rattler14
Forum Replies Created
AndyK
Quote:Powers not reserved to the Federal government devolve to the states without any contractual aspect whatsoever.I will disagree with the wording of this. In order to stay in agreement with the 10th amendment, I would (personally) rearrange as
Powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states without the need of further contractural specifications (after all, the constitution is essentially a contract).
Andy,
when you reply to a specific person, just look at the beginning and end quotes. Surround each particular portion from any of us via these tags, and leave your comments outside of them. Then, you'll be able to keep the responses easy for you (and us) to follow.
Cheers
Sonik,
No worries, I will not attack and/or spazz out on adrenaline 🙂
I'm just curious about what things are incorrect with the information as put forth by this website. After all, if he DOES find this or that and we can agree upon it (for example, a misquote, etc), it will merely make famguardian better by eliminating any errors. And if the case cannot be made that said information is incorrect, it helps solidify the veracity of the materials (particularly if the person is well versed and well studied in this field).
So all and all… as long as it doesn't result in name calling, I think this will be good.
AndyK
AndyK wrote on Mar 22 2006, 05:30 AM:Since everyone at Quatloos thinks for him or her self, I can't assemble a team to debate you.Certainly you can ask over there no? I think there seems to be a lot of complaints about Author #2 et al over there, so certainly the motivation to educate him (and others) to their apparent mistakes is already there. The number of posts the members tend to have at Quatloos certainly imply that time is not an big issue.
AndyK wrote on Mar 22 2006, 05:30 AM:Even if I could, such debate would be meaningless.? The underlying premises of Family Guardian's work are, by self-definition, irrefutable.? Thus, any debate would have to be based on premises which automatically lead to a conclsion with which I disagree.Premises: Black's law 2nd Edition
That which is put before; that which precedes; the foregoing statements. Thus, in logic, the two introductory propositions of the syllogism are called the “premises,” and from them the conclusion is deduced. So, in pleading, the expression “in consideration of the premises” frequently occurs, the meaning being “in consideration of the matters hereinbefore stated.”
So why not debate whether those premises are logical then? You state you do not want to be led, based on the premises, automatically to a conclusion you disagree with. But if the premises are accurate, true, or for lack of a better word, the “correct” premises, then yes, debate would be pretty meaningless. If you have a better set of premises, please list and we can discuss.
AndyK wrote on Mar 22 2006, 05:30 AM:Back to the original topic of the thread, Larry Becraft.? He is a respectable adversary in tax litigation battles because he has done all his homework.? He understands the laws and the legal system in this country and has litigated several cases where, through his work, his clients avoided jail time.? He is also smart enough to realize that it is pointless to keep banging his head against a brick wall.Although you may disagree with how the legal system works, Becraft has accepted that he is required to follow the rules and precedents that exist.? For that reason, he has stopped raising arguments which have been demonstrated to be dead horses in the starting gate.
Finally, as an aside, it's interesting that the alleged virus (actually a Trojan Horse) which I mentioned — even though it never existed — has been removed.? Odd.
[post=”2440″][/post]Switch to an OS like linux or OSX, and said problems will not occur again… even though it never existed.
oooh. This could be very interesting indeed. I can't wait to see who the draft picks are!
As for a famguardian captain. I'm torn between Bing and Sonik. Perhaps you two can be nice and co-captain… Though I hear Author #2 is no slouch himself 😉
Even though I generally don't like Alex Jones links… here is an interview with Actor Charlie Sheen
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march…harliesheen.htm
Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story
Calls for truly independent investigation, joins growing ranks of prominent credible whistleblowers
he seems to be on the ball with most, if not all of the WTC controlled demolition information.
Cheers,
-Rattler
- Bing wrote on Mar 15 2006, 02:34 PM:I did not know Becraft was helping Larken.
But it all make sense now.
I mean, Larken sold out and betrayed the THM and his legions of so-called “fans”, just like Larry did.
Nice job Larry.
Larken could not have bent over any further in his effort to appease the corrupt Court and equally corrupted DOJ lawyers.
I guess Larry taught Larken how to bend over and give up the cause. 😮
It is far better that we know their true colors, because now they can not infiltrate the THM and try and destroy it from within.
Bing
[post=”2400″][/post]I believe he was there in support of, but not the attorney. Meaning that Larken was the defense with Larry standing aside.
I don't know the ifs whos and all that to make a determination yet, but it would certainly be sad to have lost Larry.
Hmmm… so why was he helping Larken Rose at his trial?
So if there is a law saying you have to kiss President Bush's boots, and someone doesn't comply… a juror, saying it's unjust, can now get convicted.
Hyperbole? Sure. But the result is the same. The power of the jury is the thing that is getting nullified.
