Alabama SC orders judges to stop issuing homosexuals "marriage" licenses.

[James Everett]

There is no debate, just James being a gastric penguin, nothing more.

YOUR 14th amendment is clear in its text, only those with an agenda would pervert it to establish a fiction. I have already give you logical proof as to why it doesn't apply to your current agenda, any person not so caught up in childish emotion, or politics can see the truth. In fact I may devote my next article to this foolishness for the purpose of opening the eyes of our people just a little more.

James, I am a lifelong southerner and a proud patriotic American citizen. As for your claims about the Confederacy being restored, let me be the voice of most southerners when I say, "Oh hell no!". Your fantasies are ridiculous and will not come to pass. We are part of the United States, and the Confederate states no longer exist.

Oh, well your opinion means so much to me and so many others. No our confederacy no longer exists, yet in can be restored from its forced exile. Funny, most colonists felt the same about being patriotic and loyal subjects of the English crown.
Allow me to ask about your knowledge on the subject of the restoration.
Do you know the purpose of this effort and what the end result is aimed at accomplishing?
Somehow I doubt it.
Can you explain your opposition?
And last let's be honest; Are you really a Southern Confederate, or are you simply a liar?
I ask this because you would not be anywhere near the first to make such a false statement.

 

[danielpalos]

How pathetic is your simplistic mind.

Says the guy who still can't explain why the Tennessee Supreme Court would be citing the 14th amendment in ANY case if the 14th amendment didn't apply to Tennessee. You're stuck. You've painted yourself into a corner and you can't get out.

Oh, and your sudden refusal to discuss the 14th amendment and complete avoidance of the topic in your reply didn't go unnoticed. Can I take it from your rout that you 1) recognize that the 14th amendment does indeed apply to Tennessee 2) that Tennessee is indeed part of the United States?

I'd be happy to continue to disabuse you of both misconceptions if you're not yet willing to acknowledge these two facts.

A Black man was once said to have a smaller brain than a white man: does that make it so? Just because a man and a woman were denied the privilege of exercising that privilege of marriage did not make it not a contract between a man and a woman, which is a marriage, they were simply being denied that privilege by law.

You say marriage is a privilege. The Supreme Court confirms its a right.

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man"

Loving V. Virginia

Once again, in a contest betwween the Supreme Court and you on what rights exist, you lose every time. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

YOUR SCOTUS states that "a man and a man contracting a union between themselves, or a woman and a woman contraction a union between themselves, as pledging to one another there devotion " Is a right, citing the 14th amendment? Where in the 14th amendment does it state such?
You state that.....
"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man"
The legal definition of ....
Civil rights are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment (and to be free from unfair treatment or discrimination) in a number of settings
Every man and everywoman receive equal treatment in mariage as any man may enter into a marriage contract with a woman, and any woman may enter into a marriage contract with a man, regardless of race. Hence no one is being discriminated against in contracting a marriage. Equal treatment is that NO man may contract a union between himself and another man in Alabama, and no woman may contract a union between herself and another woman, hence the law is being applied equally.
Your interpretation of YOUR 14th amendment, along with the nine political appointees who seek to extend their fictional power via growing their fictional jurisdiction = Kangaroo court is simply a fiction in that the laws concerning the set legal, traditional, and historical definition of a marriage are applied equally.

Pl

JAMES EVERETT SAID:

“God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage...”

In your personal, subjective opinion, having no bearing whatsoever on the legal issue.

Marriage is contract law, written by the states, designed to accommodate two consenting adult and equal partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And as a fact of law to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

But please feel free to go before the justices during oral arguments and explain to them that same-sex couples should be denied their right to equal protection of the law because “God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage.”

Please could the three or four of you get together and contact someone who would actually be able to offer me a challenging debate? You morons are to easy.

You have been debating? All I have seen is monologuing.

You live in a fantasy world where the Confederacy still exists and the 14th Amendment only means what you say it means.

That is no debate.

In legal terms our Confederate govt was never surrendered, I challenge you to produce documents to prove otherwise. Our Confederacy can be restored, and just as those States that were occupied by Russia under the former Soviet Union were restored and regained their sovereignty our States may do the same, Ireland was occupied for centuries before regaining their sovereignty. Now, when those States that were occupied by Russia under that forced Soviet Union saw amend to the occupation and the governments that were put in place there as well, those States did not incur the Soviet debt, Russia did, therefore when the occupation is ended, we will not be responsible for your govts debt. So you see, there are a great deal advantages for us to gain including an end to YOUR SCOTUS fictional jurisdiction.

Applying for readmission into the Union through the repentance of reconstruction constitutes a recantation of any Faith in any (lost) Cause.

