[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God! The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: Mythical inalienable rights.? Source: Crazy Guy URL Source: [None] Published: Feb 6, 2017 Author: nolu chan Post Date: 2017-02-06 03:25:38 by tpaine Keywords: None Views: 17597 Comments: 56 Nolu Chan has just posted another rather remarkable claim. (It is an) --- insufferable claim that RKBA is an inalienable right given by God Almighty hisself. The Constitution recognizes capital punishment which takes away all rights, including the mythical inalienable rights. nolu chan posted on 2017-02-06 Poster Comment: Any comments? Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: tpaine (#0) A lot people think God is mythical Truth is relative Might is right Ignorance is bliss They pride themselves over their smug stupidity If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys ! BorisY  posted on  2017-02-06   4:40:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: tpaine (#0) Nolu is a bright guy. He has a sharp legal mind, but a Pharisaic one, like Paul of Tarsus. He believes in the rule of law above all other things. Now, what he said there is absolutely true, in the sense that if your right to life truly were UNALIENABLE, then you could not be executed for crimes. (To argue with ME, Nolu would point out - correctly again - that "unalienable" does not mean somebody can't take it from you in punishment for crime, just that you cannot contract it away). Once again, that would be his assertion of the rule of law as the supreme rule of life. Obviously lawyers like the idea of Rule-of-Law uber alles, the "Master Key", because they possess it and, therefore, have greater power than others. All of these things are always about power and fear. On another thread, strict legalism was being used to justify (as if that were possible) the German invasion of France and the Low Countries and Scandinavia and Poland in World War II. Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-06   6:45:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: Vicomte13, y'all (#2) 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. -- what he said there is absolutely true, in the sense that if your right to life truly were UNALIENABLE, then you could not be executed for crimes. Most intelligent people can understand the difference between the concept that, -- - ALL humans have inalienable rights, --- and that criminal acts can permanently (or temporally) forfeit those human rights under the rule of (constitutional) law. Apparently, nolu and his pettifogging ilk cannot, --- or more likely, will not, because they have an anti-constitutional agenda. tpaine  posted on  2017-02-06   8:28:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: tpaine (#3) anti-constitutional agenda inalienable right to life that is not mythical too If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys ! BorisY  posted on  2017-02-06   11:43:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#0) (Edited) What a chickenshit thread. You devote an entire thread to attacking nolu and don't even ping him? Tooconservative  posted on  2017-02-08   7:21:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: Tooconservative, respects nolu's position? (#5) Nolu Chan has just posted another rather remarkable claim. (It is an) --- "insufferable claim that RKBA is an inalienable right given by God Almighty hisself. The Constitution recognizes capital punishment which takes away all rights, including the mythical inalienable rights". You devote an entire thread to attacking nolu and don't even ping him? Chickenshit anti-constitutionalists, and their defenders, --- don't deserve any such respect, imho. Why do you want to give respect to a clown who works against the constitutional principles you've pledged to honor and defend? tpaine  posted on  2017-02-08   10:44:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: Vicomte13 (#2) On another thread, strict legalism was being used to justify (as if that were possible) the German invasion of France and the Low Countries and Scandinavia and Poland in World War II. Bullshit. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=49601&Disp=9#C9 [Vicomte13 #9] The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer Belgium and France. France declared war on Germany. Who was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France? Who could have done such a thing? A country should not declare a war it is not prepared to fight. By declaring war, France made the subsequent German attack on France lawful. nolu chan  posted on  2017-02-08   16:41:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: tpaine (#0) The invocation of Natural Law is a crock of shit. NATURAL LAW nonsense Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. Natural law. This expression, "natural law,” or jus naturale, was largely used in the philosophical specula­tions of the Roman jurists of the Antonine age, and was intended to denote a system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which, independently of enacted law or of the systems peculiar to any one people, might be discovered by the rational intelligence of man, and would be found to grow out of and conform to his nature, meaning by that word his whole mental, moral, and physical constitution. The point of departure for this conception was the Stoic doctrine of a life ordered "according to nature,” which in its turn rested upon the purely supposititious existence, in primitive times, of a "state of nature;” that is, a condition of society in which men universally were governed solely by a rational and consistent obedience to the needs, impulses, and prompt­ings of their true nature, such nature being as yet undefaced by dishonesty, falsehood, or indulgence of the baser passions. In ethics, it consists in practical univer­sal judgments which man himself elicits. These express necessary and obligatory rules of human conduct which have been established by the author of human nature as essential to the divine purposes in the universe and have been promulgated by God solely through human reason. Constitutional Law, 6th Ed., Jerome A. Barron and C. Thomas Dienes, Black Letter Series, West Group, 2003, p. 165. A. THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION 1. NATURAL RIGHTS Despite some contrary judicial opinion in the early years of the Republic, the claim that there are extra-constitutional "natural rights" limiting governmental power has generally not been accepted by the courts. If the federal government exercises one of its delegated powers or the states exercise their reserved powers, some express or implied constitutional, statutory, or common law limitation must be found if the government action is to be successfully challenged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice Wikipedia Natural justice