REALLY here, slippy? Time to stop stirring the pot and take a stand. How do you think all these amusing personality attacks would play on the evening news if a reporter stuck a microphone into your face and asked *you* the tough questions? Are you prepared?


----------



## SARGE7402

Don't you think that building a bigger and more intrusive government will affect your ability to prep at some point? For instance: Should you qualify for VA benefits or Socialist Security, can't you see Uncle Scam wanting to search your home for possible contraband (weapons, extra food, medicine, etc.)??? OR maybe you too haven't studied the power of a legal precedent and how far reaching it can become?

Actually you do have to qualify both for VA benefits (If you've never served in the military don't apply) and SS (I make too much money for me to draw and early retirement from them. I won't speak for the other programs cause I've not applied for them and don't know first hand


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> But as far as the SCOTUS ruling on searches in welfare cases what about the ruling in 1971 for New York state and the recent decision out of California Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Welfare Search And Seizure
> 
> I guess this wasn't on point enough for you to notice.
> 
> Have a nice day resister.
> 
> .
> 
> But you are right in that it will be interesting to see what the appeals court for Florida has to say on the matter.


Well, I think that state rulings are nullified by the United States Supreme Court. I mean if you want to bet a little on the final outcome, PM me. I think that weakening the Constitution and not requiring the people that dole out the money to held accountable says more about your stand than 5000 more posts will do.

Keep focused on the SCOTUS. The more rulings the states make, the greater the chance that the SCOTUS will rule.

The way to end welfare is to force those who draw it to actively participate in their effort to become self sufficient. Later this evening I will show you an example of this.


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> Don't you think that building a bigger and more intrusive government will affect your ability to prep at some point? For instance: Should you qualify for VA benefits or Socialist Security, can't you see Uncle Scam wanting to search your home for possible contraband (weapons, extra food, medicine, etc.)??? OR maybe you too haven't studied the power of a legal precedent and how far reaching it can become?
> 
> Actually you do have to qualify both for VA benefits (If you've never served in the military don't apply) and SS (I make too much money for me to draw and early retirement from them. I won't speak for the other programs cause I've not applied for them and don't know first hand


You never give up with the silliness. Qualifying and giving up Rights are two horses of different colors. You want to draw me back into an irrelevant conversation. An entitlement means what in your dictionary??? What does the word entitlement mean to you? What does it mean to the government? You are talking oranges and apples.


----------



## SARGE7402

The Resister said:


> Well, I think that state rulings are nullified by the United States Supreme Court. I mean if you want to bet a little on the final outcome, PM me. I think that weakening the Constitution and not requiring the people that dole out the money to held accountable says more about your stand than 5000 more posts will do.
> 
> Keep focused on the SCOTUS. The more rulings the states make, the greater the chance that the SCOTUS will rule.
> 
> The way to end welfare is to force those who draw it to actively participate in their effort to become self sufficient. Later this evening I will show you an example of this.


Just in case you missed the California case, it was in the US District with the 9th Circuit agreeing with the lower Court and the SCOTUS electing not to weigh in as it had already been ruled on in 71.


----------



## Slippy

The Resister said:


> Why are you REALLY here, slippy? Time to stop stirring the pot and take a stand. How do you think all these amusing personality attacks would play on the evening news if a reporter stuck a microphone into your face and asked *you* the tough questions? Are you prepared?


My handlers have finally allowed me to be here, that's why I am here. A reporter will never stick a microphone in my face, my handlers will never allow that situation to remotely occur. But YES, I am prepared.


----------



## Notsoyoung

"Entitlements" is not a legal classification of some government programs, nor are entitlements mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. In other "entitlement" programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and V.A. benefits, the recipient has to invest into the program with either money or service. This is akin to a contract with the government. If you give us this, we'll give you this in return. Welfare and Medicaid are exceptions. NOTHING has to be given to receive benefits. Not money, not time, not work. NOTHING. Welfare is NOT a right. You are NOT violating anyone's rights by telling them that if they want to receive money from the government, they have to pass a drug test, nor is it violating their rights by telling them that in order to receive those benefits they have to work for it. Let's be honest about what welfare is. It is taking money from people who work for it and giving it to people who do nothing. 

The claim "I am against it because it grows the government and if you are for it you are for big government" is pathetic attempt to throw a red herring into the argument. Notice that this change in direction was only thrown into the mix after attempts to claim that it violates peoples "Unalienable Rights" failed miserably. This is an example of throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> "Entitlements" is not a legal classification of some government programs, nor are entitlements mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. In other "entitlement" programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and V.A. benefits, the recipient has to invest into the program with either money or service. This is akin to a contract with the government. If you give us this, we'll give you this in return. Welfare and Medicaid are exceptions. NOTHING has to be given to receive benefits. Not money, not time, not work. NOTHING. Welfare is NOT a right. You are NOT violating anyone's rights by telling them that if they want to receive money from the government, they have to pass a drug test, nor is it violating their rights by telling them that in order to receive those benefits they have to work for it. Let's be honest about what welfare is. It is taking money from people who work for it and giving it to people who do nothing.
> 
> The claim "I am against it because it grows the government and if you are for it you are for big government" is pathetic attempt to throw a red herring into the argument. Notice that this change in direction was only thrown into the mix after attempts to claim that it violates peoples "Unalienable Rights" failed miserably. This is an example of throwing things against the wall to see what sticks.


You should STFU while you're still ahead. BEFORE coming to this board I had approximately *35 YEARS of active service* in political / legal activism. Long before you ever came on the scene I was *DOING* things. Talk is cheap Notsoyoung. This issue has never been about whether or not welfare is constitutional, legal, etc., etc. NOTHING I've said would end in an honest man believing that I was defending welfare. In my* FIRST post* on this thread I said we needed to scale back welfare. In post #15 I again said we would be better off with no welfare.

Here you are once again, lying to the posters. What the **** did you want in my first post? Do you want a fifty paragraph dissertation on the evils of welfare? Are you really that desperate for attention? Is there some malfunction in your mind that cannot separate a constitutional guarantee against warrant less searches and whether or not welfare is constitutional? In post #120 you were called on one of your lies. Let me copy and paste that one:

"_In what sentence, in what thread and on what board in the eleven years we've been debating this did I advocate letting people into the U.S. "no questions asked"??? Please be so kind as to tell us where I wrote that?_"

You lied then and have never answered that once. You make shit up and demand that I respond to your nonsense, but you don't answer questions asked of you? Who died and made you God? You keep acting like you're bucking for a fight and every time I say bring it, you come back with crap about telling the moderators on me. You've insulted me, badgered me and done everything possible to piss me off... except give me the option I would give you if our roles were reversed.

Since you asked for it...

I'm not for welfare in any way, shape, fashion or form. I would not even consider it had I not already been taxed for it. But, I've paid into the system and, while I'd rather have hot butter stuffed up my ass with a red hot poker than apply for welfare, I am not going to rule it out since I was taxed for it. My mother drew welfare for a few years and we lived in deplorable conditions. I came from a broken home and when the old man and my mother got somewhat on their feet, I left home at the ripe old age of 14. Since then *NOBODY* has given me a damn thing. So, it seems reasonable that a person should work for what they get (unless they have a genuine reason they cannot work: birth defect, age, physical disability, etc.)

Even with all of that, we would be better served if "_welfare_" were something voluntary that a church took care of. Here is my personal take on welfare:

My wife has a son that is 28. This sorry POS has NEVER had a legitimate job... unless you think a part time job at Subway lasting all of three months at a time is a job. This guy did not finish high school. He won't go to school... even when someone has his back on housing, food, and all other expenses. He has a criminal record that would choke an elephant... most of it petty B.S. Anyway...

Few months ago this POS has an argument with his wife in the driveway at his grandmother's house... where he was staying rent free. Neighbors called the cops and the POS goes to jail for domestic violence and terroristic threats. His 6 year old step-son said he told his wife "_I will F...king kill you"_. That was worth the courts separating them for a time and giving the POS 8 years probation.

He comes to live with us and "look for a job." He would stay up til 2 am, sit outside and smoke cigarettes while he strummed a guitar. His idea of looking for a job was to slip on a pair of pants that came down to the calves of his legs, a t shirt and worn out Doc Marten boots. He didn't comb his hair, brush his teeth or even shower most of the time. About two weeks into this charade, I sit him down and tell him that the next day he would get up at 5:45 am when I get up. He would shower, shit, shave, put on pressed clothes, brush his nasty teeth and start getting real about looking for work.

He leaves and since then my wife has been paying his rent, giving him money, etc. (rent alone is $750 a month.) DFACS told him and his wife (who finally got a job at Waffle House) that they don't make enough money to get her son back. DFACS suggested they hit US up for more money. Their solution to this POS's problem is to hit us up for money and apply for welfare. So far, since mommy's footing the bills, this lazy mother****er won't even walk down the road to apply for food stamps... BTW, the food stamp office is closer to his door than the bathroom at my job is to my work area.

In July, my wife will have to decide whether to put the POS on the straight and narrow and force him to get a job OR apply for welfare. Now, I don't think the taxpayers should be burdened with this POS. So, I know, after dealing with DFACS, his probation officer, cops, social workers, etc. exactly what he needs. This POS needs someone to wake him up at 5:45 a.m. and MAKE him look for a job. When he's not hunting for a job he needs to be working toward a GED. He needs someone to push his sorry ass.... him and millions like him.

IF we get him to the welfare offices, he will pass the drug tests. He only distills his drugs from legal substances he steals from Wal Mart. Even if he didn't, he'd learn how to fool the system and pass the silly ass drug tests. He does the same shit year in and year out and seldom does any jail time. But, since nobody wants to listen to what he needs, based upon the perspective of someone who has to witness who he inconveniences, we have petty pissing matches about whether or not it's constitutional to violate someone's Fourth Amendment guarantees.

My plan would do better than what you support Notsoyoung. That POS is not the exception, he is the rule. So you're going to drug test people and the best estimates say that while 22 percent of the people on welfare are on drugs... over HALF of that is marijuana (and we're in the process of legalizing it.) More of them are alcoholics (which is okay since it's "legal") but, they are still on welfare. Many of those will work the system and get around the tests. So, how are your efforts better spent?

Government employees make, on average 25 percent more than private sector workers. Government employees get better retirements, more time off, more vacation days, etc. that private sector workers. In 223 posts, NOBODY has told me WHY we can't make those who dole out that money do what I know what needs to be done.. and WOULD do it if they didn't have those silly ass domestic violence laws in the way. Long as the recipient is _"drug free_" you don't mind the proverbial ass screwing you're going to get when I shut down the candy store? Let the taxpayers pay for this and if you want to talk turkey, we can do the other thirty paragraphs Notsoyoung's due.


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> Just in case you missed the California case, it was in the US District with the 9th Circuit agreeing with the lower Court and the SCOTUS electing not to weigh in as it had already been ruled on in 71.


The more states and the more courts giving differing rulings insure that some day the SCOTUS WILL weigh in. Is what may happen still relevant to how we could address the issue so that constitutionality would not be an issue AND get something done???


----------



## SARGE7402

Sippy I think if one of my kids were that bad, I'd have a bit of an attitude too. Let's all give the big R a little peace for say the next 24 hours


----------



## Notsoyoung

Once again, there goes civility out the window. Well, I tried. Now how to respond without someone throwing a hissy fit, stomping their little feet, and calling me a big bully. 

Here our some answers in no particular order:

If I express my opinion some how I feel like "someone died and made me God" according to you. Moronic. 

"STFU"..... enough said. 

"You never said that you have advocating letting people into the country, no questions asked".... No, you have never said that, BUT you have said that trying to secure our border has led to our country becoming a police state. You HAVE said that illegal aliens, oh excuse me, undocumented immigrants, have an unalienable right to be here, and should not be deported back to their own country. So just what does that mean? You have refused to say just exactly what should be done with our borders or what should be done with those refuse to come into our Country following proper procedures. Any rational person would come to the conclusion that in fact, you are advocating letting people into the country, no questions asked. 

"Once again I am lying" according to you......... bull. This coming from you is hilarious. No one has ever accused me of replying to his quote and adding sentences so that it looked like he said something that he didn't. 

You really seem to have a hard time understanding what I am saying. Frankly I think you are just purposely misstating what I have said, but that wouldn't be a first for you, would it? You keep saying that it would infringe upon peoples rights if you made them take a drug test in order to receive welfare. My point is that welfare is not a right, and putting a pre-condition on it that in order to get money from it you have to pass a drug test is not infringing on anyone's rights. If you don't want to take a drug, don't. Were welfare a right, then you can't put a pre-condition on it. 

"You keep acting like you're bucking for a fight and every time I say bring it, you come back with crap about telling the moderators on me." When did I say that? Oh wait, that was in that little message you sent me when you said that you were going to find out where I live and you were going to come teach me a lesson? And I replied, oh gee, that sounds like a threat, maybe I should tell the moderators? Is that what you are whining about? Kind of exaggerating things and leaving some parts out aren't you? SOP for you, isn't it? 

As for the rest of it, more bs about what a great guy to are and how much you have done......... yawn. 

Your personal life ...... another yawn. Everybody has problems little man. Suck it up whiner.