 

[James Everett]

JAMES EVERETT SAID:

“In legal terms our Confederate govt was never surrendered...”

As a fact of Constitutional law that 'confederate government' never existed, rendering your 'argument' moot.

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, regardless their jurisdiction of residence, where their rights as citizens are paramount, immune from attack by their jurisdictions of residence; any measure enacted by a jurisdiction seeking to deny gay Americans their right to enter into marriage contracts is un-Constitutional and invalid, just as any effort by that jurisdiction to enforce that measure is likewise un-Constitutional and invalid.

What a bunch of BS. Where in Your CONstitutional law does it State that the Confederate government never existed?
Further, it would never be up to your govt to determine if our Confederate govt existed or not. It did exist, it did prosecute a defensive war, our State govts existed even before secession, our people fought under that government, Our Declaration of Independence states that govts are instituted among men, and it was men who instituted our CSA govt, power was granted it by our people, and representatives from each govt met, to discuss the matter. Clearly you are either willfully ignorant, or you are simply such as a result of the indoctrination. You may close your eyes and ears to the facts, but they still remain as. Just that, FACTS.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is no debate, just James being a gastric penguin, nothing more.

YOUR 14th amendment is clear in its text, only those with an agenda would pervert it to establish a fiction. I have already give you logical proof as to why it doesn't apply to your current agenda, any person not so caught up in childish emotion, or politics can see the truth. In fact I may devote my next article to this foolishness for the purpose of opening the eyes of our people just a little more.

James, I am a lifelong southerner and a proud patriotic American citizen. As for your claims about the Confederacy being restored, let me be the voice of most southerners when I say, "Oh hell no!". Your fantasies are ridiculous and will not come to pass. We are part of the United States, and the Confederate states no longer exist.

Oh, well your opinion means so much to me and so many others. No our confederacy no longer exists, yet in can be restored from its forced exile. Funny, most colonists felt the same about being patriotic and loyal subjects of the English crown.
Allow me to ask about your knowledge on the subject of the restoration.
Do you know the purpose of this effort and what the end result is aimed at accomplishing?
Somehow I doubt it.
Can you explain your opposition?
And last let's be honest; Are you really a Southern Confederate, or are you simply a liar?
I ask this because you would not be anywhere near the first to make such a false statement.

Yes, I am really a southerner. I am also a patriotic citizen of the United States of America. Like many (most?) southerners, I am very proud of the USA.

The purpose of the restoration? Please tell me what is this purpose?

My opposition is simple. I am opposed to removing the southern states from the United States.

 

[James Everett]

JAMES EVERETT SAID:

“In legal terms our Confederate govt was never surrendered...”

As a fact of Constitutional law that 'confederate government' never existed, rendering your 'argument' moot.

Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, regardless their jurisdiction of residence, where their rights as citizens are paramount, immune from attack by their jurisdictions of residence; any measure enacted by a jurisdiction seeking to deny gay Americans their right to enter into marriage contracts is un-Constitutional and invalid, just as any effort by that jurisdiction to enforce that measure is likewise un-Constitutional and invalid.

How pathetic is your simplistic mind.

Says the guy who still can't explain why the Tennessee Supreme Court would be citing the 14th amendment in ANY case if the 14th amendment didn't apply to Tennessee. You're stuck. You've painted yourself into a corner and you can't get out.

Oh, and your sudden refusal to discuss the 14th amendment and complete avoidance of the topic in your reply didn't go unnoticed. Can I take it from your rout that you 1) recognize that the 14th amendment does indeed apply to Tennessee 2) that Tennessee is indeed part of the United States?

I'd be happy to continue to disabuse you of both misconceptions if you're not yet willing to acknowledge these two facts.

A Black man was once said to have a smaller brain than a white man: does that make it so? Just because a man and a woman were denied the privilege of exercising that privilege of marriage did not make it not a contract between a man and a woman, which is a marriage, they were simply being denied that privilege by law.

You say marriage is a privilege. The Supreme Court confirms its a right.

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man"

Loving V. Virginia

Once again, in a contest betwween the Supreme Court and you on what rights exist, you lose every time. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

YOUR SCOTUS states that "a man and a man contracting a union between themselves, or a woman and a woman contraction a union between themselves, as pledging to one another there devotion " Is a right, citing the 14th amendment? Where in the 14th amendment does it state such?
You state that.....
"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man"
The legal definition of ....
Civil rights are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment (and to be free from unfair treatment or discrimination) in a number of settings
Every man and everywoman receive equal treatment in mariage as any man may enter into a marriage contract with a woman, and any woman may enter into a marriage contract with a man, regardless of race. Hence no one is being discriminated against in contracting a marriage. Equal treatment is that NO man may contract a union between himself and another man in Alabama, and no woman may contract a union between herself and another woman, hence the law is being applied equally.
Your interpretation of YOUR 14th amendment, along with the nine political appointees who seek to extend their fictional power via growing their fictional jurisdiction = Kangaroo court is simply a fiction in that the laws concerning the set legal, traditional, and historical definition of a marriage are applied equally.