In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem). While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the general "duty to act fairly". The basis for the rule against bias is the need to maintain public confidence in the legal system. Bias can take the form of actual bias, imputed bias or apparent bias. Actual bias is very difficult to prove in practice while imputed bias, once shown, will result in a decision being void without the need for any investigation into the likelihood or suspicion of bias. Cases from different jurisdictions currently apply two tests for apparent bias: the "reasonable suspicion of bias" test and the "real likelihood of bias" test. One view that has been taken is that the differences between these two tests are largely semantic and that they operate similarly. The right to a fair hearing requires that individuals should not be penalized by decisions affecting their rights or legitimate expectations unless they have been given prior notice of the case, a fair opportunity to answer it, and the opportunity to present their own case. The mere fact that a decision affects rights or interests is sufficient to subject the decision to the procedures required by natural justice. In Europe, the right to a fair hearing is guaranteed by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is said to complement the common law rather than replace it. Background Natural justice is a term of art that denotes specific procedural rights in the English legal system and the systems of other nations based on it. It is similar to the American concepts of fair procedure and procedural due process, the latter having roots that to some degree parallel the origins of natural justice. Although natural justice has an impressive ancestry and is said to express the close relationship between the common law and moral principles, the use of the term today is not to be confused with the "natural law" of the Canonists, the mediaeval philosophers' visions of an "ideal pattern of society" or the "natural rights" philosophy of the 18th century. Whilst the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, in jurisdictions such as Australia and the United Kingdom it has largely been replaced and extended by the more general "duty to act fairly". Natural justice is identified with the two constituents of a fair hearing, which are the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua, or "no man a judge in his own cause"), and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem, or "hear the other side"). The requirements of natural justice or a duty to act fairly depend on the context. In Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), the Supreme Court of Canada set out a list of non-exhaustive factors that would influence the content of the duty of fairness, including the nature of the decision being made and the process followed in making it, the statutory scheme under which the decision-maker operates, the importance of the decision to the person challenging it, the person's legitimate expectations, and the choice of procedure made by the decision-maker. Earlier, in Knight v. Indian Head School Division No. 19 (1990), the Supreme Court held that public authorities which make decisions of a legislative and general nature do not have a duty to act fairly, while those that carry out acts of a more administrative and specific nature do. Furthermore, preliminary decisions will generally not trigger the duty to act fairly, but decisions of a more final nature may have such an effect. In addition, whether a duty to act fairly applies depends on the relationship between the public authority and the individual. No duty exists where the relationship is one of master and servant, or where the individual holds office at the pleasure of the authority. On the other hand, a duty to act fairly exists where the individual cannot be removed from office except for cause. Finally, a right to procedural fairness only exists when an authority's decision is significant and has an important impact on the individual. Justice Iredell, Calder v. Bull,, U.S.S.C, 3 Dall. 385, 398-99 (1798) If, then, a government, composed of legislative, executive and judicial departments, were established, by a constitution which imposed no limits on the legislative power, the consequence would inevitably be, that whatever the legislative power chose to enact, would be lawfully enacted, and the judicial power could never interpose to pronounce it void. It is true, that some speculative jurists have held, that a legislative act against natural justice must, in itself, be void; but I cannot think that, under such a government any court of justice would possess a power to declare it so. Sir William Blackstone, having put the strong case of an act of parliament, which - - - - - - - - - [399] authorize a man to try his own cause, explicitly adds, that even in that case, “there is no court that has power to defeat the intent of the legislature, when couched in such evident and express words, as leave no doubt whether it was the intent of the legislature, or no.” 1 Bl. Com. 91. In order, therefore, to guard against so great an evil, it has been the policy of all the American states, which have, individually, framed their state constitutions, since the revolution, and of the people of the United States, when they framed the federal constitution, to define with precision the objects of the legislative power, and to restrain its exercise within marked and settled boundaries. If any act of congress, or of the legislature of a state, violates those constitutional provisions, it is unquestionably void; though, I admit, that as the authority to declare it void is of a delicate and awful nature, the court will never resort to that authority, but in a clear and urgent case. If, on the other hand, the legislature of the Union, or the legislature of any member of the Union, shall pass a law, within the general scope of their constitutional power, the court cannot pronounce it to be void, merely because it is, in their judgment, contrary to the principles of natural justice. The ideas of natural justice are regulated by no fixed standard: the ablest and the purest men have differed upon the subject; and all that the court could properly say, in such an event, would be, that the legislature (possessed of an equal right of opinion) had passed an act which, in the opinion of the judges, was inconsistent with the abstract principles of natural justice. There are then but two lights, in which the subject can be viewed: 1st. If the legislature pursue the authority delegated to them, their acts are valid. 2d. If they transgress the boundaries of that authority, their acts are invalid. In the former case, they exercise the discretion vested in them by the people, to whom alone they are responsible for the faithful discharge of their trust: but in the latter case, they violate a fundamental law, which must be our guide, whenever we are called upon, as judges, to determine the validity of a legislative act. nolu chan  posted on  2017-02-08   16:42:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: nolu chan (#7) Bullshit. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=49601&Disp=9#C9 [Vicomte13 #9] The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer Belgium and France. France declared war on Germany. Who was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France? Who could have done such a thing? A country should not declare a war it is not prepared to fight. By declaring war, France made the subsequent German attack on France lawful. You're not as smart as I made you out to be. Belgium did not declare war on Germany. Holland did not declare war on Germany. Luxembourg didn't. Denmark didn't. Norway didn't. Nor did any of them attack Germany, carry out cross-border raids, anything. They were simply invaded by the Germans, because the Nazis were criminal thugs who broke the peace. That's why they were tried and hanged as criminals, breakers of the peace, when the war was over. They broke the law when they invaded Poland. That gave France and Britain, and Russia and everybody else, the RIGHT to attack them. The UK and France declared war, justly. You say that gave the Germans the "right" to invade France - sort of like a criminal has the "right" to go in an shoot up a police station because they are trying to stop him. But none of that list of countries above declared war on Germany. The Germans overran them anyway, completely without a fig leaf of justification. They were murderers, and criminals. And they paid for their crimes very dearly. I'm surprised that you don't see that. Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-08   17:01:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: tpaine (#0) One thing I am sure of is that nobody anywhere has any rights they aren't willing to fight and kill for. It is the nature of government,all governments,to seize all the power and all the money can seize in order to gain maximum power. Governments are ran by ambitious people,so how could it be any other way? BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them. sneakypete  posted on  2017-02-08   17:22:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: tpaine, nolu chan, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#3) Apparently, nolu and his pettifogging ilk cannot, --- or more likely, will not, because they have an anti-constitutional agenda. Nah,he's just a idiot savat so anal all he has to do is sit around in his mother's home and copy and paste court findings to try to prove to himself that he has a life worth living. Nolu,you really are important,and people really do like you because you are such a SMART boy! Honest! Would I lie to you. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them. sneakypete  posted on  2017-02-08   17:27:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: Vicomte13 (#9) elgium did not declare war on Germany. Holland did not declare war on Germany. Luxembourg didn't. Denmark didn't. Norway didn't. Nor did any of them attack Germany, carry out cross-border raids, anything. They were simply invaded by the Germans, because the Nazis were criminal thugs who broke the peace. That's why they were tried and hanged as criminals, breakers of the peace, when the war was over. Close,but no cigar. They were tried and hanged because they lost the war. If they had won,everybody else would have been executed. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them. sneakypete  posted on  2017-02-08   17:29:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: nolu chan, yall (#8) Why would anyone want to give respect to a clown who works against the constitutional principles we've all pledged to honor and defend? - An idiot that claims our inalienable rights are mythical? The invocation of Natural Law is a crock of shit. And then you go on to post a crock of bullshit 'opinion', supposedly proving your point. Poor little nolu, reduced once again to oddball cut and paste views, whereas our constitutions 14th is definitive. We have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, unless we forfit them by criminal acts under our rule of constitutional law. tpaine  posted on  2017-02-08   18:27:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: Vicomte13 (#9) Bullshit. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=49601&Disp=9#C9 [Vicomte13 #9] The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer Belgium and France. France declared war on Germany. Who was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France? Who could have done such a thing? A country should not declare a war it is not prepared to fight. By declaring war, France made the subsequent German attack on France lawful. You're not as smart as I made you out to be. Belgium did not declare war on Germany. Holland did not declare war on Germany. Luxembourg didn't. Denmark didn't. Norway didn't. I did not say Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, Denmark, or Norway declared war on Germany. Vicomte13 said: The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer ... France. France did declare war on Germany. The UK and France declared war, justly. You say that gave the Germans the "right" to invade France - sort of like a criminal has the "right" to go in an shoot up a police station because they are trying to stop him. The question is not whether France's declaration of was was "just" or "unjust." Germany had not attacked France and had not declared war against France. Ditto the United States. France declared war on Germany on 3 Sep 1939. So you mean that when France declared war on Germany, Germany was supposed to surrender to France? If France declares war against Germany (or anyone else), the other party has the right to take them seriously and conquer them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France In 1939, Britain and France offered military support to Poland in the likely case of a German invasion. In the dawn of 1 September 1939, the German Invasion of Poland began. France and the United Kingdom declared war on 3 September, after an ultimatum for German forces to immediately withdraw their forces from Poland was met without reply. Following this, Australia (3 September), New Zealand (3 September), South Africa (6 September) and Canada (10 September), declared war on Germany. British and French commitments to Poland were met politically but they adopted a long-war strategy and mobilised for defensive land operations against Germany, while a trade blockade was imposed and the pre-war re-armament was accelerated, ready for an eventual invasion of Germany. On 7 September, in accordance with their alliance with Poland, France began the Saar Offensive with an advance from the Maginot Line 5 km (3.1 mi) into the