----------



## Slippy

Sarge,
I guess you're right. Sometimes all a man needs is a hug, his blankey and a dark cool space to curl up. 
My bad.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> Once again, there goes civility out the window. Well, I tried. Now how to respond without someone throwing a hissy fit, stomping their little feet, and calling me a big bully.
> 
> Here our some answers in no particular order:
> 
> If I express my opinion some how I feel like "someone died and made me God" according to you. Moronic.
> 
> "STFU"..... enough said.
> 
> "You never said that you have advocating letting people into the country, no questions asked".... No, you have never said that, BUT you have said that trying to secure our border has led to our country becoming a police state. You HAVE said that illegal aliens, oh excuse me, undocumented immigrants, have an unalienable right to be here, and should not be deported back to their own country. So just what does that mean? You have refused to say just exactly what should be done with our borders or what should be done with those refuse to come into our Country following proper procedures. Any rational person would come to the conclusion that in fact, you are advocating letting people into the country, no questions asked.
> 
> "Once again I am lying" according to you......... bull. This coming from you is hilarious. No one has ever accused me of replying to his quote and adding sentences so that it looked like he said something that he didn't.
> 
> You really seem to have a hard time understanding what I am saying. Frankly I think you are just purposely misstating what I have said, but that wouldn't be a first for you, would it? You keep saying that it would infringe upon peoples rights if you made them take a drug test in order to receive welfare. My point is that welfare is not a right, and putting a pre-condition on it that in order to get money from it you have to pass a drug test is not infringing on anyone's rights. If you don't want to take a drug, don't. Were welfare a right, then you can't put a pre-condition on it.
> 
> "You keep acting like you're bucking for a fight and every time I say bring it, you come back with crap about telling the moderators on me." When did I say that? Oh wait, that was in that little message you sent me when you said that you were going to find out where I live and you were going to come teach me a lesson? And I replied, oh gee, that sounds like a threat, maybe I should tell the moderators? Is that what you are whining about? Kind of exaggerating things and leaving some parts out aren't you? SOP for you, isn't it?
> 
> As for the rest of it, more bs about what a great guy to are and how much you have done......... yawn.
> 
> Your personal life ...... another yawn. Everybody has problems little man. Suck it up whiner.


You wanted a fifty paragraph dissertation. WTF? You implied I'm a liar and now you try to back down and pretend I'm the problem? Little boy, if I treated someone the way you've treated me, I'd be wanting a fight with them. All you want to do is try to piss me off. You got your wish. The problem is, you aren't man enough to do a ****ing thing about it except peck your keyboard.

For the benefit of everybody here, The Resister did not write the laws. The Resister had no part in passing the laws, nor interpreting them nor implementing them. The facts remain, welfare is an entitlement as far as the government is concerned. Why? I don't know and don't give a damn. *Maybe*, the government feels like we all paid taxes so we're entitled to the benefits thereof. I don't know and I really don't give a shit.

What I do know is that if you're _"entitled_" (whatever in the hell it means between you and the government), then you get the benefit. The one thing I do know is that BEFORE mental midgets with a warped idea of what the Constitution means began passing all these unconstitutional laws, we used to have strict privacy laws. For example, BEFORE the so - called "_Patriot Act_," we had the *Privacy Act*. Under the Privacy Act one could not be denied _"any benefit, right or privilege for failure to disclose a social security number."_ I'll tell you now, BEFORE these unconstitutional laws, a violation of the Fourth Amendment would have gotten laughed out of court.

Notsoyoung, you have a total reliance on the system. The Fourth Amendment and its guarantees have been upheld in this part of the country... you were 100 percent wrong and never had the courage to say, "yeah you're right - for the moment." Instead you want to make this go on and on. First, you accuse me of a ****ing lie and now you don't like the 50 paragraph dissertation you begged for. Yet you aren't man enough to man up and resolve this without the big fanfare of having a dozen other people try to gang bang me because you represent a side that has had not a victory since its inception over a decade ago. That has to burn your ass. You haven't been able to win and even with a horde of misguided people that refuse to READ the material presented, you still can't help but get your ass kicked.

I've asked you a dozen questions. Simple answers little boy. You cannot do that. Are you functionally illiterate or plain stupid???

*The requirement that one must submit to a drug test in order to get a welfare check that I am against in the first place is a violation of the Fourth Amendment is the law - at least for the moment in these parts. That is the indisputable FACT*.


----------



## Slippy

The Resister said:


> You wanted a fifty paragraph dissertation. WTF? You implied I'm a liar and now you try to back down and pretend I'm the problem? Little boy, if I treated someone the way you've treated me, I'd be wanting a fight with them. All you want to do is try to piss me off. You got your wish. The problem is, you aren't man enough to do a ****ing thing about it except peck your keyboard.
> 
> For the benefit of everybody here, The Resister did not write the laws. The Resister had no part in passing the laws, nor interpreting them nor implementing them. The facts remain, welfare is an entitlement as far as the government is concerned. Why? I don't know and don't give a damn. *Maybe*, the government feels like we all paid taxes so we're entitled to the benefits thereof. I don't know and I really don't give a shit.
> 
> What I do know is that if you're _"entitled_" (whatever in the hell it means between you and the government), then you get the benefit. The one thing I do know is that BEFORE mental midgets with a warped idea of what the Constitution means began passing all these unconstitutional laws, we used to have strict privacy laws. For example, BEFORE the so - called "_Patriot Act_," we had the *Privacy Act*. Under the Privacy Act one could not be denied _"any benefit, right or privilege for failure to disclose a social security number."_ I'll tell you now, BEFORE these unconstitutional laws, a violation of the Fourth Amendment would have gotten laughed out of court.
> 
> Notsoyoung, you have a total reliance on the system. The Fourth Amendment and its guarantees have been upheld in this part of the country... you were 100 percent wrong and never had the courage to say, "yeah you're right - for the moment." Instead you want to make this go on and on. First, you accuse me of a ****ing lie and now you don't like the 50 paragraph dissertation you begged for. Yet you aren't man enough to man up and resolve this without the big fanfare of having a dozen other people try to gang bang me because you represent a side that has had not a victory since its inception over a decade ago. That has to burn your ass. You haven't been able to win and even with a horde of misguided people that refuse to READ the material presented, you still can't help but get your ass kicked.
> 
> I've asked you a dozen questions. Simple answers little boy. You cannot do that. Are you functionally illiterate or plain stupid???
> 
> *The requirement that one must submit to a drug test in order to get a welfare check that I am against in the first place is a violation of the Fourth Amendment is the law - at least for the moment in these parts. That is the indisputable FACT*.


Sorry Sarge, I cannot help myself...
Calm down R-Dog before you have an aneurysm...


----------



## The Resister

Slippy said:


> Resister,
> Good gracious, man, calm down before you bust an artery.


SARGE, Is the mental midget one of yours? His opinion is and has been, if he gets the last word, he's won. Well, he has not won a damn thing but first prize for being a low life. I've endured his bullshit ever since I've been here and he drew first blood. Why not sent him into the fight OR do those guys really need all six to take me on?

Dude, If I can take six critics on one thread and they still cannot come up with anything but taunts, I'm beginning to think less of them than when this started.


----------



## The Resister

Slippy said:


> Sorry Sarge, I cannot help myself...
> Calm down R-Dog before you have an aneurysm...


You're partly responsible for this, so don't sweat it. Enjoy it. I will feel better once that the resident scum bag tells me to name a time and a place. BTW, anybody know his real name and address? PM me. I'd like to meet him.


----------



## Slippy

The Resister said:


> You're partly responsible for this, so don't sweat it. Enjoy it. I will feel better once that the resident scum bag tells me to name a time and a place. BTW, anybody know his real name and address? PM me. I'd like to meet him.


Who is partly responsible for what? Be specific.


----------



## Slippy

Resister,
You seem to be losing it. Get it together big man. Breathe easy and calm. Go to that quiet place. Breathe...


----------



## SARGE7402

The requirement that one must submit to a drug test in order to get a welfare check that I am against in the first place is a violation of the Fourth Amendment is the law - at least for the moment in these parts. That is the indisputable FACT.

First Resister let me make a couple of things clear. 1) I don't like the current welfare programs - Food stamps, public housing vouchers, SSI, 2) I think that the government needs to stay out of our business unless they have a clear and pressing need - like investigation us for a crime we're alleged to have committed; 3) I didn't write the laws. Mrs. Racine's little boy wasn't asked his opinion. 4) I couldn't tell you what those 535 folks in Congress think they're doing on any given day. 

I do have first hand knowledge about how folks are treated within the parameters set down by HUD for getting Public Housing Assistance. And I do know for a fact that one of the screening criteria used to deny folks access (not only to the voucher or getting into a PHA apartment but just being able to visit the baby momma of their child) are drug tests, and records of drug arrests. I personally don't like this one since it splits families.

Now that was originally done by Executive Order in '96 and I don't know if it was followed up with congress passing the necessary legislation. I do know that the PHA in Richmond uses that concept daily to keep folks out of their housing complexes. I also don't know if there have been any successful or unsuccessful legal challenges - that's the next part of my search when I get a moment.

But as you said Legal Precedent does set the rules for us on a lot of issues. If drug testing is valid for one federal assistance program it goes a long way towards making it legit for others


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> The requirement that one must submit to a drug test in order to get a welfare check that I am against in the first place is a violation of the Fourth Amendment is the law - at least for the moment in these parts. That is the indisputable FACT.
> 
> First Resister let me make a couple of things clear. 1) I don't like the current welfare programs - Food stamps, public housing vouchers, SSI, 2) I think that the government needs to stay out of our business unless they have a clear and pressing need - like investigation us for a crime we're alleged to have committed; 3) I didn't write the laws. Mrs. Racine's little boy wasn't asked his opinion. 4) I couldn't tell you what those 535 folks in Congress think they're doing on any given day.
> 
> I do have first hand knowledge about how folks are treated within the parameters set down by HUD for getting Public Housing Assistance. And I do know for a fact that one of the screening criteria used to deny folks access (not only to the voucher or getting into a PHA apartment but just being able to visit the baby momma of their child) are drug tests, and records of drug arrests. I personally don't like this one since it splits families.
> 
> Now that was originally done by Executive Order in '96 and I don't know if it was followed up with congress passing the necessary legislation. I do know that the PHA in Richmond uses that concept daily to keep folks out of their housing complexes. I also don't know if there have been any successful or unsuccessful legal challenges - that's the next part of my search when I get a moment.
> 
> But as you said Legal Precedent does set the rules for us on a lot of issues. If drug testing is valid for one federal assistance program it goes a long way towards making it legit for others


This debate has been about how much power you want to fork over to Big Government. Thank you for confirming what side you want to be on. Executive Orders can be used to circumvent the Constitution and are not the will of the people, but rather a way for a single tyrant to impose their will.

BEFORE the resident scum bag turned this into a circus, I left links so that people could get an idea of what an *unalienable Right* consisted of. According to the Declaration of Independence, which is law (and has been used as precedent in over 100 federal cases) "_ALL MEN are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."

Had you actually READ the links provided, you would know that the word *unalienable* means that you cannot give it away NOR can government reach in and take it away from you. Had you actually READ the links, proof was offered that the Bill of Rights was nothing more than a codification of the Declaration of Independence and a list of thou shalt nots that government must obey when dealing with we, the people.

I honestly don't know in what language I can make this any more clear: I'm not "_for_" welfare. As far as I'm concerned you can repeal it tomorrow if you like. I don't believe you have the votes, but instead of wasting this much time on me, why not try spending it repealing welfare? Maybe you know I've spoken the truth?

Legitimate governments do not have the authority to extract money from my pocket by force and then tell me I must forfeit an* unalienable *Right (the Fourth Amendment) in order to get that money back. Since I don't know about these HUD deals, the first thing I'd do is find out if you were dealing with government or corporations. I've gotten a lot farther down the road with DFACS when I uncovered that they are a series of corporations and *not* government entities.

In the final analysis, all of my critics have advocated a bigger and more intrusive government; a government that they will allow to rule over them by force (Executive Orders) if necessary. We have not discussed the Cost / Benefits of giving the government this much power NOR how it may morph and grow to the point that you cannot drink a can of beer or eat a candy bar while drawing your Socialist Security check. Nobody has offered a down side to forcing the bureaucrats that dole out the money to actually EARN that money. We haven't even discussed that part of it.

Had you said that government has the power to force people to comply, I would agree. But, do you really want a government that can rule by decree? Are you so desperate for a win that you would forfeit constitutional Liberties in lieu of a government that can use Executive Orders in order to satisfy the whims of the masses?

The government takes money from me by force for a program that even you guys say is not in the Constitution. Then, you want people to forfeit an *unalienable *Right as a prerequisite to get money that was taken by force in the first place? You only presume that those who draw out of the system never paid a single tax in their lives. That's impossible. At least we're getting down to the nitty gritty of where everybody stands.


----------



## The Resister

Slippy said:


> Who is partly responsible for what? Be specific.


Already have... twice. Read the thread. I can only do so many side shows in one thread. Let the resident scum bag speak for you. He will be here in about an hour.


----------



## Slippy

I am for a smaller, less intrusive government and immediate elimination of; the welfare system, IRS and Income Tax, Dept. of Education, EPA, DHS, NSA, TSA and many many more Federal "departments". I am for the immediate reimbursement of the FICA taxes that I was forced to pay for years.


----------



## Inor

Hey Slip -

Did you see this?



The Resister said:


> Is the mental midget one of yours?


That is pretty dang funny! But then, I have alway enjoyed midgets. I am even thinking of starting a business specifically for midgets. I'll call it: Rent-A-Runt. They will do the small jobs for you: cleaning out under the sink, maybe shoving one of Lance's carrots up Resister's ass, etc. It'll be great! Feel free to PM me if you want a ground floor opportunity.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> You wanted a fifty paragraph dissertation. WTF? You implied I'm a liar and now you try to back down and pretend I'm the problem? Little boy, if I treated someone the way you've treated me, I'd be wanting a fight with them. All you want to do is try to piss me off. You got your wish. The problem is, you aren't man enough to do a ****ing thing about it except peck your keyboard.
> 
> For the benefit of everybody here, The Resister did not write the laws. The Resister had no part in passing the laws, nor interpreting them nor implementing them. The facts remain, welfare is an entitlement as far as the government is concerned. Why? I don't know and don't give a damn. *Maybe*, the government feels like we all paid taxes so we're entitled to the benefits thereof. I don't know and I really don't give a shit.
> 
> What I do know is that if you're _"entitled_" (whatever in the hell it means between you and the government), then you get the benefit. The one thing I do know is that BEFORE mental midgets with a warped idea of what the Constitution means began passing all these unconstitutional laws, we used to have strict privacy laws. For example, BEFORE the so - called "_Patriot Act_," we had the *Privacy Act*. Under the Privacy Act one could not be denied _"any benefit, right or privilege for failure to disclose a social security number."_ I'll tell you now, BEFORE these unconstitutional laws, a violation of the Fourth Amendment would have gotten laughed out of court.
> 
> Notsoyoung, you have a total reliance on the system. The Fourth Amendment and its guarantees have been upheld in this part of the country... you were 100 percent wrong and never had the courage to say, "yeah you're right - for the moment." Instead you want to make this go on and on. First, you accuse me of a ****ing lie and now you don't like the 50 paragraph dissertation you begged for. Yet you aren't man enough to man up and resolve this without the big fanfare of having a dozen other people try to gang bang me because you represent a side that has had not a victory since its inception over a decade ago. That has to burn your ass. You haven't been able to win and even with a horde of misguided people that refuse to READ the material presented, you still can't help but get your ass kicked.
> 
> I've asked you a dozen questions. Simple answers little boy. You cannot do that. Are you functionally illiterate or plain stupid???
> 
> *The requirement that one must submit to a drug test in order to get a welfare check that I am against in the first place is a violation of the Fourth Amendment is the law - at least for the moment in these parts. That is the indisputable FACT*.