Hmmm…. I smell a honey pot for IP address collection 😉
But more importantly, what IRS employee would want to keep in contact with other IRS agents after retirement? So they can reminisce on how they use turn the screws on to the people of this country?
But hey, I figure the conversation would only make my blood boil. If others want to get on board, by all means. I figure if you want to get angry, just turn on the news 😉
- Sonik Speed wrote on Mar 10 2006, 02:41 PM:Ladies and Gentlemen…
What Mr. Rattler means by “eating right” is pure, fresh, raw and unprocessed organic foods, that have not been filtered through the corrupt FDA. 😉
Sonik Speed
[post=”2363″][/post]Of course that is what I meant! This is not an IRC definition of “eating right”
51 USC 1234 (a) 34 (:cool:
“eating right” includes buying mcdonalds burgers, drinking a minimum of 3 liters of carbonated beverages a day, 3-5 servings of taffy, and hot fudge fed through an IV.
🙂
Considering flu vaccines have been far more trouble than good… I wouldn't trust them to save my life
http://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/im…suppression.htm
The FDA also refuses to speak out against mercury derivatives in vaccines, which have been known to cause all sorts of memory problems, etc.
Bottom line, eat right, give up the shots.
Bruce,
Sorry if i did pull the trigger too fast. You did put a preface at the beginning. I remember reading that now, but my original reply WAS to clarify that his articles should be read with a certain level of discernment.
If, for example, the article was from whatreallyhappened.com, I would have said something more like “yes, this guy is generally on the mark 95% of the time, but seems to have a loathing towards hackers (and who can blame him). He is also VERY opinionated, and plays 'my way or the highway'” with some of his analysis”
I don't have a vendetta against him, just trying to warn the uninitiated about him.
-Rattler14
- bruce wrote on Mar 6 2006, 12:01 AM:
Rattler,
I fail to see the disinfo in Sysmanski's articles. However, I do see alot of unfounded allegations to defame Sysmanski. You say his stories have been proven completely false. Where is your references that prove these allegations? Help me out, am I missing something from the WingTV non news soapbox article or the Alaska Intel Report [which I assume is WingTV's source] that is even close to being dishonest by Sysmanski? As far as I am concerned trivial news is no news.
Believe what you want, but I see it as bs to defame someone with no real proof of credible damages and I see it as just splitting hairs over nonsense. Anyway who the he11 gives a third party Bill Adams or anyone else for that matter the right to demand an answer or apology from Sysmanski.
By the way in your latest post in relevant part extracted:
Quote:rattler14? Yesterday, 02:55 PM Post #63?you recommend that people obtain a copy of the referenced video. If you look at about the 100 minute mark in the Loose Change Video you will find references to flight 93 which should ring a bell, huh? Which is in fact what you and the wings accused Greg Sysmanski [disinfo][sensationalistic stories] for ref. relevant part extracted:
These WingTV critics remind me of how us boys used to line up in front of the urinals in grade school to see who could pee the furthest.
One last thing, about those Tall Whites; doesn't matter to me if Dr. Deagles patient John Fialla believes he saw Tall Whites or Sasquatch. I want to hear everything there is to tell, then I will research and believe what is verifiable. I don't want censorship. Just give it all to me, I'm not afraid of the boogieman and neither is Sysmanski.
Thanks for your input,
bruce
If you want ALL news, then have to filter and verify everything yourself, I suggest the national enquirer 🙂
But seriously. He ran with stories he knew were false (The Bush-Cheney Indictments). Now I admit, he had to rely on sources, and they were wrong. But after a week, no reply on the accusations. After a month? Nothing. Just pretending like it never happened.
I personally would rather have information that I can trust a little more than that. I don't accept what ANY alternative media station says based on face value. But I certainly don't have to do as much fact checking with other sources.
I recommend Loose Change, because although I don't agree with a couple of their conclusions, their material is generally spot on and it's put together in a way such that many can easily understand why the official story is incorrect. All of the DVDs out there are not perfect, and each makes it's own leap of faith in certain areas.
BUT. If we are going to pass around internet articles, you have your choice of 1000+ on 9/11. I'd rather stick to the ones that I won't get a reply from a friend saying “I was kindof curious about 9/11 until the guy started to talk about tall white figures”.
But that's just me.
Cheers
-Rattler14
- lchesson wrote on Mar 5 2006, 11:47 AM:1 Hr. 21 min. –Â must see.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8…hang&pr=goog-sl
[post=”2338″][/post]This DVD is awesome.
I have more than 100+ copies of it. Any of the regulars here, if you PM me with an address (if you feel comfortable with disclosing said info), I'll mail you, free of charge, a copy.
This way, you can pass around to friends. There is no restrictions on copying (the producer explicitly states this in the introduction), so you can copy and pass around to other friends, etc.
I also have bumper stickers, fliers, etc which I would be willing to pass along as well.