German-occupied Saar. France had mobilised 98 divisions (all but 28 of them reserve or fortress formations) and 2,500 tanks against a German force consisting of 43 divisions (32 of them reserves) and no tanks. The French advanced until they met the then thin and undermanned Siegfried Line. On 17 September, the French supreme commander, Maurice Gamelin gave the order to withdraw French troops to their starting positions; the last of them left Germany on 17 October. Following the Saar Offensive, a period of inaction called the Phoney War (the French Drôle de guerre, joke war or the German Sitzkrieg, sitting war) set in between the belligerents. [...] On 10 October 1939, Britain refused Hitler's offer of peace and on 12 October, France did the same. [...] So, France offered military assistance to Poland if they were attacked. Poland was attacked. Poland fell. France came from behind the Maginot Line and held a 10-day parade and retreated, not doing much good for Poland. The invasion of Belgium, Holland, and France was conducted in 1940. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France Popular reaction in Germany Hitler had expected a million Germans to die in conquering France; instead, his goal was accomplished in just six weeks with only 27,000 Germans killed, 18,400 missing, and 111,000 wounded, a little more than one third of the total German casualties in the Battle of Verdun during World War I. The unexpectedly swift victory resulted in a wave of euphoria among the German population and a strong upsurge in war-fever. Hitler's personal popularity reached its peak with the celebration of France's capitulation on 6 July 1940: Germany sought to get to the Atlantic in order to attack Britain who had also declared war against Germany. It appears they chose the path of least resistance. If France was prepared to fight a war, it should have not declared one. Vicomte13 wrote, "The Germans should not have been permitted to conquer Belgium and France." WHO was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France??? The United States had not been attacked and was not at war. It was in a declared state of neutrality until after the attack on Pearl Harbor. nolu chan  posted on  2017-02-08   18:33:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: sneakypete (#11) Apparently, nolu and his pettifogging ilk cannot, --- or more likely, will not, because they have an anti-constitutional agenda. ---- he's just a idiot savat so anal all he has to do is sit around in his mother's home and copy and paste court findings to try to prove to himself that he has a life worth living. That too. --- But I just can't understand why would anyone want to give respect to a clown who works against the constitutional principles we've all pledged to honor and defend? - An idiot that claims our inalienable rights are mythical? tpaine  posted on  2017-02-08   18:42:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: tpaine (#13) Poor little nolu, reduced once again to oddball cut and paste views, whereas our constitutions 14th is definitive. Poor tpaine -- Only two functioning brain cells, one to inhale and the other to exhale. Your perpetual invocation of Natural Law is a load of shit. We have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, unless we forfit them by criminal acts under our rule of constitutional law. The Declaration of Independence was never the adopted law of anyplace and any time. The adopted law was and is the Constitution, not your bullshit. Constitutional Law, 6th Ed., Jerome A. Barron and C. Thomas Dienes, Black Letter Series, West Group, 2003, p. 165. A. THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION 1. NATURAL RIGHTS Despite some contrary judicial opinion in the early years of the Republic, the claim that there are extra-constitutional "natural rights" limiting governmental power has generally not been accepted by the courts. If the federal government exercises one of its delegated powers or the states exercise their reserved powers, some express or implied constitutional, statutory, or common law limitation must be found if the government action is to be successfully challenged. - - - - - - - - - - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice Wikipedia Natural justice In English law, natural justice is technical terminology for the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua) and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem). While the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, it has largely been replaced and extended by the general "duty to act fairly". The basis for the rule against bias is the need to maintain public confidence in the legal system. Bias can take the form of actual bias, imputed bias or apparent bias. Actual bias is very difficult to prove in practice while imputed bias, once shown, will result in a decision being void without the need for any investigation into the likelihood or suspicion of bias. Cases from different jurisdictions currently apply two tests for apparent bias: the "reasonable suspicion of bias" test and the "real likelihood of bias" test. One view that has been taken is that the differences between these two tests are largely semantic and that they operate similarly. The right to a fair hearing requires that individuals should not be penalized by decisions affecting their rights or legitimate expectations unless they have been given prior notice of the case, a fair opportunity to answer it, and the opportunity to present their own case. The mere fact that a decision affects rights or interests is sufficient to subject the decision to the procedures required by natural justice. In Europe, the right to a fair hearing is guaranteed by Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is said to complement the common law rather than replace it. Background Natural justice is a term of art that denotes specific procedural rights in the English legal system and the systems of other nations based on it. It is similar to the American concepts of fair procedure and procedural due process, the latter having roots that to some degree parallel the origins of natural justice. Although natural justice has an impressive ancestry and is said to express the close relationship between the common law and moral principles, the use of the term today is not to be confused with the "natural law" of the Canonists, the mediaeval philosophers' visions of an "ideal pattern of society" or the "natural rights" philosophy of the 18th century. Whilst the term natural justice is often retained as a general concept, in jurisdictions such as Australia and the United Kingdom it has largely been replaced and extended by the more general "duty to act fairly". Natural justice is identified with the two constituents of a fair hearing, which are the rule against bias (nemo iudex in causa sua, or "no man a judge in his own cause"), and