Sigh. Here we go again. Here are some of my responses in no particular order.

_You wanted a fifty paragraph dissertation. WTF? You implied I'm a liar and now you try to back down and pretend I'm the problem? Little boy, if I treated someone the way you've treated me, I'd be wanting a fight with them. All you want to do is try to piss me off. You got your wish. The problem is, you aren't man enough to do a ****ing thing about it except peck your keyboard. "_ NOBODY wants ANOTHER fifty paragraph dissertation from you. A post that goes on and on and then has links to another forum where you made a post that goes on and on with links to another post........ You call people who disagree with you liars, and then when they point out some of the things you have said you go ballistic. "Little boy". Let's be honest here since you brought it up. YOU are in fact, a small man, both in stature and character. You constantly throw temper tantrums and call names if someone disagrees with you. You seem to have a problem that many small men do. I have known some men who many be small in stature but were giants. You are not one of them. As for me just "pecking" at my keyboard, hmmm. You have on many occasions told various people that if they met you face to face they wouldn't talk to you the way that they do. A lot of the people on this forum are ex or retired military, myself included, who are former combat arms, and have been in combat zones. As mentioned earlier, you are a small man, who seems to believe that somehow being associated with the militia makes you a tough guy. Let me give you a hint, all the military people I know think you are just a bunch of wannabes and posers. In order for anyone to travel to Atlanta to meet you "face to face" as you are constantly screaming for, they would have to trust that you would actually show up, that if you did you would show up by yourself, and that you wouldn't try to sneak up and shoot them in the back. Judging from your posts, no one in their right minds would trust you. You sent me a message saying that you would find out my name, where I lived, and would come to my house. How's that working for you? Do YOU know MY name? Do YOU know where I live? I guess I will just wait here for you to show up.

_"For the benefit of everybody here, The Resister did not write the laws. The Resister had..."_. There should be a special place in hell for egomaniacs who refer to themselves in the 3rd person.

You seem to have a hard time understanding that if YOU choose to try to get taxpayer's money to support you, then you have no RIGHT expect that there are no requirements that have to be met in order to take other people's money. If you don't want to do it, don't.

I have a "total reliance" on the system. This from the guy who is screaming that you should be able to get tax payers money to live on, no drug testing and for that matter, no have to do any work for it. Yeah, *I* am the one with total reliance on the system.

You are kicking my ass? In your mind little man. That's akin to France telling everyone who badly they kicked Germany's ass in WW2.

As for answering you "questions", most of them are plain stupid, but I do have to admit that I seldom read all of you statements that go on and on and on, linked to other posts that you made that go on and on and on, with links to other posts........

I also very bored with your posts that are self proclamations of how great you believe you are. By the way, I have noticed that you have made claims that people are working in conjunction against you in some type of conspiracy. I will admit that some of us to exchange messages concerning you, but not to worry, we don't make plans against you, we just laugh at what a joke you are.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

The Man speaks the truth.

::clapping::


----------



## Slippy

Inor said:


> Hey Slip -
> 
> Did you see this?
> 
> That is pretty dang funny! But then, I have alway enjoyed midgets. I am even thinking of starting a business specifically for midgets. I'll call it: Rent-A-Runt. They will do the small jobs for you: cleaning out under the sink, maybe shoving one of Lance's carrots up Resister's ass, etc. It'll be great! Feel free to PM me if you want a ground floor opportunity.


That is hilarious...! Imagine the commercials and billboards for Rent-A-Runt! NASCAR sponsorships etc. Brilliant. even a website for the more deviant showing lance and resister playing hide the carrot with a couple of midgets wearing beret's and spandex wrestling suits!


----------



## rice paddy daddy

Slippy said:


> That is hilarious...! Imagine the commercials and billboards for Rent-A-Runt! NASCAR sponsorships etc. Brilliant. even a website for the more deviant showing lance and resister playing hide the carrot with a couple of midgets wearing beret's and spandex wrestling suits!


You know, the other people at work must wonder why I break out laughing at random intervals.
But then, they know I'm "one of those", a veteran. 
They pretty much leave me alone.
And besides, being the boss does have some perks.
(Gosh! That's scary! I'm the BOSS!!!)


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> Sigh. Here we go again. Here are some of my responses in no particular order.
> 
> _You wanted a fifty paragraph dissertation. WTF? You implied I'm a liar and now you try to back down and pretend I'm the problem? Little boy, if I treated someone the way you've treated me, I'd be wanting a fight with them. All you want to do is try to piss me off. You got your wish. The problem is, you aren't man enough to do a ****ing thing about it except peck your keyboard. "_ NOBODY wants ANOTHER fifty paragraph dissertation from you. A post that goes on and on and then has links to another forum where you made a post that goes on and on with links to another post........ You call people who disagree with you liars, and then when they point out some of the things you have said you go ballistic. "Little boy". Let's be honest here since you brought it up. YOU are in fact, a small man, both in stature and character. You constantly throw temper tantrums and call names if someone disagrees with you. You seem to have a problem that many small men do. I have known some men who many be small in stature but were giants. You are not one of them. As for me just "pecking" at my keyboard, hmmm. You have on many occasions told various people that if they met you face to face they wouldn't talk to you the way that they do. A lot of the people on this forum are ex or retired military, myself included, who are former combat arms, and have been in combat zones. As mentioned earlier, you are a small man, who seems to believe that somehow being associated with the militia makes you a tough guy. Let me give you a hint, all the military people I know think you are just a bunch of wannabes and posers. In order for anyone to travel to Atlanta to meet you "face to face" as you are constantly screaming for, they would have to trust that you would actually show up, that if you did you would show up by yourself, and that you wouldn't try to sneak up and shoot them in the back. Judging from your posts, no one in their right minds would trust you. You sent me a message saying that you would find out my name, where I lived, and would come to my house. How's that working for you? Do YOU know MY name? Do YOU know where I live? I guess I will just wait here for you to show up.
> 
> _"For the benefit of everybody here, The Resister did not write the laws. The Resister had..."_. There should be a special place in hell for egomaniacs who refer to themselves in the 3rd person.
> 
> You seem to have a hard time understanding that if YOU choose to try to get taxpayer's money to support you, then you have no RIGHT expect that there are no requirements that have to be met in order to take other people's money. If you don't want to do it, don't.
> 
> I have a "total reliance" on the system. This from the guy who is screaming that you should be able to get tax payers money to live on, no drug testing and for that matter, no have to do any work for it. Yeah, *I* am the one with total reliance on the system.
> 
> You are kicking my ass? In your mind little man. That's akin to France telling everyone who badly they kicked Germany's ass in WW2.
> 
> As for answering you "questions", most of them are plain stupid, but I do have to admit that I seldom read all of you statements that go on and on and on, linked to other posts that you made that go on and on and on, with links to other posts........
> 
> I also very bored with your posts that are self proclamations of how great you believe you are. By the way, I have noticed that you have made claims that people are working in conjunction against you in some type of conspiracy. I will admit that some of us to exchange messages concerning you, but not to worry, we don't make plans against you, we just laugh at what a joke you are.


You genuinely need some new material. If you could take your brains (presupposing you have any) and put them together with your cheering section, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.

Unlike you, I do not live off entitlements. My life does not revolve around thinking I'm something special. Apparently you think someone died and made you God. You know, Notsoyoung, we could make your cheering section's fantasies come true. It would look good on YouTube. It wouldn't go the way your buddies think, but who knows???

For the umpteenth time: I do not and have never drawn welfare. IF you can find a way to make people work for it, I will help you get the legislation passed - fact is, whatever you do to get it passed, I will double it. Donate a grand to the effort, I'll double it.

*According to the government*, welfare is an entitlement. If I had to take a swag at it, my best guess is that all taxpayers pay some kind of tax and, therefore, would be entitled to draw out of the kitty. I told you at the outset, take me off the taxpayer rolls and you need not worry about me applying for welfare. HOWEVER, I do contribute so if I need some of my money back bad enough, I would apply for it. The government does not ask me to submit to a drug test in order to take my money; you've not provided a reason that I should have to forfeit my Rights to get the money back.

Notsoyoung is clearly on the side of BIG GOVERNMENT. The drug tests for a welfare check will not stop welfare; will not encourage anyone to get off welfare; will not solve any societal problem. It will create more taxes, another layer of government... AND *it will jeopardize your Fourth Amendment Rights*.

By their very nature,* unalienable Rights *are above the purview of the government. The government does not bestow them upon you and has no legitimate jurisdiction over them. Only...only... there is an exception:

If you claim your citizenship by way of the 14th Amendment, you have no *unalienable Rights*. Maybe that is what Notsoyoung is preaching. Maybe he already "gave up" his God given Rights in lieu of the privileges and immunities that being a subject to Government God in the de facto Federal Legislative democracy offers:

The Two United States and the Law


----------



## The Resister

Slippy said:


> That is hilarious...! Imagine the commercials and billboards for Rent-A-Runt! NASCAR sponsorships etc. Brilliant. even a website for the more deviant showing lance and resister playing hide the carrot with a couple of midgets wearing beret's and spandex wrestling suits!


A funnier sight would be someone holding a video camera while I approached you with a copy of your perverted fantasies and asked you if YOU still stood behind them. One Resister, One Slippy, One copy of Slippy's posts and Slippy's reaction = priceless.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> You genuinely need some new material. If you could take your brains (presupposing you have any) and put them together with your cheering section, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.
> 
> Unlike you, I do not live off entitlements. My life does not revolve around thinking I'm something special. Apparently you think someone died and made you God. You know, Notsoyoung, we could make your cheering section's fantasies come true. It would look good on YouTube. It wouldn't go the way your buddies think, but who knows???
> 
> For the umpteenth time: I do not and have never drawn welfare. IF you can find a way to make people work for it, I will help you get the legislation passed - fact is, whatever you do to get it passed, I will double it. Donate a grand to the effort, I'll double it.
> 
> *According to the government*, welfare is an entitlement. If I had to take a swag at it, my best guess is that all taxpayers pay some kind of tax and, therefore, would be entitled to draw out of the kitty. I told you at the outset, take me off the taxpayer rolls and you need not worry about me applying for welfare. HOWEVER, I do contribute so if I need some of my money back bad enough, I would apply for it. The government does not ask me to submit to a drug test in order to take my money; you've not provided a reason that I should have to forfeit my Rights to get the money back.
> 
> Notsoyoung is clearly on the side of BIG GOVERNMENT. The drug tests for a welfare check will not stop welfare; will not encourage anyone to get off welfare; will not solve any societal problem. It will create more taxes, another layer of government... AND *it will jeopardize your Fourth Amendment Rights*.
> 
> By their very nature,* unalienable Rights *are above the purview of the government. The government does not bestow them upon you and has no legitimate jurisdiction over them. Only...only... there is an exception:
> 
> If you claim your citizenship by way of the 14th Amendment, you have no *unalienable Rights*. Maybe that is what Notsoyoung is preaching. Maybe he already "gave up" his God given Rights in lieu of the privileges and immunities that being a subject to Government God in the de facto Federal Legislative democracy offers:
> 
> The Two United States and the Law


Wow, that really hurt! Am I ever put in my place. Especially about blowing my nose. Notice that even though we are getting into something that a couple of grade schoolers might say, I am not going the route of throwing something out there about somebody picking his nose and eating it? It's already juvenile enough. As for getting new material, I don't need to. That would make as much sense as getting a winning hand in poker and throwing it in for 5 new cards. A winning hand is a winning hand.

What entitlements am I living off of? I do get Military Retirement pay, but that is hardly what I live off of, and if in that brain in your tiny head believes that somehow that is comparable to living off of welfare, I must say that it doesn't really surprise me much. Had you been able to meet the height requirement and the guts to join the military you just might have a different point of view.

" My life does not revolve around thinking I'm something special. Apparently you think someone died and made you God. You know, Notsoyoung, we could make your cheering section's fantasies come true. It would look good on YouTube. It wouldn't go the way your buddies think, but who knows???" I am not really sure what you are trying to say here. Your not fishing around trying to get somebody to make a gay porno flick are you? Sorry, I don't swing that way.

Here we go again. I am for big government because I don't have a problem with them requiring people going on welfare to take a drug test. I heard the same accusation from you when I said that I was in favor of having the government securing our borders and when I said that illegal aliens should be deported. yada yada yada.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> Wow, that really hurt! Am I ever put in my place. Especially about blowing my nose. Notice that even though we are getting into something that a couple of grade schoolers might say, I am not going the route of throwing something out there about somebody picking his nose and eating it? It's already juvenile enough. As for getting new material, I don't need to. That would make as much sense as getting a winning hand in poker and throwing it in for 5 new cards. A winning hand is a winning hand.
> 
> What entitlements am I living off of? I do get Military Retirement pay, but that is hardly what I live off of, and if in that brain in your tiny head believes that somehow that is comparable to living off of welfare, I must say that it doesn't really surprise me much. Had you been able to meet the height requirement and the guts to join the military you just might have a different point of view.
> 
> " My life does not revolve around thinking I'm something special. Apparently you think someone died and made you God. You know, Notsoyoung, we could make your cheering section's fantasies come true. It would look good on YouTube. It wouldn't go the way your buddies think, but who knows???" I am not really sure what you are trying to say here. Your not fishing around trying to get somebody to make a gay porno flick are you? Sorry, I don't swing that way.
> 
> Here we go again. I am for big government because I don't have a problem with them requiring people going on welfare to take a drug test. I heard the same accusation from you when I said that I was in favor of having the government securing our borders and when I said that illegal aliens should be deported. yada yada yada.