Pl

JAMES EVERETT SAID:

“God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage...”

In your personal, subjective opinion, having no bearing whatsoever on the legal issue.

Marriage is contract law, written by the states, designed to accommodate two consenting adult and equal partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And as a fact of law to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

But please feel free to go before the justices during oral arguments and explain to them that same-sex couples should be denied their right to equal protection of the law because “God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage.”

Please could the three or four of you get together and contact someone who would actually be able to offer me a challenging debate? You morons are to easy.

You have been debating? All I have seen is monologuing.

You live in a fantasy world where the Confederacy still exists and the 14th Amendment only means what you say it means.

That is no debate.

In legal terms our Confederate govt was never surrendered, I challenge you to produce documents to prove otherwise. Our Confederacy can be restored, and just as those States that were occupied by Russia under the former Soviet Union were restored and regained their sovereignty our States may do the same, Ireland was occupied for centuries before regaining their sovereignty. Now, when those States that were occupied by Russia under that forced Soviet Union saw amend to the occupation and the governments that were put in place there as well, those States did not incur the Soviet debt, Russia did, therefore when the occupation is ended, we will not be responsible for your govts debt. So you see, there are a great deal advantages for us to gain including an end to YOUR SCOTUS fictional jurisdiction.

Applying for readmission into the Union through the repentance of reconstruction constitutes a recantation of any Faith in any (lost) Cause.[/Q

How pathetic is your simplistic mind.

Says the guy who still can't explain why the Tennessee Supreme Court would be citing the 14th amendment in ANY case if the 14th amendment didn't apply to Tennessee. You're stuck. You've painted yourself into a corner and you can't get out.

Oh, and your sudden refusal to discuss the 14th amendment and complete avoidance of the topic in your reply didn't go unnoticed. Can I take it from your rout that you 1) recognize that the 14th amendment does indeed apply to Tennessee 2) that Tennessee is indeed part of the United States?

I'd be happy to continue to disabuse you of both misconceptions if you're not yet willing to acknowledge these two facts.

A Black man was once said to have a smaller brain than a white man: does that make it so? Just because a man and a woman were denied the privilege of exercising that privilege of marriage did not make it not a contract between a man and a woman, which is a marriage, they were simply being denied that privilege by law.

You say marriage is a privilege. The Supreme Court confirms its a right.

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man"

Loving V. Virginia

Once again, in a contest betwween the Supreme Court and you on what rights exist, you lose every time. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

YOUR SCOTUS states that "a man and a man contracting a union between themselves, or a woman and a woman contraction a union between themselves, as pledging to one another there devotion " Is a right, citing the 14th amendment? Where in the 14th amendment does it state such?
You state that.....
"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man"
The legal definition of ....
Civil rights are the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment (and to be free from unfair treatment or discrimination) in a number of settings
Every man and everywoman receive equal treatment in mariage as any man may enter into a marriage contract with a woman, and any woman may enter into a marriage contract with a man, regardless of race. Hence no one is being discriminated against in contracting a marriage. Equal treatment is that NO man may contract a union between himself and another man in Alabama, and no woman may contract a union between herself and another woman, hence the law is being applied equally.
Your interpretation of YOUR 14th amendment, along with the nine political appointees who seek to extend their fictional power via growing their fictional jurisdiction = Kangaroo court is simply a fiction in that the laws concerning the set legal, traditional, and historical definition of a marriage are applied equally.

Pl

JAMES EVERETT SAID:

“God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage...”

In your personal, subjective opinion, having no bearing whatsoever on the legal issue.

Marriage is contract law, written by the states, designed to accommodate two consenting adult and equal partners not related to each other in a relationship recognized by the state – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference.

And as a fact of law to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

But please feel free to go before the justices during oral arguments and explain to them that same-sex couples should be denied their right to equal protection of the law because “God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage.”

Please could the three or four of you get together and contact someone who would actually be able to offer me a challenging debate? You morons are to easy.

You have been debating? All I have seen is monologuing.

You live in a fantasy world where the Confederacy still exists and the 14th Amendment only means what you say it means.

That is no debate.