the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem, or "hear the other side"). If you want to invoke that shit, you need to move to another country. nolu chan  posted on  2017-02-08   18:43:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: tpaine (#15) That too. --- But I just can't understand why would anyone want to give respect to a clown who works against the constitutional principles we've all pledged to honor and defend? - An idiot that claims our inalienable rights are mythical? I disagree on one major point. I don't think he is opposed to Constitutional principles. I think he just likes to argue to "prove" "I really am smarter than all the other little boys,mamma,look!" He is either a lawyer or a wannabe lawyer,and a lawyer is a person ready defend either side of any argument,regardless of right or wrong. Truth is irrelevant to lawyers. They just want to win. Which means a good lawyer is by definition completely amoral. They have no sense of right or wrong,so HOW could he actually be morally opposed to anything? BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them. sneakypete  posted on  2017-02-08   18:49:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: sneakypete (#12) Close,but no cigar. They were tried and hanged because they lost the war. If they had won,everybody else would have been executed. They lost the war because they started the war. They were never strong enough to win it. They were criminals for starting it. And when the inevitable happened, they were hanged as the murderers they were. Murderers and fools. Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-08   18:58:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: nolu chan (#14) WHO was supposed to "not permit" Germany to conquer France??? The civilized world. Germany committed the crime of starting the war. They defeated Poland, then invaded their little Western neighbors - more crime - and of course overran France. They were too weak to take out Britain, were defeated at sea by the British Navy, and defeated in the air by the Royal Air Force. And so then it was just a matter of time, for Britain to wait while Germany, cut off from international trade, slowly imploded as in World War I. The Germans doubled down their madness and invaded Russia, which they did not have the right to do either. And then they declared war on the USA, also, after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. So, at war with every other major power on the planet except Japan, they sank under the weight of the combined forces of their enemies, who swamped them. But when it was just 1 on 1 versus the British, the Germans lost in the air, they lost on the sea, and they lost in North Africa also, where they faced off on land. Starting the war in the first place by invading another country was a criminal act. It was a criminal act that was bound to have war as a repercussion. The Germans were so delusive they actually thought they could win. So, they were criminal madmen. And they ended up swinging at the end of a rope, or against the wall in a firing squad. And that was that. Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-08   19:04:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: sneakypete, yall (#17) I just can't understand why would anyone want to give respect to a clown who works against the constitutional principles we've all pledged to honor and defend? - An idiot that claims our inalienable rights are mythical? I disagree on one major point. I don't think he is opposed to Constitutional principles. Well, he's certainly put a lot of effort into trying to convince all of us that those principles can be infringed. Which means a good lawyer is by definition completely amoral. They have no sense of right or wrong,so HOW could he actually be morally opposed to anything? No one has to be 'moral' to agree to live under constitutional principles. --- All that is required, is that you use self interest, and do onto others as you would have done onto yourself. tpaine  posted on  2017-02-08   19:15:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: nolu chan, yall (#16) Poor little nolu, reduced once again to oddball cut and paste views, whereas our constitutions 14th is definitive. We have (inalienable) rights to life, liberty, and property, unless we forfit them by criminal acts under our rule of constitutional law. Your perpetual invocation of Natural Law is a load of shit. ---- The Declaration of Independence was never the adopted law of anyplace and any time. The adopted law was and is the Constitution, not your bullshit. I quoted the 14th amendment to the constitution - just above, you idiot. Typically, poor little noo!u is so impatient to cut and paste, that he loses track of his own argument... What an oaf. tpaine  posted on  2017-02-08   19:45:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: Vicomte13 (#19) Note that Poland was cruisin’ for a bruisin’. It had refused to negotiate on disputed territories in erstwhile eastern Prussia. Poland met requests from minorities under its administration that Poland honor its WWI promises to them with intransigence and force. At the same time Poland was squeezing the international city, Danzig (over 90% German at the time) by restricting rail traffic, thereby depriving the city of food and necessary supplies. Nor can it be said that Poland was innocent of territorial land grabbing. When the German areas in the Sudetenland were ceded to Germany, Poland was more than eager to a good chunk of what was left of Czechoslovakia. (Hungary got a piece of the hapless Czech Republic as well.) In addition, Polish irregulars had been at work throughout 1938-39 on a campaign of arson and looting throughout the corridor and along the border with Germany proper. Germany spent a good deal of 1939 trying to get an agreement over the eastern territories and Danzig with Britain, France and Poland without success. In the end Germany invaded Poland and our ally, Stalin, was more than happy to divide the spoils with the Reich. The following countries then declared war: Great Britain on Germany - September 3, 1939, 11 a.m. France on Germany - September 3, 1939, 5 p.m. India on Germany - September 3, 1939 Australia on Germany - September 3, 1939 New Zealand on Germany - September 3, 1939 Union of South Africa on Germany - September 6, 1939 Canada on Germany - September 10, 1939 Also take note of the fact the France invaded Germany on September 3, 1939. (And not the other way 'round.) The French army occupied the territory of the Saar for nine days before thinking the better of the operation and making a beeline for the French frontier. Before the Germans moved on the low countries, almost seven months ensued, during which time Germany made no less than five peace proposals. This was the so called Phony War. So although France had invaded Germany and retreated, Britain and France had September 