What can I say, you're a legend in your own mind. Let's talk straight up. You talk a lot of shit on this discussion board. You say things that you would not say to a man's face. You lie. You badger. You bully. You take advantage of the Brokeback Boys that back you up. But, you don't have the balls or the brains to face a man and talk your shit. That is what everybody needs to know about you. And yes, you did say before that you were bisexual.

You don't have any *facts* to support your claims; have to jump from one issue to another; falsely believe you're safe from accountability in this world. You draw a paycheck from the government and condemn me when I haven't ... and don't plan to. I don't want to beholden to some tyrannical government. Yeah, I could draw a government paycheck, but I don't need to so I don't burden the taxpayer when I can do it for myself.

You're "special." You earned (sic) it by sitting on your ass, telling lies and cheating Uncle Scam out of a decent day's work. You still don't get it do you? All the Demonrats ... I mean Democrats disagree with you and the Republicans who do agree with you are switching sides. Rand Paul was the latest. Add in Marco Rubio... and if immigration makes you hot under the collar, not only can you add those two in, but Christie is left of the Democrats there as well. Kind of leaves you without the proverbial pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.

You are for Big Government because you are used to somebody else doing your shit work... just another reason the only place you talk big is on the net.

I am taking some advice given to me about you: Never argue with an idiot. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

You realy should think about getting some professional help for your issues.

Just sayin'.....................


----------



## The Resister

rice paddy daddy said:


> You realy should think about getting some professional help for your mental issues.
> 
> Just sayin'.....................


You know, for a guy like you, I'd say you know a lot about mental issues. What does that have to with the Fourth Amendment or welfare? Since you don't do anything except beat your keyboard, what difference does it make whether I'm as ****ed up as you or not?


----------



## SARGE7402

This debate has been about how much power you want to fork over to Big Government. Thank you for confirming what side you want to be on. Executive Orders can be used to circumvent the Constitution and are not the will of the people, but rather a way for a single tyrant to impose their will.



Funny, I thought it was about whether or not welfare recipients could submit to drug testing to get the benefit.



And where did you get the idea that I want to be on the side of Big Government. My post had nothing to do with that what so ever. My post had to do with highlighting where there was already legal precedent established. Every time I make that kind of a post you trot off to your cave and come up with a WAG on what my ulterior motive is. 



And buddy you have no idea what a tyrant is. Several of us have served in countries with governments that thought nothing of beating the crap out of suspects to get a confession or to slaughter about 2000 of their citizens for expressing their displeasure at a General seizing power. 



Had you actually READ the links provided, you would know that the word unalienable means that you cannot give it away NOR can government reach in and take it away from you.



Obviously Governments can and do take rights away from folks every day. But you never having spent a day in jail wouldn’t know about having your liberty taken away. And just remember Courts can and do have the power to make you forfeit your life for certain crimes. In addition Police Officers have the power to take your life in certain circumstances. 



why not try spending it repealing welfare?



You know that repealing welfare is never going to happen. Not in this life time. Not with as many folks dependent on it and voting to keep those that would keep it in place back into congress. Or had you missed the numbers of folks that are on some form of assistance – I don’t mean Social Security nor Medicare nor VA nor Military or Federal Retirements as folks had to work for them and pay into them – now almost exceed the number of us that are working. So if it can not be repealed then the only alternative is restricting who can get it. 



Let’s talk about my favorite SSI. Do you thing a person who can not work because they are a drug addict should get SSI? I don’t but every day they do. So what’s being proposed in Georgia is a compromise based on legal precedents already established to control who gets certain forms of welfare. Is it Ideal? Nope, but will it control the growth? Hopefully.



Legitimate governments do not have the authority to extract money from my pocket by force … The government takes money from me by force 



Perhaps I missed something here. How is the government taking your money by force? The constitution gave congress the power to levy taxes – Right? The constitution gave us the ability to amend it – right? And congress used that ability in 1913 thru the XVI Amendment to levy a tax on incomes – right? So how do we have an illegitimate government taking any money from you by force? Or did I miss your post where the Treasury Agents stormed into your house or bank and took all of your money at gunpoint?



 So In the final analysis, all of my critics have advocated a bigger and more intrusive government. 



That’s not my take on your critics. I haven’t heard one of them say they were for a bigger government. 



Your critics don’t agree with what you put in your posts. Plain and simple. They also don’t like it when you get backed into a corner and your ideas are shown for what they’re worth that you come out with the personal attacks. How can he claim he’s a veteran if he hasn’t posted his DD214?



I’ve gone back and read a good deal of your posts on this site and others and there is a clear pattern that even the good folks in the fourth estate picked up on right quick. No I’ll have the decency to not post them. 



Are you so desperate for a win that you would forfeit constitutional Liberties



It’s not about win or lose young man. It’s about truth, facts, and reality. Not half truths, lies, gibberish and wishful thinking.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> What can I say, you're a legend in your own mind. Let's talk straight up. You talk a lot of shit on this discussion board. You say things that you would not say to a man's face. You lie. You badger. You bully. You take advantage of the Brokeback Boys that back you up. But, you don't have the balls or the brains to face a man and talk your shit. That is what everybody needs to know about you. And yes, you did say before that you were bisexual.
> 
> You don't have any *facts* to support your claims; have to jump from one issue to another; falsely believe you're safe from accountability in this world. You draw a paycheck from the government and condemn me when I haven't ... and don't plan to. I don't want to beholden to some tyrannical government. Yeah, I could draw a government paycheck, but I don't need to so I don't burden the taxpayer when I can do it for myself.
> 
> You're "special." You earned (sic) it by sitting on your ass, telling lies and cheating Uncle Scam out of a decent day's work. You still don't get it do you? All the Demonrats ... I mean Democrats disagree with you and the Republicans who do agree with you are switching sides. Rand Paul was the latest. Add in Marco Rubio... and if immigration makes you hot under the collar, not only can you add those two in, but Christie is left of the Democrats there as well. Kind of leaves you without the proverbial pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.
> 
> You are for Big Government because you are used to somebody else doing your shit work... just another reason the only place you talk big is on the net.
> 
> I am taking some advice given to me about you: Never argue with an idiot. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.


No, I never said that I was bi-sexual. Please show when I said that. Another lie from the biggest liar on the forum and the low life that replied to someone's post by adding lines to his quote so that it looked like he said something that he didn't. You really are a pitiful little man.

The person who is the first to call names, badger and bully is YOU, then you whine, snivel, complain, whimper, stomp your tiny feet, and throw a temper tantrum when people stick up for themselves and reply in kind, you little wuss. You start it and what drives you crazy is that when people respond they are better at it then you are.

Keep telling yourself that no one who respond to you that way would do the same if they were facing you face to face little man. You really are a joke. The only one who thinks that you are tough, frightening or scary is you.

_[/You're "special." You earned (sic) it by sitting on your ass, telling lies and cheating Uncle Scam out of a decent day's work. You still don't get it do you? All the Demonrats ... I mean Democrats disagree with you and the Republicans who do agree with you are switching sides. Rand Paul was the latest. Add in Marco Rubio... and if immigration makes you hot under the collar, not only can you add those two in, but Christie is left of the Democrats there as well. Kind of leaves you without the proverbial pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.
I]........ What the hell are you babbling about now wimpy? You haven't a clue what military life is like, do you? As for the rest of this idiocy, hate to break it to, but I am not a Republican. So what the hell do I care?

As for the rest, it is so stupid as to not being worth the effort. Put on your high-heeled boots, stand extra tall, and go back to munchkin land and maybe a few of them will think that you are a big man, but not even they will think that you are half as big as you think you are._


----------



## SARGE7402

You don't have any facts to support your claims; have to jump from one issue to another; falsely believe you're safe from accountability in this world. You draw a paycheck from the government and condemn me when I haven't ... and don't plan to. I don't want to beholden to some tyrannical government. Yeah, I could draw a government paycheck, but I don't need to so I don't burden the taxpayer when I can do it for myself. 

Actually Notso, Inor, RPD and the rest do have their facts to support their claims. It seems that perhaps thou protests to loudly. Are you and the rest of the anti-New World Order folks going to be the ones holding those of us that believe in this Proud Country Accountable? And no we don't condemn you for not taking a Government Paycheck. First you'd have to work for it. Something you seem to have a slight problem with. And strange why did you not join the military instead of a rinky dink militia group? Could It possibly be that it had something to do with a Criminal record that kept the recruiter from saying we want you?

And as far as being a burden to the tax payer, it's folks just like you that instead of looking to work with the rest of us - including Local Law Enforcement - to find compromises that while not leaving anyone real happy at least leaving them not as unhappy as they could have been without the compromise. Instead you come in to every thread with the Resister Philosophy and the you better believe what I say or else. You're not much different from the sovereign citizens, the environmentalist extremists, the old John Birchers, the Black Panthers, or the KKK. You all have one thing in common your agenda. And God help anyone that doesn't bow down and worship at your feet.

You are all the threats that the intelligence community, law enforcement and the Military are trying to root out before one or more of you all gather up the courage to murder some more innocent lives.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> No, I never said that I was bi-sexual. Please show when I said that. Another lie from the biggest liar on the forum and the low life that replied to someone's post by adding lines to his quote so that it looked like he said something that he didn't. You really are a pitiful little man.
> 
> The person who is the first to call names, badger and bully is YOU, then you whine, snivel, complain, whimper, stomp your tiny feet, and throw a temper tantrum when people stick up for themselves and reply in kind, you little wuss. You start it and what drives you crazy is that when people respond they are better at it then you are.
> 
> Keep telling yourself that no one who respond to you that way would do the same if they were facing you face to face little man. You really are a joke. The only one who thinks that you are tough, frightening or scary is you.
> 
> _[/You're "special." You earned (sic) it by sitting on your ass, telling lies and cheating Uncle Scam out of a decent day's work. You still don't get it do you? All the Demonrats ... I mean Democrats disagree with you and the Republicans who do agree with you are switching sides. Rand Paul was the latest. Add in Marco Rubio... and if immigration makes you hot under the collar, not only can you add those two in, but Christie is left of the Democrats there as well. Kind of leaves you without the proverbial pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.
> I]........ What the hell are you babbling about now wimpy? You haven't a clue what military life is like, do you? As for the rest of this idiocy, hate to break it to, but I am not a Republican. So what the hell do I care?
> 
> As for the rest, it is so stupid as to not being worth the effort. Put on your high-heeled boots, stand extra tall, and go back to munchkin land and maybe a few of them will think that you are a big man, but not even they will think that you are half as big as you think you are._


_

You say it's not worth the effort, but here you are again. Why is that? Lemme think here:

You don't like foreigners, straight people, Christians, short people, poor people... is there anybody you like? You claim to be the biggest liar on this forum? Okay, you claimed it. You like Big Brother, high taxes, more government, more bureaucracy and you despise Liberty.

Should we get back on topic?

There are a few things that made the colonists flee the tyranny of King George and made mention of in the Declaration of Independence:

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

...For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

...For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever."

Today, any jurisdiction that claims an interest in your *unalienable Rights* is not a legitimate constitutional government. I've debated people on this site who accept the law when it's handed down as Executive Orders; debated the issue regarding the Fourth Amendment. What we have not seen NOR will we see is people explaining why they are trying to make two wrongs equal a right. And they talk trash about me!

If welfare is not constitutional (and I'd agree), then trying to exacerbate the problem with more bureaucracy, more taxes and more government employees cannot make something bad go away. Some people look at a problem and think government can solve it. Well, as demonstrated, self sufficient people do not need another government program. This whole issue raises more questions than answers:

1) If a mother is denied welfare, are you going to withhold food from her babies?

2) If you confiscate her children, who is going to pay for them?

3)  Will you become like the former Soviet Union and put children in homes packed with 100 cribs to a room?

4) If someone has to testify against themselves (submitting to an unconstitutional search), how do you propose to get their lives back on track afterward and at what price?

5) Suppose the POLICE STATE crowd wins on this one. When you implement these requirements and IF the problem were as bad as the POLICE STATE advocates say, where will these drug users get their food?

6) Will crime rates soar and what is the Cost / Benefits Analysis of the impact on taxpayers?

Got plenty more questions... one basic solution: Force the government to get people off welfare by helping them get the education, training or whatever the hell they need to become employable and then stay on their ass until they get a fricking job._


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> You don't have any facts to support your claims; have to jump from one issue to another; falsely believe you're safe from accountability in this world. You draw a paycheck from the government and condemn me when I haven't ... and don't plan to. I don't want to beholden to some tyrannical government. Yeah, I could draw a government paycheck, but I don't need to so I don't burden the taxpayer when I can do it for myself.
> 
> Actually Notso, Inor, RPD and the rest do have their facts to support their claims. It seems that perhaps thou protests to loudly. Are you and the rest of the anti-New World Order folks going to be the ones holding those of us that believe in this Proud Country Accountable? And no we don't condemn you for not taking a Government Paycheck. First you'd have to work for it. Something you seem to have a slight problem with. And strange why did you not join the military instead of a rinky dink militia group? Could It possibly be that it had something to do with a Criminal record that kept the recruiter from saying we want you?
> 
> And as far as being a burden to the tax payer, it's folks just like you that instead of looking to work with the rest of us - including Local Law Enforcement - to find compromises that while not leaving anyone real happy at least leaving them not as unhappy as they could have been without the compromise. Instead you come in to every thread with the Resister Philosophy and the you better believe what I say or else. You're not much different from the sovereign citizens, the environmentalist extremists, the old John Birchers, the Black Panthers, or the KKK. You all have one thing in common your agenda. And God help anyone that doesn't bow down and worship at your feet.
> 
> You are all the threats that the intelligence community, law enforcement and the Military are trying to root out before one or more of you all gather up the courage to murder some more innocent lives.