In legal terms our Confederate govt was never surrendered, I challenge you to produce documents to prove otherwise. Our Confederacy can be restored, and just as those States that were occupied by Russia under the former Soviet Union were restored and regained their sovereignty our States may do the same, Ireland was occupied for centuries before regaining their sovereignty. Now, when those States that were occupied by Russia under that forced Soviet Union saw amend to the occupation and the governments that were put in place there as well, those States did not incur the Soviet debt, Russia did, therefore when the occupation is ended, we will not be responsible for your govts debt. So you see, there are a great deal advantages for us to gain including an end to YOUR SCOTUS fictional jurisdiction.

Applying for readmission into the Union through the repentance of reconstruction constitutes a recantation of any Faith in any (lost) Cause.

Our Confederate State governments never asked for " re-admission they were replaced as I have proven in a previous post citing the facts and proof.
Even in the event that they were not forced into exile and replaced by appointed officials by your govt, and had asked for re-admission, then by your governments consideration and admission or rejection would be proof that secession was indeed legal, ( which it was under the tenth amendment) but it has been YOUR SCOTUS fictional opinion that it was not citing a constitution that was no longer in force in rendering that bias opinion. No, our Confederate States never asked, nor were re-admitted.

 

[James Everett]

There is no debate, just James being a gastric penguin, nothing more.

YOUR 14th amendment is clear in its text, only those with an agenda would pervert it to establish a fiction. I have already give you logical proof as to why it doesn't apply to your current agenda, any person not so caught up in childish emotion, or politics can see the truth. In fact I may devote my next article to this foolishness for the purpose of opening the eyes of our people just a little more.

You have blabbed, nothing else. Try it in a history class in a secondary education or college history class, the professor will grin and say, "For the sake of your grade, I hope this is a joke.'

You must be referring to a college professor of indoctrination. They simply regurgitate the same BS that they were indoctrinated into. Please by all means ask one of them to join the discussion, I always welcome such.

 

[WinterBorn]

So what is the purpose of this "restoration"? You act as though there is a real motive, other than the "We can't have our way so we are leaving!" attitude I have seen so often in the secession discussions.

 

[James Everett]

James, when your armies surrendered and Jefferson Davis was nabbed while trying to abscond, the war was over. The losers never dictate the terms of surrender. It just is. Davis got to sit in a federal cell for two years. Ask him when you get the chance who lost the war forever.

What Clayton is going to say below. vvv

Well let's see, was it aboard the Amomato that Japan signed the surrender of the Japanese government?
The fact is, no terms of surrender were ever signed by Our President. You see, YOUR govt took a different route, they claimed to be preparing for the trial of the century, however when YOUR CONstitutional experts got together, they realized that the truth of the legality of secession, and Lincoln's rebellion would be exposed, hence the fiction began. Had they been successful in getting our President to sign papers surrendering our govt then they would be admitting its legality, therefore it was best for them to begin the fiction which clearly continues to be built to this day.

 

[James Everett]

So what is the purpose of this "restoration"? You act as though there is a real motive, other than the "We can't have our way so we are leaving!" attitude I have seen so often in the secession discussions.

The purpose can be found within the articles at the CSAgov.org website, however I will endeavor to explain in brief for you.
The goal is simply to use the restoration of our CSA as a legal means, ( a tool) to restore The Articles of Confederation and the founders intent for a Confederacy of States united under a wholly federal system, which does not exist today, even a union of States no longer exists, as in a union of States the State governments must be participants in legislation. As a result of Lincoln's rebellion, the State governments no longerare participants in what was "The United States. The 1787/1789 U.S CONstitution never worked, and resulted in the destruction of the union, beginning with Chisholm v Georgia and ending in 1865.

 

[James Everett]

So what is the purpose of this "restoration"? You act as though there is a real motive, other than the "We can't have our way so we are leaving!" attitude I have seen so often in the secession discussions.

Also, this has nothing to do with any current secession movements as our Southern States already seceded, what we advocate is the restoration.
Allow me to ask you this question....
Do you believe in common law?
Common law like federalism no longer exists. In common law ,(which we advocate as another part of the restoration) one is free to do as one chooses as long as in doing so one does not infringe on the life, liberty or property of another.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no debate, just James being a gastric penguin, nothing more.

YOUR 14th amendment is clear in its text, only those with an agenda would pervert it to establish a fiction. I have already give you logical proof as to why it doesn't apply to your current agenda, any person not so caught up in childish emotion, or politics can see the truth. In fact I may devote my next article to this foolishness for the purpose of opening the eyes of our people just a little more.

You have blabbed, nothing else. Try it in a history class in a secondary education or college history class, the professor will grin and say, "For the sake of your grade, I hope this is a joke.'

