RosettaSister's (dumb as a) Rocks

mimi · **Posted:** Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:14 pm

Time/Date is off on all posts at this board. Always has been.
http://rosettasister.wordpress.com/2009 ... -the-wind/

Quote:

justanamericancindy4 Says:
January 30, 2009 at 7:13 am

thump thump thump ….. the wheels of the bus go thump thump thump

BO and Hill already tiffing….

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/30/23229/8465

Note that the story is from JANUARY 2008, when Clinton was campaigning against Obama. Well... they didn't.

Quote:

Tenacity Says:
January 30, 2009 at 7:30 am

Yes, but who will be under the bus when it is all said and done? One, the other or both? In my mind, Hillary is the most dangerous politician alive. BS has only bumped off a fag that I know of, Hill has a list of people that are no longer with us or have fled the country to save their bacon.

Quote:

justanamericancindy4 Says:
January 30, 2009 at 7:34 am

Hill will be massively Po’d if after giving up her Senate seat she gets kicked from SOS……

The claws could come out,…… and BO,… well anything bad said able him and he goes into a fit…….

yep yep yep……… popcorn time

They go on for a half dozen more posts or so on this thought. I feel fine about posting it here because I was given permission:

Quote:

Tenacity Says:
January 30, 2009 at 7:55 am

As long as we are quoted in context, that could be a good thing. Unfortunately, there is no guaranty of that. I remember when Fox made some dumb remarks a week ago and they were immediately picked up.

allison · **Posted:** Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:34 pm

WOW! They are a veritable braintrust over there, hey?

I am speechless...

Youtube-said-so · **Posted:** Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:40 pm

allison wrote:

WOW! They are a veritable braintrust over there, hey?

I am speechless...

Hey I already used "Braintrust" in the forum today...

mimi · **Posted:** Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:00 pm

Ya think troy is a fan of Bob Schulz. You betcha. He is always singing Schulz's praises.

Quote:

Troy Says:
January 30, 2009 at 10:14 pm

What the government is calling “income” is actually a wage.
It is a “barter” between employer and employee and is not income and is being illegally taxed….The constitution defines income as profits of doing business by corporations and capital gains / return on investments are also income.

WAGE is NOT income
BARTER = I will trade you my labor/time for money.

What's mind boggling is that these folks also don't believe in taxing corporations. The Reagan "trickle" on the people thing. And, they don't believe in capital gains.

I have no idea how they think services are provided.

Don't get me wrong... I hate taxes like anybody. But, they are a necessary evil.

mimi · **Posted:** Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:12 pm

Quote:

Re: RosettaSister's (dumb as a) Rocks

by Tex » Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:05 pm
Maybe... but I don't think they're a necessary 30% evil.

Yeah... I'm with ya. Still, these folks are looking for trouble. But, Ron Paul stated he believes in civil obedience such as this, but that you have to be willing to accept the consequences. Their whole argument about the 16th Amendment has been shot down.

But... I think the tax code needs a revamp as well. Problem is, it usually protects the wealthiest. And, I'm sorry to say, I don't fit in at the top 2%... or 10%... or anywhere close. :cry:

Jez · **Posted:** Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:15 pm

Quote:

The constitution defines income as profits of doing business by corporations and capital gains / return on investments are also income.

I don't remember reading this part of the Constitution? Or am I missing something?

Nikki · **Posted:** Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:35 am

Quote:

I don't remember reading this part of the Constitution?

When has that ever stopped them, why just yesterday on of our beloved PUMAs claimed women have ONLY ONE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT!!!

Quote:

angienc2, on January 30th, 2009 at 11:45 am Said:
What women need to realize is that the ONLY Constitutional right that we have is the right to vote. What the f*ck is NOW doing about that? Nothing — all they care about is Roe. Well you know what? Let them have Roe. Meanwhile, the rest of us women with a tiny bit of sense in our heads need to work together, regardless of “party” (note, all the female Republican woman voted FOR Ledbetter & I bet $1000 cash money they would have voted FOR the Paycheck Act) to fix the root problem — the patriarchy.

There's the constitution, and then there's the constitution as interpretated by birthers, PUMAs and primates on crack. I thought that would've been obvious by now

mimi · **Posted:** Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:22 pm

Quote:

by Tex » Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:39 am
No... it's not in the Constitution. That's because the Constitution is a very limited document for a reason. Limited Federal Government. Give civil rights and liberties to citizens. Have states decide upon other issues as long as they do not infringe upon those rights. Why doesn't any of that sound familiar anymore???

Well... the Courts have shut down the 16th Amendment argument about taxes. But... I won't argue here.