No facts have been presented by any of the people you claim... and here we have more lies from the left.

DD214 - Check
Clean criminal record - Check
Job - Check
Money in the bank - Check
Amount of money taken in from the government since the age of 14 - $0
Homeowner - Check
Education - More post secondary education than SARGE has TOTAL education

So, SARGE, if all these "facts" are there, you guys should change the topic back to welfare and answer a few of the ones in my previous posts. Deal?


----------



## SARGE7402

Funny guy. What about that conviction or Simple Assault in 1999. Oops did you misstate again. Oh and according toe the state of Georgia it doesn't appear to have been expunged.

You are really a hoot.


----------



## SARGE7402

How did you get a DD214? Especially if you didn't take any money from Uncle Sam. Didn't make one up yourself from your Militia group did you? Yeah I heard abut your process of giving your ex members dishonorable discharges.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> You say it's not worth the effort, but here you are again. Why is that? Lemme think here:
> 
> You don't like foreigners, straight people, Christians, short people, poor people... is there anybody you like? You claim to be the biggest liar on this forum? Okay, you claimed it. You like Big Brother, high taxes, more government, more bureaucracy and you despise Liberty.
> 
> Should we get back on topic?
> 
> There are a few things that made the colonists flee the tyranny of King George and made mention of in the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended _Legislation:
> 
> ...For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
> 
> ...For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever_."
> 
> Today, any jurisdiction that claims an interest in your *unalienable Rights* is not a legitimate constitutional government. I've debated people on this site who accept the law when it's handed down as Executive Orders; debated the issue regarding the Fourth Amendment. What we have not seen NOR will we see is people explaining why they are trying to make two wrongs equal a right. And they talk trash about me!
> 
> If welfare is not constitutional (and I'd agree), then trying to exacerbate the problem with more bureaucracy, more taxes and more government employees cannot make something bad go away. Some people look at a problem and think government can solve it. Well, as demonstrated, self sufficient people do not need another government program. This whole issue raises more questions than answers:
> 
> 1) If a mother is denied welfare, are you going to withhold food from her babies?
> 
> 2) If you confiscate her children, who is going to pay for them?
> 
> 3) Will you become like the former Soviet Union and put children in homes packed with 100 cribs to a room?
> 
> 4) If someone has to testify against themselves (submitting to an unconstitutional search), how do you propose to get their lives back on track afterward and at what price?
> 
> 5) Suppose the POLICE STATE crowd wins on this one. When you implement these requirements and IF the problem were as bad as the POLICE STATE advocates say, where will these drug users get their food?
> 
> 6) Will crime rates soar and what is the Cost / Benefits Analysis of the impact on taxpayers?
> 
> Got plenty more questions... one basic solution: Force the government to get people off welfare by helping them get the education, training or whatever the hell they need to become employable and then stay on their ass until they get a fricking job.


Let's start at the top.

_You don't like foreigners, straight people, Christians, short people, poor people... is there anybody you like? You claim to be the biggest liar 
on this forum? Okay, you claimed it. You like Big Brother, high taxes, more government, more bureaucracy and you despise Liberty._

I never said I don't like foreigners, as a matter of fact I have said just the opposite. I just don't like illegal aliens. The claim that I don't like Straight people, Christians, short people, or poor people is another flat out lie. I don't like you and since I doubt if you are either straight or Christian it doesn't apply, I only dislike short people who are gigantic rectal passages, and as for not liking poor people, another stupid lie. I grew up poor and spent allot of years being poor myself. Anyone who has been a married lower enlisted man in the U.S. military knows what I am talking about.

_You claim to be the biggest liar on this forum? Okay, you claimed it. You like Big Brother, high taxes, more government, more bureaucracy and you despise Liberty. _ Only an idiot would think that in my post I was claiming to being the biggest liar on this forum instead of pointing out that you are...oh wait, never mind. Which also explains your claims that I like big brother, high taxes, more government blah blah blah. More big lies from the little man. Speaking of lies....You claimed that I sated that I was bi-sexual and I replied that it was a lie and show where and when I said that. So just where is that? Can't find it, or is it a lie. Also, remember saying that if others knew what you knew about me I would be too ashamed to post on this thread or something to that affect, to which I replied, go ahead and tell people what you "knew"? So where is that info? Did you LIE again little man?

So lets bring up the starving children if we cut out welfare. Gee, every time someone even mentions cutting back on the growth of welfare or food stamps I hear that argument from the liberals. How about this. How does it make me hard hearted to say there is nothing wrong with someone having to pass a drug test prior to getting welfare? Hmmmmm, so trying to make sure that someone isn't going to use welfare money to buy drugs equates to taking food away from children. That's a real good argument, did you learn it in the Nancy Pelosi School of Liberal bs?


----------



## SARGE7402

Today, any jurisdiction that claims an interest in your unalienable Rights is not a legitimate constitutional government. Boyo when you are sent to prison you lose you unalienable rights and if you are sentenced to death your life as well as your liberty.

So did they not cover that in your non accredited law school or did you think we might over look it?


----------



## MountainMan

Ok so here's the deal. 1st of all the 4th amendment says this is ILLEGAL. So the only argument is who cares about the 4th amendment if you're a drug addict. Which is the argument some here have made. The answer is... I CARE. I care about all of my freedoms. PERIOD!

My personal opinion is that we shouldn't have welfare. The private sector can handle charity better than government just like it can handle healthcare better, the mail better, road upkeep better and pretty much everything else. Also who are you to say what I can have IN MY BODY. Drugs shouldn't be illegal. I will not say that I use marijuana to control my bipolar disorder. That would be admitting to a crime. I WILL tell you that it's much healthier than Prozac and Lithium which is what was prescribed. The war on drugs is stupid and creates more addicts just like the war on terror creates more terrorists. Bottom line here: FREEDOM, DON'T SCREW WITH IT!


----------



## SARGE7402

MM You have a large number of valid points. Drugs have only been illegal for a little over 100 years. Should they be? Well like alcohol the total ban has had quite a number of terrible side effects. What you put in your body ought to be up to you. That having been said the wonderful 535 were convinced to do otherwise. And until they can be convinced to see the error of their ways we're stuck with what we have. With regards to Welfare - food stamps, housing vouchers, TANF, and the like - can the private sector handle it better? That's tough. What we saw in the Depression was a combination of events that scared the minds of everyone and definitely clouded their judgement. But we'll never know if any other combination of fixes would have lead to a shorter term of the depression or if the forces of the civilian economy would have eventually righted the system faster with less lasting effects. We'll never know that.

The fact is we'll never know if the private sector could handle any of those items better cause we have no private sector examples to observe. I know that folks will say take a look at FEDEX and UPS, but they're specialty markets not general. And again no one in that august body are willing to take a chance only to see a service fail totally. 

But this thread started with Georgia's attempt to reign in certain parts of the welfare system with drug tests. Resister is of the opinion that this is totally unconstitutional and can not be tolerated. Several of us have opined that it is not illegal for an individual to enter into a contract for something with a government entity (like I did when I went to work for the Federal Government after leaving the service) and agreeing to terms that allow certain rights to be given up. Such as search and seizure with regards to drug testing. Is it right? I'm not going to go there. Did both parties agree to the terms - sure they did.

And one thing that everyone forgets is that there is an implied contract between all of us that we'll abide by the rules set down by society and if we don't society has the right to punish us and as part of that punishment they can and do every day take away an individuals unalienable rights (life liberty freedom) and portions of the bill of rights (keep and bear arms, search, seizure to name just two) while others stay in place (freedom of speech, legal representation etc).

One of the issues we all face are compromises. Folks like Resister and the other's I've mentioned before have no compromise plank in their agenda. It's their way or the high way. And there's one thing this Great Nation has always been about and that's compromise right from almost the very beginning with the very constitution that everyone keeps citing as Gospel. Sure it's the Gospel, but some portions of it had an inherent flaw that our predecessors took the time over the years to fix.

If the younger generation doesn't see that life in this great land isn't black and white, but a combination of various shades of grey then groups with single point mindsets will continue to grow and sooner of later there will come a clash of ideologies like happened in Germany in the late 20' and 30's instead of the way we muddled thru it.

And no, I'm not for big government, but until something better comes along there are some functions that are better left to Uncle Sam


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> Funny guy. What about that conviction or Simple Assault in 1999. Oops did you misstate again. Oh and according toe the state of Georgia it doesn't appear to have been expunged.
> 
> You are really a hoot.


I was never convicted of simple assault. Where'd you get that one? Hey, I did pay a $650 fine for conduct of an insulting nature once, but it was so low on the totem pole that the maximum fine was about the same for speeding. So, even people that paid a fine to Uncle Scam are "_criminals_?" Judge yourself by that standard. Have you ever got a traffic ticket? And you made all those false claims about knowing something about legal research.

Dude, here is the proof that you're LYING. According to you I was convicted of "simple assault." That's pretty serious, BTW. Yet after 2001, I'm passing criminal background checks and selling firearms, military gear (including flash bangs, smoke grenades and body armor) to police and military units??? Classic fail on your part.


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> Today, any jurisdiction that claims an interest in your unalienable Rights is not a legitimate constitutional government. Boyo when you are sent to prison you lose you unalienable rights and if you are sentenced to death your life as well as your liberty.
> 
> So did they not cover that in your non accredited law school or did you think we might over look it?


When someone is convicted of a crime, yes they lose their Rights because the guilty endangered someone else's *unalienable Rights*. I have an old saying: Your Rights end where my nose begins.


----------



## The Resister

MountainMan said:


> Ok so here's the deal. 1st of all the 4th amendment says this is ILLEGAL. So the only argument is who cares about the 4th amendment if you're a drug addict. Which is the argument some here have made. The answer is... I CARE. I care about all of my freedoms. PERIOD!
> 
> My personal opinion is that we shouldn't have welfare. The private sector can handle charity better than government just like it can handle healthcare better, the mail better, road upkeep better and pretty much everything else. Also who are you to say what I can have IN MY BODY. Drugs shouldn't be illegal. I will not say that I use marijuana to control my bipolar disorder. That would be admitting to a crime. I WILL tell you that it's much healthier than Prozac and Lithium which is what was prescribed. The war on drugs is stupid and creates more addicts just like the war on terror creates more terrorists. Bottom line here: FREEDOM, DON'T SCREW WITH IT!


Thank you for acknowledging that Liberties include the Right to a presumption of innocence. NOBODY can be forced to testify against themselves. The Fourth Amendment guarantees us the right to be secure in our _"persons_." *There are no exception unless a person has done something tangible that would end in a search based upon probable cause AND backed by a warrant.*

So far that is what this argument is about. These guys will stop at nothing to keep the discussion from being about the de jure (lawful) Constitution that does not allow this POLICE STATE mentality. If it means personal attacks, lies, misrepresentations, etc. they will use it. Thank you for the thoughtful post and the commitment to Liberty.


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> M
> 
> Resister is of the opinion that this is totally unconstitutional and can not be tolerated. Several of us have opined that it is not illegal for an individual to enter into a contract for something with a government entity (like I did when I went to work for the Federal Government after leaving the service) and agreeing to terms that allow certain rights to be given up. Such as search and seizure with regards to drug testing. Is it right? I'm not going to go there. Did both parties agree to the terms - sure they did.
> 
> And one thing that everyone forgets is that there is an implied contract between all of us that we'll abide by the rules set down by society and if we don't society has the right to punish us and as part of that punishment they can and do every day take away an individuals unalienable rights (life liberty freedom) and portions of the bill of rights (keep and bear arms, search, seizure to name just two) while others stay in place (freedom of speech, legal representation etc).
> 
> One of the issues we all face are compromises. Folks like Resister and the other's I've mentioned before have no compromise plank in their agenda. It's their way or the high way. And there's one thing this Great Nation has always been about and that's compromise right from almost the very beginning with the very constitution that everyone keeps citing as Gospel. Sure it's the Gospel, but some portions of it had an inherent flaw that our predecessors took the time over the years to fix.
> 
> If the younger generation doesn't see that life in this great land isn't black and white, but a combination of various shades of grey then groups with single point mindsets will continue to grow and sooner of later there will come a clash of ideologies like happened in Germany in the late 20' and 30's instead of the way we muddled thru it.
> 
> And no, I'm not for big government, but until something better comes along there are some functions that are better left to Uncle Sam


Mountain Man:

You get to hear their view about what set off this shitstorm. You cannot enter into a contract that annuls or compromises your *unalienable* Rights. The critics have their opinion; the founding fathers had theirs:

"_Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined_." Patrick Henry

Read the Declaration of Independence. How many compromises do you see in that? Submit to a drug test for a welfare test, background check to exercise another constitutional guarantee. SARGE's attempts to mix oranges and apples should not go unchallenged. Since he has no knowledge of the subject matter, he may attempt to win you over with doublespeak. But, we can respond point by point on the facts.


----------



## Notsoyoung

There are many things that the Federal Government should stay out of, but I am not an anarchist, there ARE legitimate functions for the federal government. IMO "Providing for the common defense" in includes border control. I agree that the war on drugs has been a total failure. I am not advocating the use of drugs but you would think that the prohibition against alcohol would have taught us a lesson. Freedom includes you being free to do stupid things to yourself but you have to accept responsibility for your actions. 

We could for all intent and purposes we could do away with the DEA and a very large part of various Federal, State, and Local Governments. 

Getting back on subject, we are now having 4th generation of welfare recipients. I do not see how requiring recipients to pass drug tests or for that matter, to work for it is in any way violating their Constitutional Rights, anymore then making people pay into Social Security and waiting until are a certain age in order to apply for it does.