You must be referring to a college professor of indoctrination. They simply regurgitate the same BS that they were indoctrinated into. Please by all means ask one of them to join the discussion, I always welcome such.

The South lost, was beaten down by force of arms, and so many of the southern leaders said it was over, to make peace. Do so yourself, instead of running around in fantasy land.

"The fact is, no terms of surrender were ever signed by Our President." So what? Does not mean a thing in law today or reality at all. We lost. I say "we" because I lived in the South for decades, and I loved it. You are not in reality.

Professors of indoctrination? Horse crap, son. They are better educated on every aspect of the matter than you can ever hope.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I get it. You are part of We Are The Real America group that believes the Republicans and Lincoln corrupted, that you are the inheritors of the early Founders.

They are selling stuff under the guise of being the provisional government of the CSA. It's a scam to sell folks stuff, guys.

 

[Montrovant]

More pseudo-legal gibberish. If you include gays in the marriage contract...

No one has excluded the Sexually Abnormal from Marriage. The assertion that someone has is absurd on its face.

Any Sexually Abnormal Male can marry any Sexually Deviant Female that either he or she can talk into it.

Ya see Scamp... Marriage is the joining of one male and one female. And that is because THAT is how nature designed the human species.

What you want to do is to pretend that Nature did NOT design the human species as two distinct, but complimenting genders, with the distinct genders being SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to join with the other.

And because you demand that pretense to be reality, where any reasonably objective individual of sound mind recognizes the abundance of real, tangible, unavoidable, irrepressible, inalterable, incontestable, irrefutable, immutable evidence which establishes the reality being male human beings are designed to be joined with female human beings, it is there where we (reasonable people) KNOW that you are a person who is employing a perversion of the human reasoning which is designed to discern, thus to navigate the body through: REALITY... to which medical science refers as 'an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder'.

And because you are a professed Sexual Deviant, and because this perversion of human reasoning is consistent within the whole of your community of deviants, and because your specific deviancy is homosexuality, it is from THERE that we KNOW that Homosexuality is a MENTAL DISORDER.

See how that works?

A man and a woman may be 'how nature designed the human species'.....but nature didn't design marriage. So that's pretty irrelevant.

No, God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage.....

James Everett, do you think the majority of Tennesseans (is that the way to say it?) agree with your stance that the state of Tennessee is an occupied territory, James Everett? Did the people of that state feel they were under hostile occupation during the various elections, whether for state representatives in the federal government or for federal office, in which they voted?

I'm fairly confident that the majority of residents of the state of Tennessee consider themselves citizens of the United States of America and not the Confederate States.

And even if you honestly believe you are part of the oppressed people of an occupied Confederacy, I'm pretty sure you realize that the rules which govern the USA apply to you as well, like it or not.

OH, how cute that you think your'e lil laughing face makes your point somehow effective. I bet YOUR SCOTUS even uses such lil cuties when they post their rendered fictional opinions.
So now it is your assertion that the majority is important, but in the States that the majority state that there is no such thing as a man and a man entering into a contract a marriage the majority is irrelevant? How conflicting.
As for the majority realizing that they are under occupation, allow me to quote the illusion for you......
Niccola Machiavelli,.
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should] not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs...."

If you missed it, we have certain constitutional guarantees that supersede majority decisions (excepting, perhaps, in the case of constitutional amendments). I'm sure you'll spout some nonsense about how it isn't your constitution; that's irrelevant to the point. Majority rule is not the be all, end all of US governance.

A people that accept a particular government, whatever their reasons, I find hard to describe as under occupation.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

More pseudo-legal gibberish. If you include gays in the marriage contract...

No one has excluded the Sexually Abnormal from Marriage. The assertion that someone has is absurd on its face.

Any Sexually Abnormal Male can marry any Sexually Deviant Female that either he or she can talk into it.

Ya see Scamp... Marriage is the joining of one male and one female. And that is because THAT is how nature designed the human species.

What you want to do is to pretend that Nature did NOT design the human species as two distinct, but complimenting genders, with the distinct genders being SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to join with the other.

And because you demand that pretense to be reality, where any reasonably objective individual of sound mind recognizes the abundance of real, tangible, unavoidable, irrepressible, inalterable, incontestable, irrefutable, immutable evidence which establishes the reality being male human beings are designed to be joined with female human beings, it is there where we (reasonable people) KNOW that you are a person who is employing a perversion of the human reasoning which is designed to discern, thus to navigate the body through: REALITY... to which medical science refers as 'an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder'.

And because you are a professed Sexual Deviant, and because this perversion of human reasoning is consistent within the whole of your community of deviants, and because your specific deviancy is homosexuality, it is from THERE that we KNOW that Homosexuality is a MENTAL DISORDER.

