(sigh) OK mark....yo udon't want to do your own homework, so I'll walk you
through this once more....although I wonder why you are putting so much
energy into this. Of course I am flattered that you are so ...focused...on
my remarks, but I hope you aren't getting strange on me here.
Here we go...
In a context of claiming our country is in danger you blamed the
> weakening of environmental (and other) laws.
Noooo....it is in the context of the recent neocon takeover of the Supreme
Court and their agenda of undoing specific legally legislated laws. Better
now?
then....
> Here's a specific question. How will the weakening of
> environmental laws help do what you say? Now please simplify.
Noooo...I used the case of the attack on specific environmental law to
highlight the Supreme Court's new position of supporting the Bush agenda.
The weakening of that law is being done to give an advantage to backers of
Governor Bush.
As I said Mark, it is not one particular law that matters....it is the new
blending of powers in our government and the consiquent breakdown of the
checks and ballances.
Better now?
Here is a quote from my second post that you didn't wanna read over
again....
> Our laws are about to go the way of the locomotive. Governor Bush is
> about to spring Martial Law on us to keep his ass in the White House and end
> any possible prosecution for his crimes. He already has the authority to do
> so without consulting Congress, thus shutting down the Government.
> He also has been given authority to deploy Federal troops domestically
> without putting them under the command of state Governors to 'restore and
> maintain order'. He has the plan in place under the guise of an imminent
> 'bird flu' outbreak. He has the databases of who the 'troublemakers' are and
> who they talk to...me included i am sure....and as we speak Halliburten is
> building the prisons in the southwest to hold 'illegal Mexican
> immigrants'...aka political prisoners from the USA.
>
Is that better for you Mark? I mean, you really didn't give a rats ass what
I was saying anywho....be honest. You just wanted to do your little-man *'no
I insist you keep argueing with me cause I can out debate you!"* high school
shit anyway. Be honest. But....you now have your reply. It was about the
Supreme Court acting to support the Bush agenda instead of interpreting the
Constitution, as it is charged to do.
Happier lil' buddy?
On 6/20/06, mark robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> John,
>
> Sorry, I have done that and have not come up with sufficient
> clarity.
>
> Let's review:
> In a context of claiming our country is in danger you blamed the
> weakening of environmental (and other) laws. I disagreed and
> explained that such laws are responsible for creating and
> supporting big-government and big-oppression. I will elaborate
> that since such laws serve to greatly enhance govt power and
> oppression, the danger would much more likely come from the
> opposite of your claim.
>
> Here's a specific question. How will the weakening of
> environmental laws help do what you say? Now please simplify.
>
>
> -Mark
>
> ************
> {American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
> "not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
> case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
> There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
> unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
> its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
> unjust lawsuits.
> See www.fija.org
> [Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
>
> ------------------------
>
>
> ah...it is an explaination you seek. Yes, I can assist you.
>
> go back, read my posts slowly, and you should be all squared away
> nicely.
>
> if not, return with specific questions and I will do my best to
> simplify.
>
> anything else you will be needing?
>
> On 6/20/06, mark robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <colowe%40iquest.net>> wrote:
> >
> > John,
> >
> > Sorry, I thought it was pretty clear, but I will gladly reword.
> >
> > The reason for my confusion is your inconsistencies. If you are
> > going to imply that I am confused for no good reason, you have
> > the burden to refute my earlier explanation of your
> > inconsistencies.
> >
> >
> > -Mark
> >
>
>
>
--
*****************************************
"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang
separately!" ...Ben Franklin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups. See the new email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yHUd1C/hOaOAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