----------



## Notsoyoung

SARGE7402 said:


> How did you get a DD214? Especially if you didn't take any money from Uncle Sam. Didn't make one up yourself from your Militia group did you? Yeah I heard abut your process of giving your ex members dishonorable discharges.


Funny that he has never mentioned any military service. What branch and MOS?


----------



## SARGE7402

I was never convicted of simple assault. Where'd you get that one? Hey, I did pay a $650 fine for conduct of an insulting nature once, but it was so low on the totem pole that the maximum fine was about the same for speeding. So, even people that paid a fine to Uncle Scam are "criminals?" Judge yourself by that standard. Have you ever got a traffic ticket? And you made all those false claims about knowing something about legal research.

funny that's not what the state court system of Georgia says, would you like me to post that here? I'll be glad to do that for you. And it marries up with a story you told on another web site about your run in with the Georgia courts and a "dishonest cop and an FBI that wanted me to spy for them". Or are there two JAW's? If there are I will gladly appologize


----------



## rice paddy daddy

Notsoyoung said:


> Funny that he has never mentioned any military service. What branch and MOS?


And what units?
And most important of all, what is written in the box marked Character Of Service?

I have found through personal experience confronting poser wannabes that when asked what units they were in their memory convienently goes blank. Or "that's secret, I can't tell you". Of course, in the old days I could trip them up real easy by asking things about equipment, or the old standby - What are the General Orders Of The Guard?

Nah, Mr "Legend In His Own Mind" Resister doesn't have a 214.


----------



## Notsoyoung

rice paddy daddy said:


> And what units?
> And most important of all, what is written in the box marked Character Of Service?
> 
> I have found through personal experience confronting poser wannabes that when asked what units they were in their memory convienently goes blank. Or "that's secret, I can't tell you". Of course, in the old days I could trip them up real easy by asking things about equipment, or the old standby - What are the General Orders Of The Guard?
> 
> Nah, Mr "Legend In His Own Mind" Resister doesn't have a 214.


My brother's 2 yr old grandson wanted to drive his lawn tractor and my brother told him that he couldn't because he didn't have a driver's license. His grandson got a piece of paper, scribbled on it with a crayon, and told my brother that it was his driver's license. Think there might be an analogy here?

It's been so long since I pulled guard duty that I don't remember it too well myself. I seem to remember about remaining at my post until properly relieved and guarding everything with the boundary of my post, but other then that it's a blank. Getting old is tough but it beats the alternative.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

I will take charge of my post and all government property within view.
I will not quit my post until properly relieved.
I will walk my post in a military manner.
And there was one about allowing no one to pass without proper authorization, and another about repeating all instructions from the Sgt of the Guard to whoever relieves you.
I think there were 10 in all, like you it has been a long time. I have been out almost 44 years.
I remember in the big knowledge test in basic training where the simulations ran from guard duty to battlefield first aid to weapon care (about week 7, I think) there was one scenario where an officer tries to get past you without even an ID card. And if you do it right you make him lay on the gound and hold him at rifle point untilthe Sgt gets there. Big stuff for a recruit who has only been in 7 weeks.:-D


----------



## SARGE7402

The last time I pulled Guard duty was in 69 I was cpl of the relief and one of my guards butt stroked the drunken post SGM. SGM took it good naturedly and agreed that he'd have done the same thing if he'd been standing post. Course his teeth were clentched shut due to being wired shut for a while


----------



## Gunner's Mate

Yeah but I bet everyone working for the state has to take a drug test did the Judge shoot that down No Joe blow tax payer takes drug testst everyday to get and keep a job somehow thats ok but but Joe blow freeloading welfare conartist can all the benfits w/o a drug test wtf is wrong here


tango said:


> Gov. Scott, here in Florida, tried to pass the drug test for welfare recipients, but a judge shot it down.
> Don't be surprised if the same happens in Ga., or anywhere else.


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> I was never convicted of simple assault. Where'd you get that one? Hey, I did pay a $650 fine for conduct of an insulting nature once, but it was so low on the totem pole that the maximum fine was about the same for speeding. So, even people that paid a fine to Uncle Scam are "criminals?" Judge yourself by that standard. Have you ever got a traffic ticket? And you made all those false claims about knowing something about legal research.
> 
> funny that's not what the state court system of Georgia says, would you like me to post that here? I'll be glad to do that for you. And it marries up with a story you told on another web site about your run in with the Georgia courts and a "dishonest cop and an FBI that wanted me to spy for them". Or are there two JAW's? If there are I will gladly appologize


You might as well start apologizing. There are *FOUR* people by the same name as I in the same county... but, I know your story so we'll discuss it later. I'[m in court right now over the name thing. You're going to have one Hell of a surprise as Paul Harvey would have said when you hear the rest of the story.


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> How did you get a DD214? Especially if you didn't take any money from Uncle Sam. Didn't make one up yourself from your Militia group did you? Yeah I heard abut your process of giving your ex members dishonorable discharges.


You know, I thank God for my enemies. Oh, you went and asked one of my political enemies about the "_dirt_" on me. Got a "_criminal_" conviction or so you claim and discharged some folks from the militia. And you consider yourself a good researcher? You're certainly good for more than a belly laugh.

The woman that you got your information from was dishonorably discharged from the militia. On the Internet, she accused me of having been convicted of "_simple domestic assault_" which is a charge that doesn't even exist in the state of Georgia... or anywhere else that I've ever lived. But here's the rest of the story:

The only reason that lying bitch had any inkling of any criminal actions I'd been involved in is because I made the information public myself *prior* to running for the Commanding Officer position so that if people had any reservations, they did not have to vote without all the information. I have numerous people that will attest to that fact AND what happened was so complex and convoluted that the media KNOWS everything about me, but doesn't ever make that an issue because... in the end, there was nothing there. The government spent $780,000 pursuing me and came up with nothing.

Now, let's talk about that dishonorable discharge:

You claim you are a good researcher. I took you at your word, so you have to stand behind your sources. Well, here's what you didn't tell your followers:

Two people in the Militia of Georgia organization went to the state of Kentucky wearing Militia of Georgia uniforms and holding themselves out as the leaders of the organization. They attended a Ku Klux Klan rally AND they became cozy with a gentleman by the name of Steve Anderson, a militia type white supremacist. A source contacted me and sent me information regarding these people claiming to hold my position and fraternizing with white supremacists.

People within our organization wanted to act like a paramilitary organization, so we had rules much like you find in the military (like Army Regulation 600-20.) These people were clearly prohibited from doing what they did and I confronted them. Those two individuals told me to go **** myself and if I caused them any problems, they would ruin me financially. I took that information to the Rules Committee of the Militia of Georgia, *presented it and made no comment*.

The ball in the Rules Committee's court, they summarily discharged the two. The two discharged members then called the militia out on the guarantee of Due Process. I over-ruled the Rules Committee and offered these people an appeal. People left the militia because I went to bat for people that had done me personally dirty. Nonetheless, we went forward. The two former members incorporated the name Militia of Georgia and set themselves as the leaders. So, I told them the first order of business was that they had to dissolve the corporation and admit jurisdiction for an appeal to go forward. They refused AND they threatened to destroy me if I did not set aside the discharge and submit to them. They even went to the foreman of the Appeals Tribunal and told a tale of woe. I upgraded their discharge to dishonorable and went about my business.

These guys couldn't get any traction using our name so they switched it up a bit after siphoning off some members through some dirty tricks. Now they called themselves the Georgia Militia and ran things their way. Within a year or two their "Chaplain" tried to take over a courthouse in some cockamamie scheme in Tennessee using an AK 47:

GA man who plotted to seize Monroe Co. courthouse is going to prison | wbir.com

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/apr/21/militia-defendant-to-be-sentenced-in-may/

During this period, the formerly discharged people in question befriended the former foreman of the Appeals Tribunal and, using Joe Sims, they got him Captain Dan Roberts to sign up into that organization. Sims turned out to be a federal snitch who was let out of prison after being *convicted of Sexual Exploitation of a Minor:*

GA man who plotted to seize Monroe Co. courthouse is going to prison | wbir.com

The people that turned against me became a target of the same people that wasted the government's time in years prior to on chasing me... all at the hands of SARGE 7402's STAR WITNESS in his brilliant research. What happened to them?:

Waffle House Terrorists - Waffle House Terrorist Plot - Esquire

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/11/georgia_militia_investigation.html

Now, SARGE does realize that I joined the militia in 1987. I was the first elected Commanding Officer eleven years later. I did not run in the last election. During that entire time... and up to now, NO person has ever been arrested, convicted or spent a night in jail over any activity associated with the legitimate Militia of Georgia. As the leader, I had to go through four legal actions: two civil and two were criminal. All of it was related to the people SARGE 7402 has befriended in the hopes of making me look bad.


----------



## Notsoyoung

So where does the DD214 come in?


----------



## The Resister

rice paddy daddy said:


> I will take charge of my post and all government property within view.
> I will not quit my post until properly relieved.
> I will walk my post in a military manner.
> And there was one about allowing no one to pass without proper authorization, and another about repeating all instructions from the Sgt of the Guard to whoever relieves you.
> I think there were 10 in all, like you it has been a long time. I have been out almost 44 years.
> I remember in the big knowledge test in basic training where the simulations ran from guard duty to battlefield first aid to weapon care (about week 7, I think) there was one scenario where an officer tries to get past you without even an ID card. And if you do it right you make him lay on the gound and hold him at rifle point untilthe Sgt gets there. Big stuff for a recruit who has only been in 7 weeks.:-D


So you're entitled to forget that there are Eleven General Orders. BTW, I still have my Bluejackets Manual in the basement... along with the sea bag I left port with. No sir, I won't play the game any longer. NMCB 1 (1974) Yes, I DO have my DD214. Come take a look. You aren't that far away.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

The Resister said:


> So you're entitled to forget that there are Eleven General Orders. BTW, I still have my Bluejackets Manual in the basement... along with the sea bag I left port with. No sir, I won't play the game any longer. NMCB 1 (1974) Yes, I DO have my DD214. Come take a look. You aren't that far away.


What does it say in box 13a? How about box 22? Box24?
If you have it, it should not be a problem to look.
Mine is in my hand as I type.


----------



## SARGE7402

The Resister said:


> So you're entitled to forget that there are Eleven General Orders. BTW, I still have my Bluejackets Manual in the basement... along with the sea bag I left port with. No sir, I won't play the game any longer. NMCB 1 (1974) Yes, I DO have my DD214. Come take a look. You aren't that far away.


Ok now you've got me really confused. In a previous post you stated that No facts have been presented by any of the people you claim... and here we have more lies from the left.

DD214 - Check
Clean criminal record - Check
Job - Check
Money in the bank - Check
Amount of money taken in from the government since the age of 14 - $0
Homeowner - Check
Education - More post secondary education than SARGE has TOTAL education

So, SARGE, if all these "facts" are there, you guys should change the topic back to welfare and answer a few of the ones in my previous posts. Deal?

Now maybe I'm just a bit slow on the uptake, but if you were in NMCB1 in 74 then you did get a pay check from the U.S. Government right? Even if you were in a reserve status, you should have gotten a paycheck from Uncle Sam once in a while. That doesn't jive with your I've never taken government money.

If you served with them in 74 than you for your service. Those were some rough years.


----------



## SARGE7402

The Resister said:


> You might as well start apologizing. There are *FOUR* people by the same name as I in the same county... but, I know your story so we'll discuss it later. I'[m in court right now over the name thing. You're going to have one Hell of a surprise as Paul Harvey would have said when you hear the rest of the story.


Perhaps there are four, but lets follow your posts:
1. your esquire article links you to the Militia of Georgia Waffle House Terrorists - Waffle House Terrorist Plot - Esquire

2.. Georgia Constitutional Militia List the Militia of Georgia and your name with a link to an e-mail address ending in MindSpring

3. Perhaps you forgot about your post on Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters that gives the same e-mail address. You also gave the date of the incident 12/13/1998.

4. By working thru Crimetime.com you can easily get to the Court Records for Gwinnett Georgia Gwinnett County Courts - Home Page and funny thing Case Number: 99-D-01514-S4 doesn't tell the same story you like to paint.

And reading down the case file it says the Jury found you guilty of Gen, Simple Battery.

Have a nice day Resister. And the offer of a beer is withdrawn.


----------



## SARGE7402

Old SF Guy said:


> Me?...I'd rather hear from Sarge on the statements made about his sources...Not required of course, but those where pretty straight forward claims that can be addressed.... Speaking only as an observer...I like to hear every side of a position...


Sorry I took so long to provide you all with the sources.


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> Perhaps there are four, but lets follow your posts:
> 1. your esquire article links you to the Militia of Georgia Waffle House Terrorists - Waffle House Terrorist Plot - Esquire
> 
> 2.. Georgia Constitutional Militia List the Militia of Georgia and your name with a link to an e-mail address ending in MindSpring
> 
> 3. Perhaps you forgot about your post on Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters that gives the same e-mail address. You also gave the date of the incident 12/13/1998.
> 
> 4. By working thru Crimetime.com you can easily get to the Court Records for Gwinnett Georgia Gwinnett County Courts - Home Page and funny thing Case Number: 99-D-01514-S4 doesn't tell the same story you like to paint.
> 
> And reading down the case file it says the Jury found you guilty of Gen, Simple Battery.
> 
> Have a nice day Resister. And the offer of a beer is withdrawn.


The county record can say whatever you want it to say. The actual charge is Conduct of an insulting nature. The lawyer that represented it will tell you that I filed for an appeal and the trial court judge changed the entire order. What he had sentenced me to violated legal maximums. He withdrew the sentence after I'd paid some of the fine, but the bottom line never changes.

In 2008 I became a foster parent in the same county; I have a job where a security clearance is necessary; I was also an officer of the court after that time... AND I passed all the checks necessary *AFTER* that incident (if you check your facts) to work selling Class Three Firearms. That's a pretty damn clean record in anybody's language.