See how that works?

A man and a woman may be 'how nature designed the human species'.....but nature didn't design marriage. So that's pretty irrelevant.

No, God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage.....

James Everett, do you think the majority of Tennesseans (is that the way to say it?) agree with your stance that the state of Tennessee is an occupied territory, James Everett? Did the people of that state feel they were under hostile occupation during the various elections, whether for state representatives in the federal government or for federal office, in which they voted?

I'm fairly confident that the majority of residents of the state of Tennessee consider themselves citizens of the United States of America and not the Confederate States.

And even if you honestly believe you are part of the oppressed people of an occupied Confederacy, I'm pretty sure you realize that the rules which govern the USA apply to you as well, like it or not.

OH, how cute that you think your'e lil laughing face makes your point somehow effective. I bet YOUR SCOTUS even uses such lil cuties when they post their rendered fictional opinions.
So now it is your assertion that the majority is important, but in the States that the majority state that there is no such thing as a man and a man entering into a contract a marriage the majority is irrelevant? How conflicting.
As for the majority realizing that they are under occupation, allow me to quote the illusion for you......
Niccola Machiavelli,.
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should] not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs...."

If you missed it, we have certain constitutional guarantees that supersede majority decisions (excepting, perhaps, in the case of constitutional amendments). I'm sure you'll spout some nonsense about how it isn't your constitution; that's irrelevant to the point. Majority rule is not the be all, end all of US governance.

A people that accept a particular government, whatever their reasons, I find hard to describe as under occupation.

Yes, that's true, there are times when popular opinion runs counter to the very survival of the culture... thus establishing the valid purpose of government, per the US Constitution to promote the general welfare ... .

For instance, where it becomes popular to accept deceit as truth, this is a fantastic reason to shut down policy which is a result of deviant reasoning.

One example of such perverse reasoning, is where demonstrably abnormal behavior is said to be normal... .

Another is where individuals demand that the CLIMATE IS WARMING, THE SEAS RISING, THE ICE CAPS MELTING... where there is literally ZERO evidence of any of it.

Any idea associated with that, should be isolated from government policy. With such individuals known to have advocated for either, removed from government, at any level, forbidden from ever being associated with government and from any profession which may have any influence over public opinion, including jobs in education, academia, media, military contractors, executive positions in any company, etc.

 

[James Everett]

I get it. You are part of We Are The Real America group that believes the Republicans and Lincoln corrupted, that you are the inheritors of the early Founders.

They are selling stuff under the guise of being the provisional government of the CSA. It's a scam to sell folks stuff, guys.

JAKE, help us out if you would..... Please point to anything that we sell. Are there any advertisements ?
Do we ask for donations?
Please do tell..... What do we Sell?
This ought to be good.
If JAKE is being truthful then please do go to the web page CSAgov.org and see for yourself.
No, JAKE is clearly being untruthful. Go to the site and see for yourselves. This is what we deal with quite a lot... LIARS.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

JAKE, help us out if you would..... Please point to anything that we sell. Are there any advertisements ?
Do we ask for donations?
Please do tell..... What do e. Sell?
This ought to be good.
If JAKE is being truthful then please do go to the web page CSAgov.org and see for yourself.
No, JAKE is clearly being untruthful. Go to the site and see for yourselves. This is what we deal with quite a lot... LIARS.

Jake is an imbecile. If memory serves, it was the first people I sentenced to ignore when I joined the forum.

You would be SHOCKED to learn how that one click improved this forum.

 

[James Everett]

More pseudo-legal gibberish. If you include gays in the marriage contract...

No one has excluded the Sexually Abnormal from Marriage. The assertion that someone has is absurd on its face.

Any Sexually Abnormal Male can marry any Sexually Deviant Female that either he or she can talk into it.

Ya see Scamp... Marriage is the joining of one male and one female. And that is because THAT is how nature designed the human species.

What you want to do is to pretend that Nature did NOT design the human species as two distinct, but complimenting genders, with the distinct genders being SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to join with the other.

And because you demand that pretense to be reality, where any reasonably objective individual of sound mind recognizes the abundance of real, tangible, unavoidable, irrepressible, inalterable, incontestable, irrefutable, immutable evidence which establishes the reality being male human beings are designed to be joined with female human beings, it is there where we (reasonable people) KNOW that you are a person who is employing a perversion of the human reasoning which is designed to discern, thus to navigate the body through: REALITY... to which medical science refers as 'an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder'.