Regarding limited government....I'm with ya. But, the world is not the same as it was when the Constitution was written.

Shall we have each state protect it's food supply, it's air travel, it's own drug enforcement, etc.
How would that work?

Should we abolish the EPA, FDA, FCC, IRS, FHA and every and all other agencies of the government? The states could not enforce their own laws. Who would check to see if a drug was dangerous? An independent lab that the states would pay? And, assume the drug company didn't pay off. And then, each state keeps track of what's legal in their state?

How about the FAA. Each state has their own guidelines regarding Aviation rules.
Communication rules. Banking rules. etc.

The world is just not as simple. Sure, I want effective government, but to believe that it can be as easy as abolishing the IRS, or whatever, is just not realistic.

Koyaan · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:28 pm **Posts:** 652

mimi wrote:

Regarding limited government....I'm with ya. But, the world is not the same as it was when the Constitution was written.

No, it's not.

And the Founders realized that it would not be. And they also knew that they weren't perfect and that the Constitution as written was never intended to be carved into stone.

That's precisely why they included Article V in the Constitution, which allows for the Constitution to be amended in order to address that which they could not have foreseen.

Quote:

Shall we have each state protect it's food supply, it's air travel, it's own drug enforcement, etc.
How would that work?

Should we abolish the EPA, FDA, FCC, IRS, FHA and every and all other agencies of the government? The states could not enforce their own laws. Who would check to see if a drug was dangerous? An independent lab that the states would pay? And, assume the drug company didn't pay off. And then, each state keeps track of what's legal in their state?

How about the FAA. Each state has their own guidelines regarding Aviation rules.
Communication rules. Banking rules. etc.

Shall we simply ignore the Constitution when we find it convenient?

If we're going to do that, then the Constitution simply becomes an utterly meaningless piece of paper.

Quote:

The world is just not as simple. Sure, I want effective government, but to believe that it can be as easy as abolishing the IRS, or whatever, is just not realistic.

If the word is not that simple, and the Constitution does not empower the federal government to engage in that which the people would like it to, then amend it or call for a convention in order to address that shortcoming.

But don't simply ignore it.

k

Koyaan · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:28 pm **Posts:** 652

Tex wrote:

Well... the call for convention is two states short, but I was quickly stomped on when I inquired.

Personally, I shudder to think of a convention today. Not with the Political Industrial Complex in charge and an electorate as dumb as dirt.

k

mimi · **Posted:** Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:54 pm

Quote:

Shall we simply ignore the Constitution when we find it convenient?

Where did I say that?

And, I do agree it should be amended by the way. For protection.

If the Federal Lands Act was not in place, how much land would be protected today? If left to the states, there would be very little left. Due to greed. If there's oil, drill it. If there's coal, mine it. If there are fish, catch them, regardless of possible extinction. If there are trees, cut 'em down.

If a state is making money from it's natural resources, you can bet they would be exploited without federal protection.

As for the federal services, I really don't see how much of them can be diverted to the states.

mimi · **Posted:** Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:12 pm

One of the gang comes across a video. She doesn't notice the "onion". Doesn't realize it's satire:

Quote:

patriotamy Says:
January 31, 2009 at 11:47 pm

OMG! Just finished watching the video about NWO (Thanks Troy) and I stumbled onto this video. Scared the bajeebees out of me, and I do not scare easily. Listen carefully to his reading of the bill - especially the parts where he says ‘classified’. If I hadn’t watched the first video, I would not have made the connection.

This is a MUST see. short less than 2 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXfXuk6a ... re=related

Troy straightens her out...

Quote:

Troy Says:
January 31, 2009 at 11:48 pm

LOL…Amy, you poor thing!!!….That video is a spoof / satire
I have seen it before and it took me a minute to figure it too.
Look at the fake C-Span logo at the bottom of the screen.
They do crap like this to make others look like tin foil hat wearers….Disinfo campaign

j.b. chimes in...

Quote:

j.b. Says:
January 31, 2009 at 11:51 pm

Dammit! I just called my husband AND son upstairs to look at it!
Phuckers.

but... they are on to us as well....

Quote:

justanamericancindy4 Says:
January 31, 2009 at 11:48 pm

Oh guess we’re famous, we even merit a whole thread

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=171

Quote:

Troy Says:
January 31, 2009 at 11:54 pm

Oh guess we’re famous, we even merit a whole thread
********************************************
It only means that we’re a threat to them….I guess we struck a nerve…..F off Obots!!!

Quote:

j.b. Says:
February 1, 2009 at 12:01 am

politijab was started by a few of the BANNED Barrybots from OBCrimes. dumbasses. That’s the last time I will give them even an inkling of a thought. pft.