*AFTER* the incident where the same people who tried to set me up came to light tried a second time, the truth began to emerge. You better check your dates son. In 1998 - 1999 I'm supposedly convicted of this unforgivable "crime" yet by 2002 - 2003 I'm working in the firearms industry and in 2008 I'm volunteering as a foster parent... AND obtaining a security clearance. You rely too much on the Internet and simply can't get over it.

Try this: 1985 I'm involved in a standoff in Georgia. Tell us the details based upon your extensive free Internet research.

P.S. my guess is the reason the box Simple Battery is checked at the county level is because there probably was no "conduct of an insulting nature" box to check. It was, most likely, the closest thing that would fit. I will not get it expunged. I want those responsible for trying to hang me to answer for it in due time.

Bear in mind, the government spent $780,000 trying to nail me to the wall and came up with NOTHING. Well... unless you can call a $650 fine for an event that did not happen a "_crime_."

It's neither here nor there. You are a terrible reactionary that relies too much on the Internet. You come up with my name and a county charge... How about the guy with the same name (a mercenary according to news accounts) that was arrested and later found guilty of attempted murder. Funny your search didn't turn that one up. Hmmm. Sorry, but you are not the beaming paragon human virtue you thought you were. And your sources??? You still think you were a good researcher? You like kicking my ass on the word of pedophiles and brain dead wannabe anarchists? Would you have had more respect for me had I become a snitch and let the cops bury their false allegations?

You just don't get the big picture do you? You've spent all this time busting my ass for what? A charge that was created just so ****ing idiots could crow when there was NOTHING there. How come you suppose that the government threatened the witness in the case? How come, if I'm all that bad, there wasn't ONE SINGLE character witness that would come forward and say I screwed them over? BTW, I had an ex wife living in the neighborhood when that shit went down. According to your great research, WHO did she testify for?

Gee, the past is beginning to piss me off again... In the attorney's closing argument, what was it he used? Oh wait... I remember now... it was that DD 214 I don't have... Yep. He touted that record in court. You relied on an outdated version of events. Did you read the transcript? **** no. You just tried to hang me like the people we mentioned in the articles. Birds of a feather flock together.


----------



## The Resister

Old SF Guy said:


> cool...but for the life of me I cannot remember what the whole debate with regards to this was and why it was even relevant...I guess I need to re-read a bunch of posts....naw ..once was enough for me.


It's all relevant. Unless I'm Jesus H fricking Christ, I will not be allowed to have an opinion that differs from the Cheering section. I just wanted to let people know how "_extensive_" one guy's research is... NOT. He don't have any room for the truth.

The entire legal community is embarrassed by what happened in 1998 - 1999. It's one reason they don't mention it nor the bullshit I went through leading up to LEOs coming up with a plan to kick my doors down, kill me and claim I resisted arrest. And I won't ever let them get rid of that record until three more people are brought to justice.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

"Your horn is louder when someone else toots it".
Mark Twain

"Those who talk the loudest have done the least."
Unknown


----------



## SARGE7402

The Resister said:


> It's all relevant. Unless I'm Jesus H fricking Christ, I will not be allowed to have an opinion that differs from the Cheering section. I just wanted to let people know how "_extensive_" one guy's research is... NOT. He don't have any room for the truth.
> 
> The entire legal community is embarrassed by what happened in 1998 - 1999. It's one reason they don't mention it nor the bullshit I went through leading up to LEOs coming up with a plan to kick my doors down, kill me and claim I resisted arrest. And I won't ever let them get rid of that record until three more people are brought to justice.


It's only relevant if one wishes to believe some on is telling the truth. It all goes to the credibility of all the statements made by an individual.

At the bottom of the information that's available to the public is a note that the Defendant's Appeal Had an order of dismissal. That would indicate that your appeal was rejected and the original jury verdict of guilty stands.

Now I'm really sorry if you think we're trying to bust your === but that's not the case.

You said you have no criminal record. But if the state of Georgia Gwinnett County is to be believed, that's not the case.

Who should we believe? The state of Georgia or someone that denigrates others who disagree with them or threatens to take them out side and give them a whooping.

According to your other post you were required to go to counseling. And No the state's web page only gives a synopsis and doesn't post the transcripts.

As regards your stand off in 85, Gwinnett records aren't posted although they do list the case, but it's only an Index file. Most states set a cut off date with regards to when they began to enter records in their online data bases. But just the note that a case exists would indicate that there was enough for a Magistrate (Justice of the Peace I guess that's what you have in Georgia) to issue a warrant for your arrest.

Also since simple assault per the state of Georgia Criminal Code is a misdemeanor that would not usually affect your ability to own firearms or sell them or keep you from getting a security clearance.

What makes you think a peace officer would go out of his way to kick your doors down. Seems to me you said you were arrested at a traffic stop.

No offense Resister. Not only are your stories ever changing, missing key parts or fabrications, but you have an ax to grind against any form of recognized government for the alleged wrongs that have been done to you.

With respect to your opinion, no one is saying you can't have it - as misguided as we think it is. Our objection is that if we don't agree with it, then You come on sites misrepresent the laws of the land, spout off your Ultra Resister Brand of fear, hate and discontent, and try to sway folks to your way of thinking but if they don't swallow your line of horse hockey you call them names, besmirch their reputations, threaten them with bodily harm rather than even consider their point of view.

Most of us old timers have as either RPD or Old SF said got very good BS detectors and your line is right up there with the best of the BS'trs.


----------



## Inor

SARGE7402 said:


> It's only relevant if one wishes to believe some on is telling the truth. It all goes to the credibility of all the statements made by an individual.
> 
> At the bottom of the information that's available to the public is a note that the Defendant's Appeal Had an order of dismissal. That would indicate that your appeal was rejected and the original jury verdict of guilty stands.
> 
> Now I'm really sorry if you think we're trying to bust your === but that's not the case.
> 
> You said you have no criminal record. But if the state of Georgia Gwinnett County is to be believed, that's not the case.
> 
> Who should we believe? The state of Georgia or someone that denigrates others who disagree with them or threatens to take them out side and give them a whooping.
> 
> According to your other post you were required to go to counseling. And No the state's web page only gives a synopsis and doesn't post the transcripts.
> 
> As regards your stand off in 85, Gwinnett records aren't posted although they do list the case, but it's only an Index file. Most states set a cut off date with regards to when they began to enter records in their online data bases. But just the note that a case exists would indicate that there was enough for a Magistrate (Justice of the Peace I guess that's what you have in Georgia) to issue a warrant for your arrest.
> 
> Also since simple assault per the state of Georgia Criminal Code is a misdemeanor that would not usually affect your ability to own firearms or sell them or keep you from getting a security clearance.
> 
> What makes you think a peace officer would go out of his way to kick your doors down. Seems to me you said you were arrested at a traffic stop.
> 
> No offense Resister. Not only are your stories ever changing, missing key parts or fabrications, but you have an ax to grind against any form of recognized government for the alleged wrongs that have been done to you.
> 
> With respect to your opinion, no one is saying you can't have it - as misguided as we think it is. Our objection is that if we don't agree with it, then You come on sites misrepresent the laws of the land, spout off your Ultra Resister Brand of fear, hate and discontent, and try to sway folks to your way of thinking but if they don't swallow your line of horse hockey you call them names, besmirch their reputations, threaten them with bodily harm rather than even consider their point of view.
> 
> Most of us old timers have as either RPD or Old SF said got very good BS detectors and your line is right up there with the best of the BS'trs.


Game - Set - Match


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> It's only relevant if one wishes to believe some on is telling the truth. It all goes to the credibility of all the statements made by an individual.
> 
> At the bottom of the information that's available to the public is a note that the Defendant's Appeal Had an order of dismissal. That would indicate that your appeal was rejected and the original jury verdict of guilty stands.
> 
> Now I'm really sorry if you think we're trying to bust your === but that's not the case.
> 
> You said you have no criminal record. But if the state of Georgia Gwinnett County is to be believed, that's not the case.
> 
> Who should we believe? The state of Georgia or someone that denigrates others who disagree with them or threatens to take them out side and give them a whooping.
> 
> According to your other post you were required to go to counseling. And No the state's web page only gives a synopsis and doesn't post the transcripts.
> 
> As regards your stand off in 85, Gwinnett records aren't posted although they do list the case, but it's only an Index file. Most states set a cut off date with regards to when they began to enter records in their online data bases. But just the note that a case exists would indicate that there was enough for a Magistrate (Justice of the Peace I guess that's what you have in Georgia) to issue a warrant for your arrest.
> 
> Also since simple assault per the state of Georgia Criminal Code is a misdemeanor that would not usually affect your ability to own firearms or sell them or keep you from getting a security clearance.
> 
> What makes you think a peace officer would go out of his way to kick your doors down. Seems to me you said you were arrested at a traffic stop.
> 
> No offense Resister. Not only are your stories ever changing, missing key parts or fabrications, but you have an ax to grind against any form of recognized government for the alleged wrongs that have been done to you.
> 
> With respect to your opinion, no one is saying you can't have it - as misguided as we think it is. Our objection is that if we don't agree with it, then You come on sites misrepresent the laws of the land, spout off your Ultra Resister Brand of fear, hate and discontent, and try to sway folks to your way of thinking but if they don't swallow your line of horse hockey you call them names, besmirch their reputations, threaten them with bodily harm rather than even consider their point of view.
> 
> Most of us old timers have as either RPD or Old SF said got very good BS detectors and your line is right up there with the best of the BS'trs.


SARGE 7402,

You came here with enough bullshit to fill several tractor trailer loads. You went to a group of malcontents and found out that they accused me of "_simple domestic assault_." You realized that no such "crime" exists so you went with simple assault. I have never been charged with simple assault. You and I both know it. You started out with a lie. Because I was forthcoming, you learned of an event that had slipped my mind. I told you before, in that time period I was charged twice with crimes and twice I was in court over civil suits at the hands of those angelic beings your relied on.

The fact that *AFTER* this event you put so much emphasis on was over I end up with a security clearance AND end up selling firearms to police and military units ought to tell you there is more to the story. But, you have had your last word, I'll have mine and let everyone else decide.

Next, my story has never changed; it has been posted by me as it happened - usually and is public knowledge. If I though I had anything to hide, I damn well would not post it. Actually, it should piss you off that the government can and will do whatever they can to shut a person down. But, you are what I said about you and that which is undeniable... you are pro- Big Government. Anyone that reads your posts on this thread can figure that out.

In this thread, I did not spout off with "_fear, hate, and discontent_." I gave you my opinion about a law that is socialist at its very core. The next thing that happened is that someone decided to call me socialist and everybody forgets... the other guy drew first blood and was immediately backed up by a pot stirrer who exacerbated the problem.

Instead of people contacting me via PM and working the differences out privately, you thought it a good idea to do as they did and use this thread as a popularity contest. You never disagreed with the guy who said "_**** your mother and **** your sister._" You want to be my judge, but what does that say about you? Where did I drag someone's family into this? The rules you play by are not those which decent human beings operate. You are only as popular as this board is and no more. The difference between you and I is that I identify myself and stand by who I am. You cannot be judged here as you don't identify yourself. So, being anonymous, how can anyone believe what you say? I'm inclined to believe you make your money off of coming onto boards and dabbling in this kind of bullshit. You spend way too much time on me. Nobody knows who you really are.

Finally, you presume that everyone agrees with you. I keep coming back to the fact that you back people that drag family members into these disputes. I wonder how many of the guys in your cheering section really go along with that. You've had your .02 cents worth; I've had mine. Let's leave it at that and move on.


----------



## SARGE7402

Actually I'm not the one that has a problem with reality. I didn't rely on anyone other than your statement and what the official court record shows. I'm sorry if you and the courts in Georgia have a difference of opinion. but that's between you and them not with me. As for backing folks that drag family members in I've never commented one way or another. Again that's between you and them. However I believe it was you that went off on MsInor for a post her husband made and I don't think you've ever apologized to her for that error. 

And remember you did PM me about something some one else posted. 

Personally I've got nothing to prove to you or anyone else about what I've done, where I've been and how I've served. You keep harping on that as if just because we don't we have no credibility. I really didn't care one way or another who you were. Not until you posted the esquire account and Identified your self. None of us ever asked who you were. That was volunteered by you.


----------



## rice paddy daddy

SARGE7402 said:


> Perhaps there are four, but lets follow your posts:
> 1. your esquire article links you to the Militia of Georgia Waffle House Terrorists - Waffle House Terrorist Plot - Esquire
> 
> 2.. Georgia Constitutional Militia List the Militia of Georgia and your name with a link to an e-mail address ending in MindSpring
> 
> 3. Perhaps you forgot about your post on Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters that gives the same e-mail address. You also gave the date of the incident 12/13/1998.
> 
> 4. By working thru Crimetime.com you can easily get to the Court Records for Gwinnett Georgia Gwinnett County Courts - Home Page and funny thing Case Number: 99-D-01514-S4 doesn't tell the same story you like to paint.
> 
> And reading down the case file it says the Jury found you guilty of Gen, Simple Battery.
> 
> Have a nice day Resister. And the offer of a beer is withdrawn.


Excellent work, Sarge.
Using your hints in the information above I quickly found Resisters real name, went to google search, and then entered that name followed by Georgia Militia, and boy howdy!
I'm here to tell you there is a LOT that comes up.
A LOT!


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> Actually I'm not the one that has a problem with reality. I didn't rely on anyone other than your statement and what the official court record shows. I'm sorry if you and the courts in Georgia have a difference of opinion. but that's between you and them not with me. As for backing folks that drag family members in I've never commented one way or another. Again that's between you and them. However I believe it was you that went off on MsInor for a post her husband made and I don't think you've ever apologized to her for that error.
> 
> And remember you did PM me about something some one else posted.
> 
> Personally I've got nothing to prove to you or anyone else about what I've done, where I've been and how I've served. You keep harping on that as if just because we don't we have no credibility. I really didn't care one way or another who you were. Not until you posted the esquire account and Identified your self. None of us ever asked who you were. That was volunteered by you.