And because you are a professed Sexual Deviant, and because this perversion of human reasoning is consistent within the whole of your community of deviants, and because your specific deviancy is homosexuality, it is from THERE that we KNOW that Homosexuality is a MENTAL DISORDER.

See how that works?

A man and a woman may be 'how nature designed the human species'.....but nature didn't design marriage. So that's pretty irrelevant.

No, God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage.....

James Everett, do you think the majority of Tennesseans (is that the way to say it?) agree with your stance that the state of Tennessee is an occupied territory, James Everett? Did the people of that state feel they were under hostile occupation during the various elections, whether for state representatives in the federal government or for federal office, in which they voted?

I'm fairly confident that the majority of residents of the state of Tennessee consider themselves citizens of the United States of America and not the Confederate States.

And even if you honestly believe you are part of the oppressed people of an occupied Confederacy, I'm pretty sure you realize that the rules which govern the USA apply to you as well, like it or not.

OH, how cute that you think your'e lil laughing face makes your point somehow effective. I bet YOUR SCOTUS even uses such lil cuties when they post their rendered fictional opinions.
So now it is your assertion that the majority is important, but in the States that the majority state that there is no such thing as a man and a man entering into a contract a marriage the majority is irrelevant? How conflicting.
As for the majority realizing that they are under occupation, allow me to quote the illusion for you......
Niccola Machiavelli,.
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should] not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs...."

If you missed it, we have certain constitutional guarantees that supersede majority decisions (excepting, perhaps, in the case of constitutional amendments). I'm sure you'll spout some nonsense about how it isn't your constitution; that's irrelevant to the point. Majority rule is not the be all, end all of US governance.

A people that accept a particular government, whatever their reasons, I find hard to describe as under occupation.

Yes, that's true, there are times when popular opinion runs counter to the very survival of the culture... thus establishing the valid purpose of government, per the US Constitution to promote the general welfare ... .

For instance, where it becomes popular to accept deceit as truth, this is a fantastic reason to shut down policy which is a result of deviant reasoning.

One example of such perverse reasoning, is where demonstrably abnormal behavior is said to be normal... .

Another is where individuals demand that the CLIMATE IS WARMING, THE SEAS RISING, THE ICE CAPS MELTING... where there is literally ZERO evidence of any of it.

Any idea associated with that, should be isolated from government policy. With such individuals known to have advocated for either, removed from government, at any level, forbidden from ever being associated with government and from any profession which may have any influence over public opinion, including jobs in education, academia, media, military contractors, executive positions in any company, etc.

One thing that I like to point out is that it is said by scientist that in the Jurassic period there were palm trees growing in Canada, then in the ice age there were ice sheets as far south as Mexico. So which is the proper climate of the earth?

 

[James Everett]

Ag

More pseudo-legal gibberish. If you include gays in the marriage contract...

No one has excluded the Sexually Abnormal from Marriage. The assertion that someone has is absurd on its face.

Any Sexually Abnormal Male can marry any Sexually Deviant Female that either he or she can talk into it.

Ya see Scamp... Marriage is the joining of one male and one female. And that is because THAT is how nature designed the human species.

What you want to do is to pretend that Nature did NOT design the human species as two distinct, but complimenting genders, with the distinct genders being SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to join with the other.

And because you demand that pretense to be reality, where any reasonably objective individual of sound mind recognizes the abundance of real, tangible, unavoidable, irrepressible, inalterable, incontestable, irrefutable, immutable evidence which establishes the reality being male human beings are designed to be joined with female human beings, it is there where we (reasonable people) KNOW that you are a person who is employing a perversion of the human reasoning which is designed to discern, thus to navigate the body through: REALITY... to which medical science refers as 'an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder'.

And because you are a professed Sexual Deviant, and because this perversion of human reasoning is consistent within the whole of your community of deviants, and because your specific deviancy is homosexuality, it is from THERE that we KNOW that Homosexuality is a MENTAL DISORDER.

See how that works?

A man and a woman may be 'how nature designed the human species'.....but nature didn't design marriage. So that's pretty irrelevant.

No, God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage.....

James Everett, do you think the majority of Tennesseans (is that the way to say it?) agree with your stance that the state of Tennessee is an occupied territory, James Everett? Did the people of that state feel they were under hostile occupation during the various elections, whether for state representatives in the federal government or for federal office, in which they voted?

I'm fairly confident that the majority of residents of the state of Tennessee consider themselves citizens of the United States of America and not the Confederate States.

And even if you honestly believe you are part of the oppressed people of an occupied Confederacy, I'm pretty sure you realize that the rules which govern the USA apply to you as well, like it or not.