1939 to May 1940 to think about the deal. I will stipulate that the Germans were thugs. However, there was a lot of thuggery afoot both in the east and in the west. Everyone wanted a piece of someone else's pie. Some choice quotes: "Germany is too strong. We must destroy her." - Winston Churchill, Nov. 1936. "In no country has the historical blackout been more intense and effective than in Great Britain. Here it has been ingeniously christened The Iron Curtain of Discreet Silence. Virtually nothing has been written to reveal the truth about British responsibility for the Second World War and its disastrous results." - Harry Elmer Barnes. American Historian "The war was not just a matter of the elimination of Fascism in Germany, but rather of obtaining German sales markets." - Winston Churchill. March, 1946. "Britain was taking advantage of the situation to go to war against Germany because the Reich had become too strong and had upset the European balance." - Ralph F. Keeling, Institute of American Economics "I emphasized that the defeat of Germany and Japan and their elimination from world trade would give Britain a tremendous opportunity to swell her foreign commerce in both volume and profit." - Samuel Untermeyer, The Public Years, p.347. On September 2nd 1939 a delegate of the Labour Party met with the British Foreign Minister Halifax in the lobby of Parliament. 'Do you still have hope?'he asked. 'If you mean hope for war,' answered Halifax, 'then your hope will be fulfilled tomorrow. 'God be thanked!' replied the representative of the British Labour Party. - Professor Michael Freund. "In Britain, Lord Halifax was reported as being 'redeemed'. He ordered beer. We laughed and joked." - H. Roth. Are We Being Lied To? "In April, 1939, (four months before the outbreak of war) Ambassador William C. Bullitt, whom I had known for twenty years, called me to the American Embassy in Paris. The American Ambassador told me that war had been decided upon. He did not say, nor did I ask, by whom. He let me infer it. ... When I said that in the end Germany would be driven into the arms of Soviet Russia and Bolshevism, the Ambassador replied: "'What of it? There will not be enough Germans left when the war is over to be worth bolshevising.'" - - Karl von Wiegand, April, 23rd, 1944, Chicago Herald American "I felt sorry for the German people. We were planning - and we had the force to carry out our plans - to obliterate a once mighty nation." - Admiral Daniel Leahy; U.S Ambassador randge  posted on  2017-02-08   21:25:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: tpaine (#21) We have (inalienable) rights to life, liberty, and property, unless we forfit them by criminal acts under our rule of constitutional law. Another pantsload, easily revealed to be a load of shit. As for your citation of the Constitution in support of your claim of an inalienable right to your property, "unless we forfit them by criminal acts under our rule of constitutional law," you should try reading the Constitution more, and bullshitting about it less. Amendment V No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Hypothetically you own property which is situated in the way of where the government decides it is gooing to build an interstate highway, or some building or military base. Using eminent domain, the government takes your property, whether you like ir or not, and provides just compensation as determined by the government. And thus your absurdly claimed inalienable right to your property is shown to be nonexistent, and your property is taken without so much as an allegation of any criminal act on your part. It is also clear that you may lose your liberty without committing a crime. One way is to get drafted into the military. Another is to be detained on reasonable suspicion. Or you can be held in jail while awaiting trial. There are plentiful examples; e.g. martial law, medical quarantine, etc. Your right to liberty is not inalienable; you are entitled to due process of law. A finding of criminality is a requirement only in your imagination. I quoted the 14th amendment to the constitution - just above, you idiot. The 14th Amendment contains no clause which incorporates your grotesque and laughable concept of natural law into the law of the land. Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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. The 14th Amendment neither creates, nor recognizes, any of your fictional natural law inalienable rights. It extended the due process requirement to apply to the States, in addition to the Federal government. States can take your shit via eminent domain and provide just compensation; States can put you in a medical quarantine; hold you in confinement awaiting trial, just as the Federal government can. Your diaper is drooping with 20 lbs of crap. Someone told you to it was full and to change, but you insist that the package said it was for 24 lbs and you still have a few pounds to go. And your claim that you "quoted the 14th amendment to the constitution - just above, you idiot," — even that is bullshit. #13. To: nolu chan, yall (#8) Why would anyone want to give respect to a clown who works against the constitutional principles we've all pledged to honor and defend? - An idiot that claims our inalienable rights are mythical? The invocation of Natural Law is a crock of shit. And then you go on to post a crock of bullshit 'opinion', supposedly proving your point. Poor little nolu, reduced once again to oddball cut and paste views, whereas our constitutions 14th is definitive. We have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, unless we forfit them by criminal acts under our rule of constitutional law. tpaine  posted on  2017-02-08   18:27:45 ET You did not quote anything but your own tired bullshit which does not appear in the 14th Amendment (or 5th Amendment). nolu chan  posted on  2017-02-08   21:31:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: nolu chan (#23) Our Declaration outlined some of the principles behind the founding of our Republic. "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. —" This same phrase was used in the 14th, to reiterate the great truth that had been lost in the arguments leadig to the war between the States. Amendment XIV ---- All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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. Thus, our constitutions 14th amendment is definitive. We have inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, unless we forfit them by criminal acts -- under our rule of constitutional law. Why nolu chan insists that these basic rights are 'mythical' is best left to a mental health professional.. tpaine  posted on  2017-02-09   4:44:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: tpaine (#13) Atheism is a faith-a blind faith that doesn't make sense of world & is not supported by