I seem to recall that virtually everyone that disagreed with me in other posts wanted to know who I was. So, you don't have a problem with reality? Okay. You asked for this:

You first accused me of simple assault. We've covered the circumstances, but we can do so again. You relied on some of my political enemies and came up with Simple Assault. Since I was *not *convicted of that, you straight out *LIED*.

You make much ado about a misdemeanor offense that had a maximum sentence of $500 and six months. Let me put this into perspective for the people:

That "_crime_" carries a penalty *LESS THAN* driving your car over 75 MPH in Georgia. Let's be totally honest:

SARGE 7402 wants us to over-look a faux pas in accusing me of Simple Assault, but an overlooked fine on my part is treated as if I were covering up a felony. It's interesting. Many normal people would be pissed off if they were convicted of a misdemeanor when the prosecutor was allowed to lie; hearsay was introduced; and the prosecution threatened people and tried to coerce them into testifying against me. *It's in the court transcript*. Most normal people would be horrified to find out that a judge sentenced a person to do things they don't have the authority to do AND those things must be done in less time than an appeal can be mounted.

My choices between the appeal and doing what the judge ordered were simple: do it or go to jail. SARGE 7402's research ends at the county level and he is deceiving everybody here. That's okay because it should give preppers a glimpse of how people connected to the* NEW WORLD ORDER* operate. SARGE proclaims his support for the NWO in post #252. * EVERY* statutory "crime" makes one a "_criminal_" in SARGE's warped view. In order to be honest, fair and accurate by SARGE's misguided logic, if you have ever gotten a speeding ticket you are a criminal. How so?

What I went through is a misdemeanor charge. My fine, by law, would have been less than a person considered to be a super speeder in Georgia (i.e. anyone who ever drove over 75 mph.) Since both are misdemeanors covered in the Criminal Code and both have close to the same fine... a speeder is technically a criminal. It's great that the government and employers over-look the most minor of offenses. Then again, the Cheering Section on this thread advocate death as punishment for civil misdemeanors.

It's one charge in a dangerous career that spanned approximately 35 years. The county record does not reflect what happened *AFTER* that case went to trial. But, check the record. Let's do that right now:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/gbi_agent_appeals_transfer_over_case.html

It's 2001, I'm working in a gun store. That's TWO YEARS AFTER this awful "_crime_." (Sarcasm intended) Yeah, now I got to listen to that bullshit that I was a retail clerk and not employed after being a "retail clerk" (at 36 grand a year)... things the left said that simply aren't true. Anyway with the AJC's communistic bias, how come you suppose they don't make as much ado about a "_criminal record_" and why did background checks not kick me out? Oh, and why wasn't I working after all this stuff went down?

Southeast Guns is no longer in business. Seems libel can become an expensive proposition. For the record: a week before I was discharged, the company had someone give me the combination to the safes and show me how to get into the accounting program. I ws selling more firearms than anyone in the company. I never met this Simon guy until after all this went down, but that's business.

We've beat this dead horse long enough. We need to get back to the welfare issue. I'll let others decide what is relevant.


----------



## SARGE7402

so when is you son in law going to apply for food stamps?

Again Like I said before and I'll say it again. Do we trust Resister or the State of Georgia?


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> so when is you son in law going to apply for food stamps?
> 
> Again Like I said before and I'll say it again. Do we trust Resister or the State of Georgia?


SARGE is from the government and he's here to help you. I could only advise anyone with an interest beyond this point to follow the appeal, what the courts said in two other cases, and what some LEO organizations stated at the end of this series of events. I don't mind people judging me. Just remember what the Bible says in regards to judging others. Care to give it a rest now? OR do you want me to mention the fact that YOU relied on pedophiles, snitches and white supremacists? Now, you want to rely on part of the record?


----------



## Notsoyoung

SARGE7402 said:


> so when is you son in law going to apply for food stamps?
> 
> Again Like I said before and I'll say it again. Do we trust Resister or the State of Georgia?


He said that he knew things about me that if everyone else knew, I would be ashamed to show my face in this forum. I told him to go ahead and tell everyone what he knew and he never responded. That's because he was lying.

He also said that I had told him that I was bi-sexual. I told him to post the message and the day and time that I had posted it. He never replied because he was LYING. Does anyone in their right mind really think that I would tell HIM I was bi-sexual if I were? Not only did he tell a lie, he told a STUPID lie.

And let's not forget, he replied to someone's vote and added lines to his quote so that it looked like he said something that he hadn't.

I think I will trust Georgia over him. Heck, I would trust New York or California over him......San Francisco......Chicago....Hollywood.....


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> so when is you son in law going to apply for food stamps?
> 
> Again Like I said before and I'll say it again. Do we trust Resister or the State of Georgia?


The turd will apply after July 4 if he intends for you to pay for his food. It's that or starve.

And once again, you've relied on pedophiles, crackpots, white supremacists so why not half a record? I vote that we trust the government. We all know the government NEVER lies to us.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> He said that he knew things about me that if everyone else knew, I would be ashamed to show my face in this forum. I told him to go ahead and tell everyone what he knew and he never responded. That's because he was lying.
> 
> He also said that I had told him that I was bi-sexual. I told him to post the message and the day and time that I had posted it. He never replied because he was LYING. Does anyone in their right mind really think that I would tell HIM I was bi-sexual if I were? Not only did he tell a lie, he told a STUPID lie.
> 
> And let's not forget, he replied to someone's vote and added lines to his quote so that it looked like he said something that he hadn't.
> 
> I think I will trust Georgia over him. Heck, I would trust New York or California over him......San Francisco......Chicago....Hollywood.....


And, no, Notsoyoung, I will not pull my pants down for you. BTW. still letting other guys fight your battles?


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> And, no, Notsoyoung, I will not pull my pants down for you. BTW. still letting other guys fight your battles?


What in the hell are you babbling about? What a snappy comeback to my examples of you LYING. As for letting other guys fighting my battles........what? In addition to being a little man but a BIG liar, you sound like an idiot.


----------



## SARGE7402

The Resister said:


> The turd will apply after July 4 if he intends for you to pay for his food. It's that or starve.
> 
> And once again, you've relied on pedophiles, crackpots, white supremacists so why not half a record? I vote that we trust the government. We all know the government NEVER lies to us.


You are really one fine piece of work. What are you babbling about? Except for the state of Georgia, all the references were posts made by you.

And I would trust most of the Government (not the presidential appointees) before I'd trust a person like you. We know the Good Resister wouldn't lie now would he?


----------



## The Resister

SARGE7402 said:


> You are really one fine piece of work. What are you babbling about? Except for the state of Georgia, all the references were posts made by you.
> 
> And I would trust most of the Government (not the presidential appointees) before I'd trust a person like you. We know the Good Resister wouldn't lie now would he?


Sir,

No, I would not knowingly lie to you. As you know, I told you I am a foster parent. You cannot imagine how many times they have evaluated every part of my life, including lie detector tests. You can trust Big Government all you like. We've established how we are different on that point. I don't trust government.

I guess you're right... I got a sizable traffic ticket once when I was a kid so I entered the service with a criminal record. It's just a matter of interpretation. Nobody in the real world except you and the Cheering Section actually believe what I told you was not the truth. If what you believe is correct, then is it not also accurate that EVERYBODY that has ever paid a fine to Uncle Scam is a criminal in the purest sense of the word?

Furthermore, you never said, excuse me, I relied on misinformation and falsely accused someone of being convicted of a crime they were never even charged with. You need to take that halo off. It's fitting mighty tight.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> What in the hell are you babbling about? What a snappy comeback to my examples of you LYING. As for letting other guys fighting my battles........what? In addition to being a little man but a BIG liar, you sound like an idiot.


And I'd say it takes one to know one. I told you that the things you said to me are things I'd say to someone I wanted to call out. You have been all but begged to call me out and give me that option and you call me names? I think I'm going to nickname you Pinocchio.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> And I'd say it takes one to know one. I told you that the things you said to me are things I'd say to someone I wanted to call out. You have been all but begged to call me out and give me that option and you call me names? I think I'm going to nickname you Pinocchio.


It takes one to know one ? What's next, I'm rubber and you're glue? Let me reiterate what this is about, and how you still don't respond to them:

"He said that he knew things about me that if everyone else knew, I would be ashamed to show my face in this forum. I told him to go ahead and tell everyone what he knew and he never responded. That's because he was lying."

"He also said that I had told him that I was bi-sexual. I told him to post the message and the day and time that I had posted it. He never replied because he was LYING. Does anyone in their right mind really think that I would tell HIM I was bi-sexual if I were? Not only did he tell a lie, he told a STUPID lie. "

" And let's not forget, he replied to someone's vote and added lines to his quote so that it looked like he said something that he hadn't. "

What a little weasel.


----------



## Notsoyoung

If you want to see something really funny, go to google and type in Images Militia of Georgia and see what you get. They have all of these pictures of guys without shirts and their pants pulled down around their ankles, and some fat guy in his underwear lying on a bed with some guns. It looks like the movie "Deliverance" was allot closer to the truth then I thought.


----------



## taps50

Beach Kowboy said:


> I am all for drug testing welfare recipients. People sucking the government tit shouldn't be worried if they are not using the money for illegal drugs.. Ga is now for testing for drugs which EVERY OTHER ****ING STATE SHOULD BE!!! Anyone against it are probablyhttp://news.yahoo.com/georgia-governor-signs-law-drug-test-welfare-recipients-232311775--finance.html on drugs and I couldn't give a **** about.. If you are on welfare, you should have to jump thru hoops for as long as it takes. That is the problem, people use welfare as income and not as a stepping stone.
> Georgia governor signs law to drug test some welfare recipients
> 
> Personally, In my OPINION. Anyone using welfare as an income rather than a stepping stone should have a bullet put behind the ear!! You are one of the ****ing reasons our country is going to shit and deserve to die a slow horrible death.. To hell with it, I hope your entire bloodline dies as well. If you are willing to milk our system, your family probably will too..
> 
> People are pissing and whining about drug tests and welfare.. 99.99 percent of them are against it because they ****ing know they are buying weed or whatever other drug with the welfare money. The rest are selling food stamps for 10 cents on the dollar so they can buy drugs or other shit they couldn't normally buy with food stamps!!!
> 
> I am ALL for helping people that need a helping hand temporarily. Those that use welfare as a regular source of income can die a slow horrible death as far as I'm concerned though..


I agree 100% Beach Kowboy, I have no problem helping people out for a short period of time. But when I go to the store and walk out behind a person that just got done paying in food stamps, and see them climb into their brand new Escalade with 20" rims and a 10,000 dollar system it pisses me off. They drive a nice new car and don't work for it while I work 40+ hrs a week and still have to drive my '93 Toyota there is something wrong with that picture. And we all know they have the biggest, newest technology available at home and the newest phones to go with it.


----------



## Notsoyoung

taps50 said:


> I agree 100% Beach Kowboy, I have no problem helping people out for a short period of time. But when I go to the store and walk out behind a person that just got done paying in food stamps, and see them climb into their brand new Escalade with 20" rims and a 10,000 dollar system it pisses me off. They drive a nice new car and don't work for it while I work 40+ hrs a week and still have to drive my '93 Toyota there is something wrong with that picture. And we all know they have the biggest, newest technology available at home and the newest phones to go with it.


Years ago when I first got married, I worked swing shifts at a factory that had a government housing area on the other side of the fence that bordered the parking lot for work. When I parked my 10 year old car I would see groups of people sitting around much newer cars, drinking, smoking, and laughing at the guys going into the factory to work for a living. They would still be there when my shift was over. That gave me a very clear example of how welfare works.


----------



## The Resister

Notsoyoung said:


> It takes one to know one ? What's next, I'm rubber and you're glue? Let me reiterate what this is about, and how you still don't respond to them:
> 
> "He said that he knew things about me that if everyone else knew, I would be ashamed to show my face in this forum. I told him to go ahead and tell everyone what he knew and he never responded. That's because he was lying."
> 
> "He also said that I had told him that I was bi-sexual. I told him to post the message and the day and time that I had posted it. He never replied because he was LYING. Does anyone in their right mind really think that I would tell HIM I was bi-sexual if I were? Not only did he tell a lie, he told a STUPID lie. "
> 
> " And let's not forget, he replied to someone's vote and added lines to his quote so that it looked like he said something that he hadn't. "
> 
> What a little weasel.


I am as honest with you as you have been with me. And again, I *REITERATE*,

A) You did not answer questions asked of you first; therefore, I don't owe you shit

B) You continue to lie about me. The story you told about me adding lines was an honest mistake... one in which I made a thread and apologized for as soon as the poster told me what I did wrong. It's what happens to Ludites

C) The moment you answer my questions, I'll answer yours and the moment you acknowledge that what I did was an honest mistake... one that was made before you started lying about the details had already been worked out between myself and the other poster you will see a heartfelt apology from me for treating you the way you're treating me.


----------



## MrsInor

What he said ^^^^^.


----------



## The Resister

Old SF Guy said:


> FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GUYS ENOUGH ALREADY!!! You have argued for about 15 pages now to the point where even I who initially showed a little interest am now mortified at the issues and have stopped reading or commenting. WHere you all are each equally allowed to rant and rave to your hearts content...as an observer I can honestly say I am sick of seeing it. If this pisses you off I am sorry, but I am tired of seeing it pop up over and over and over. Schedule a place an time to take it to the saw dust pit and resolve it....or say your final words of anger and drop it....please...I beg you as a member of this forum. We are getting nowhere here. Obviously you will never agree or even agree to disagree.....so disagree that agreeing is disagreeably agreeable and move on to the next thread. I feel like I'm at my family reunion that is lasting an eternity.
> 
> LEON if there was ever a thread needing deletion this is it.....


I join you in this sentiment. It's gone on long enough and there isn't much more to be said. Those who cared to share an opinion have done so. This back and forth bickering is old, old, old.


----------



## Notsoyoung

The Resister said:


> I join you in this sentiment. It's gone on long enough and there isn't much more to be said. Those who cared to share an opinion have done so. This back and forth bickering is old, old, old.


LOL, snicker, snicker.


----------