Amused · **Joined:** Sun Jan 25, 2009 4:48 pm **Posts:** 83

These people should really read up on some of the people they are associating with when they throw themselves into the whole WTP thing.

Quote:

June 2007

* On June 7, police, SWAT teams, and armored vehicles are seen gathering in a field near the Browns' home. United States Marshal Stephen Monier confirms that one Brown supporter was detained near the Browns' property. Several sources later identify the Browns' supporter as a man named Danny Riley, and state that he was detained while walking the Browns' dog, Zoe. Monier's office later releases a press statement indicating that the government agents were not raiding the Browns' home, but were in the area to serve a warrant for the seizure of Elaine Brown's dental office in West Lebanon, New Hampshire. (Subsequent testimony at trial revealed that this operation was in fact an arrest attempt.) In the evening of June 7, Riley records a video describing his encounter with and detainment by federal agents earlier that day. In the video Riley claims that one camouflaged agent fired two shots over his head after he fled from the agent once happening upon him hiding in the woods near the Browns' property. Riley claims that after being tackled and tasered, he was threatened with 15 years in jail by the FBI unless he told the media that the siege was expected and planned for, and was not the outcome of an abortive attempt to serve a warrant.

* On June 18, the Browns host a press conference at their home with Randy Weaver, who was involved in a deadly standoff with federal officials at Ruby Ridge. Weaver voices his support for the Browns, and the Browns reiterate their intentions to avoid arrest by the government.

* July 2007

* On July 14, the Browns hosted a small concert at their Plainfield property. The concert was organized by the We The People Radio Network to "save the Browns", and drew an estimated crowd of 200 people. Dave Cahill, Poker Face & others performed.

* On July 17, a Chevrolet Blazer sport utility vehicle (SUV) owned by Elaine Brown is seized by the United States marshal after the SUV is involved in a traffic accident in which a 17 year old girl was injured and her Chrysler Concorde sedan totaled. The driver of the SUV was identified as Jason Gerhard of Brookhaven, New York. According to the girl's mother, Judy Dunham, Gerhard did not immediately stop and, after returning to the scene of the accident, refused to provide his personal information to the 17 year old girl. During his daily internet radio broadcast, Ed Brown confirmed that "a friend" had been using Elaine Brown's vehicle to go buy food. U.S. Marshal Stephen Monier confirmed that the vehicle had been impounded and that he was investigating the circumstances of the incident.

* On July 28, reports of "30–40" shots fired at the Browns' property were posted on a website. [45] A local media report contradicts this, stating that there was no law enforcement activity at the property, and that "[p]eople who live in that area also report no activity."

Of course, there must be a special kind of Darwin Award available to people who's paranoia leads them to the point the govt. does end up coming after them. :lol:

mimi · **Posted:** Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:40 am

Amused, that's only a bit of that story. The guy, Danny Riley, well he told the judge he trademarked his name. So every time she used his name, he said she owed him $50,000.

Elaine kinda destroyed her bracelet thingy the courts let her wear while awaiting trial. But, she had to promise not to see Ed. She broke it off and her and Ed took off.

They are all kinda strange folks.

Meanwhile, after the raid on their property and arrest, Cavuto interviews Ron Paul. Ron Paul says that, although he doesn't know much about the case, he supports civil obedience. But, those who engage better be willing to accept the consquences. And the Paultards go "YaY RonPaul".

mimi · **Posted:** Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:25 pm

Quote:

justanamericancindy4 Says:
February 2, 2009 at 8:00 pm

cyn

I think many of Bush’s bad decisions early on, came about from him listening to Chaney…..

Bush always had our best interest at heart….
many don’t realize that, almost twice as many millitary died during the Clinton years than with Bush…. and we were at war these last 7 years!

Cindy, cindy, cindy... many don't realize it because it isn't true. Orly just can't copy figures over. She copied the figures wrong. But, she doesn't allow any dissent on her blog, so... it becomes gospel to those of you who only read World Nut Daily, Dr. Orly's Online School Of Law, etc.

First, check the PDF that Orly uses to validate her statement. You'll notice, she copied the figures wrong.

Second, check snopes to see how it's false. Pay particular attention to the last couple paragraphs.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/deaths.asp

Here's Orly's original blog entry... straight from the star pupil of Online Lawyers everywhere. (Being that she was 1 of 3 that graduated together from her online law school, do you think she can claim top of her class? How does that work?)

http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/trut ... ll-be.html

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:39 pm

No doubt Orly claims she was one of the top three graduates in the class of '02.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

RosettaSister's (dumb as a) Rocks

Who is online