observational science--it's a blind faith religion God maintains a delicate balance between keeping his existence sufficiently evident so people will know he's there and yet hiding his presence enough so that people who want to choose to ignore him can do it. This way, their choice of destiny is really free. - J.P. Morelad www.evidenceforjesuschrist.org GarySpFC  posted on  2017-02-09   7:30:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: tpaine (#15) An idiot that claims our inalienable rights are mythical? The inalienable rights you speak of comes from God. You don't believe in God. Why would someone who doesn't believe in God say they have unalienable rights. Which were described by the founders in the Declaration as coming from God. A K A Stone  posted on  2017-02-09   9:33:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: randge (#22) (Edited) I will stipulate that the Germans were thugs. However, there was a lot of thuggery afoot both in the east and in the west. Everyone wanted a piece of someone else's pie Not on the part of Holland. Or Belgium. Or Luxembourg. Or Denmark. Or Norway. Five wholly innocent countries, unaggressive, with no machinations against Germany, no sending troops in pockets on raids. Free, democratic people who wanted to be left alone. The Germans came in and murdered them, because they could. They CHOSE to. Which makes them criminals, just like the neighbor who chooses to invade your house and try to kill you. The other neighbors are all justified in coming to your aid, ganging up on the criminal, and beating the crap out of him. They don't have to WAIT until he comes to attack them individually. Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-09   10:07:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: randge (#22) Also take note of the fact the France invaded Germany on September 3, 1939. (And not the other way 'round.) BECAUSE Germany invaded Poland. Those things are fundamentally linked. A thug invades your neighbor's home. You rush in and attack the thug. YOU are not the aggressor. The thug is. Once a criminal breaches the peace, everybody else has the right to attack the criminal. Each successive attack on the criminal is not an assault - it is, rather, the bystanders intervention against the original crime. Germany attempted negotiations to get something they wanted: the Danzig corridor. Germany failed in those negotiations. Therefore, Germany does not get the Danzig corridor. Case over. Instead, the Germans turn into murderers and attack - they are now criminals, and everybody else has the right to intervene to defend the attacked, and to punish and bring back into line the criminal who - unable to get his way with words, resorts to violence. The Germans had no right to resort to violence because they did not get their way in Danzig. They had the right to bitch and moan about it endlessly, and impose economic sanctions and diplomatic tit-for-tat. By choosing, instead, to unleash an army to violently take what was not theirs because they wanted it, they became murderers and criminals, started a war they could not win, and got what they deserved in the end: bombed flat, millions dead, leaders hanged or shot, and the permanent loss of MORE territory. There is no defense for the German invasion of Poland. They wanted Danzig. Too bad. It wasn't theirs. So they killed over it. And as a result, 4.3 million Germans were killed and they lost MORE territory - Konigsberg is now Russian Kaliningrad, Danzig is Gdansk, and the Germans who used to live in those places were utterly driven out - meaning that now the Germans not only still have no claim to either place, but ethnic Germans don't even live there peacefully as citizens of other countries. The lesson of the Danzig corridor is that Danzig was not German. It HAD BEEN German, but the Germans lost it as punishment for starting a war. They started ANOTHER war over that, and lost worse. If you start wars, you had better win. Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-09   10:19:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: A K A Stone, yall (#26) Atheism is a faith-a blind faith that doesn't make sense of world & is not supported by observational science--it's a blind faith religion. --- GarySpFC The inalienable rights you speak of comes from God. You don't believe in God. Why would someone who doesn't believe in God say they have unalienable rights. Which were described by the founders in the Declaration as coming from God. --- A K A Stone I am not an athiest, and my agnosticism should not be a factor in my defense of our inalienable rights. I have no problem that our unalienable rights were described by the founders in the Declaration as coming from God. --- Most believe the founders meant a Christian God, which again is fine with me. --- Believe what you want... tpaine  posted on  2017-02-09   12:16:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: GarySpFC (#25) Atheism is a faith... Absolutely,and one of the most dogmatic faiths that insists THEY have the One True Religion,and EVERYONE MUST agree with them. I figured that out decades ago and started calling myself what I really am,agnostic. Organized religion by any name is just one more form of slavery. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them. sneakypete  posted on  2017-02-09   13:24:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: A K A Stone (#26) The inalienable rights you speak of comes from God. The word "God" is a creation of man,and there has been hundreds,maybe even thousands of "Gods" since mankind started forming together in tribes and the leaders started looking for a method of keeping the people under control. BOYCOTT PAYPAL AND CLOSE YOUR PP ACCOUNTS NOW! ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO,TOO! ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them. sneakypete  posted on  2017-02-09   13:26:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: Vicomte13 (#28) There is a certain catharsis in revisiting old animosities. So if you have an itch to scratch, by all means go ahead. But you know the old saying: "If you scratch it, it will never heal." I won't refight the World Wars with you, and I'll agree that there were a lot of things the Germans shouldn't have done. There are lots of things that shouldn't have been done either by Germany's neighbors. Some of these neighbors would have done the same things to Germany if they could have. With the passing of Pilsudski and his reasonable regime for example, Poland went on a tear and wiped out thousands of Galician Ukranian farmers because they were in the way of the Polish generals' ethnic program. I haven't read anywhere that Polish generals were hung for these atrocities. Those farmers were living peacefully and hurting no one else. Their hangmen were not punished. Many who have conspired against the peace and commanded the hangmen themselves were not hung. The Russians rubbed out the entire Polish officer corps, or as much of it as they could get their hands on, in the forests of Katyn, and they blamed it on the Germans. No Russian generals or commissars were hung for these executions or called to account for it in any way. Speaking of commissars, it's difficult to know where to begin. I was educated unaware of the sheer scale of their work. I had no idea of the human cost until after I left high school and read Solzhenitsyn. It seems that the commissars and their puppet masters came away unscathed - except for those that fell afoul of their Georgian master. They were covered by a sort of "truth and reconciliation" that transpired after that rotten empire expired. Napoleon wanted to be the Emperor of Europe and many thousands of innocents perished in his wars. He was exiled twice, but not hung though many certainly desired his death. Americans prosecuted wars in SE Asia long after it was apparent that they were fighting losing campaigns. American generals didn't pull out until the nearby oceans were thoroughly mapped for petroleum. We left behind a mess. A decade of large scale homicide ensued. No generals or politicians were hung. We've been on a tear too more recently, motivated ostensibly on the basis of an attack on the City of New York in 2001, and we've smashed to bits nations that had nothing to do with that assault. Now Saddam WAS hung. "Weapons of Mass Destruction." "Mission Accomplished." When you go balls out that way, you have to hang someone. And it wasn't on account of the Kuwaitis. It was because we had so little to show for the cost to us in blood and treasure. The effort required an orgasmic denouement. Saddam's trial was a foregone conclusion. The conquest of continental America was also not accomplished without breaking a few eggs. The US Army along with other of our state institutions made war on native populations, very often without regard to age or sex, waging what we would regard today as criminal campaigns. No generals were hung. I sit on land once occupied by the Karankawa people who were by stages rubbed out by the Mexicans, the Spanish and by migrants from Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia. No one has ever been brought to trial for that genocide. I sit out back and drink my wine and sometimes think about those hunters of shellfish and deer in the woods and bayous around here. One of their descendants is still alive in these parts. I should like to meet him. I have met many people whose ancestors have fought with mine. I have lived, worked and broken bread with Poles and Russians and French. I lived with two French guys for a time. We didn't think about or talk about wars. (Except perhaps my friend Jean whose grandfather's furniture factory outside Paris fell victim to American bombs. Gone to splinters. Never rebuilt. I fear he nursed a grudge.) I have an uncle who was born and grew up on his family's farm in what was long ago German territory. That farm in time became part of a government communal entity and now now belongs to a Polish corporate farming enterprise. My uncle went there for a visit years ago after the fall of the Communist government. He was fed and feted. No one talked of war. He and his hosts talked about what farmers always talk about - the price of eggs and beef and pork. So much shit has gone down within living memory that folks have developed perspective. And that's what I would hope for everyone. Perspective. That's a cast of mind sometimes lacking here where I live and for sure in certain enclaves where the headchoppers live. I believe that they will shortly be eliminated for the lack of it. But that is another story. (Apologies to other posters for ranting off topic.) randge  posted on  2017-02-09   13:28:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: randge (#32) I agree with you. Vicomte13  posted on  2017-02-09   19:42:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: Vicomte13 (#33) Thanks for your attention. randge  posted on  2017-02-09   20:43:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: randge (#32) The conquest of continental America was also not accomplished without breaking a few eggs. The US Army along with other of our state institutions made war on native populations, very often without regard to age or sex, waging what we would regard today as criminal campaigns. No generals were hung. And that's what I would hope for everyone. Perspective. That's a cast of mind sometimes lacking here where I live and for sure in certain enclaves where the headchoppers live. I believe that they will shortly be eliminated for the lack of it. But that is another story. (Apologies to other posters for ranting off topic.) Apology accepted, as I too agree with most of what you posted... Perspective is sadly lacking in the disputes about our constitution from guys like nolu. --- It's his way or no way. --- In reality, our constitution has little in it that can be disputed. Sure, it can be amended, but it cannot be amended in a way that takes away, --- or infringes on, our basic rights. tpaine  posted on  2017-02-09   21:03:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: tpaine (#35) but it cannot be amended in a way that takes away, --- or infringes on, our basic rights That is the big battle that is already well under way. randge  posted on  2017-02-09   22:00:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: randge (#32) Thank you for sharing. Indeed perspective. redleghunter  posted on  2017-02-10   0:09:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: tpaine, sneakypete (#20) I just can't understand why would anyone want to give respect to a clown who works against the constitutional principles we've all pledged to honor and defend? - An idiot that claims our inalienable rights are mythical? If they hang your sorry ass until dead, you will have your inalienable right to life, but not in this world. Your inalienable right to life will be in the hereafter with your 72 virgins cloned from Yasser Arafat. nolu chan  posted on  2017-02-10   18:25:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: nolu chan (#38) Wasn't that Keynesian in the long run all theory - fact - reality is suspended - superseded ! If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys ! BorisY  posted on  2017-02-10   18:31:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: nolu chan (#38) If they hang your sorry ass until dead, you will have your inalienable right to life, but not in this world. Your inalienable right to life will be in the hereafter with your 72 virgins cloned from Yasser Arafat Gotta love it when you blow your cool so much you forget to cut and paste your usual bullshit. Thanks. tpaine  posted on  2017-02-10   19:36:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (41 - 56) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com