OH, how cute that you think your'e lil laughing face makes your point somehow effective. I bet YOUR SCOTUS even uses such lil cuties when they post their rendered fictional opinions.
So now it is your assertion that the majority is important, but in the States that the majority state that there is no such thing as a man and a man entering into a contract a marriage the majority is irrelevant? How conflicting.
As for the majority realizing that they are under occupation, allow me to quote the illusion for you......
Niccola Machiavelli,.
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should] not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs...."

If you missed it, we have certain constitutional guarantees that supersede majority decisions (excepting, perhaps, in the case of constitutional amendments). I'm sure you'll spout some nonsense about how it isn't your constitution; that's irrelevant to the point. Majority rule is not the be all, end all of US governance.

A people that accept a particular government, whatever their reasons, I find hard to describe as under occupation.

Again,
Need I point you to the Machiavellian illusion?
A people are deceived most especially when an occupying government controls the education system and turns education into indoctrination. I suppose it equates somewhat to Stockholm syndrome.

 

[James Everett]

JAKE, help us out if you would..... Please point to anything that we sell. Are there any advertisements ?
Do we ask for donations?
Please do tell..... What do e. Sell?
This ought to be good.
If JAKE is being truthful then please do go to the web page CSAgov.org and see for yourself.
No, JAKE is clearly being untruthful. Go to the site and see for yourselves. This is what we deal with quite a lot... LIARS.

Jake is an imbecile. If memory serves, it was the first people I sentenced to ignore when I joined the forum.

You would be SHOCKED to learn how that one click improved this forum.

Or perhaps a moron, the IQ points are not that far apart.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No one has excluded the Sexually Abnormal from Marriage. The assertion that someone has is absurd on its face.

Any Sexually Abnormal Male can marry any Sexually Deviant Female that either he or she can talk into it.

Ya see Scamp... Marriage is the joining of one male and one female. And that is because THAT is how nature designed the human species.

What you want to do is to pretend that Nature did NOT design the human species as two distinct, but complimenting genders, with the distinct genders being SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to join with the other.

And because you demand that pretense to be reality, where any reasonably objective individual of sound mind recognizes the abundance of real, tangible, unavoidable, irrepressible, inalterable, incontestable, irrefutable, immutable evidence which establishes the reality being male human beings are designed to be joined with female human beings, it is there where we (reasonable people) KNOW that you are a person who is employing a perversion of the human reasoning which is designed to discern, thus to navigate the body through: REALITY... to which medical science refers as 'an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder'.

And because you are a professed Sexual Deviant, and because this perversion of human reasoning is consistent within the whole of your community of deviants, and because your specific deviancy is homosexuality, it is from THERE that we KNOW that Homosexuality is a MENTAL DISORDER.

See how that works?

A man and a woman may be 'how nature designed the human species'.....but nature didn't design marriage. So that's pretty irrelevant.

No, God designed and created Man and Woman, and also designed marriage.....

James Everett, do you think the majority of Tennesseans (is that the way to say it?) agree with your stance that the state of Tennessee is an occupied territory, James Everett? Did the people of that state feel they were under hostile occupation during the various elections, whether for state representatives in the federal government or for federal office, in which they voted?

I'm fairly confident that the majority of residents of the state of Tennessee consider themselves citizens of the United States of America and not the Confederate States.

And even if you honestly believe you are part of the oppressed people of an occupied Confederacy, I'm pretty sure you realize that the rules which govern the USA apply to you as well, like it or not.

OH, how cute that you think your'e lil laughing face makes your point somehow effective. I bet YOUR SCOTUS even uses such lil cuties when they post their rendered fictional opinions.
So now it is your assertion that the majority is important, but in the States that the majority state that there is no such thing as a man and a man entering into a contract a marriage the majority is irrelevant? How conflicting.
As for the majority realizing that they are under occupation, allow me to quote the illusion for you......
Niccola Machiavelli,.
"...[A]llow them [the conquered] to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you.... A city used to liberty can be more easily held by means of its citizens than in any other way....
"...[T]hey must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.... [The conqueror should] not wish that the people... should have occasion to regret the loss of any of their old customs...."

If you missed it, we have certain constitutional guarantees that supersede majority decisions (excepting, perhaps, in the case of constitutional amendments). I'm sure you'll spout some nonsense about how it isn't your constitution; that's irrelevant to the point. Majority rule is not the be all, end all of US governance.

A people that accept a particular government, whatever their reasons, I find hard to describe as under occupation.

Yes, that's true, there are times when popular opinion runs counter to the very survival of the culture... thus establishing the valid purpose of government, per the US Constitution to promote the general welfare ... .

For instance, where it becomes popular to accept deceit as truth, this is a fantastic reason to shut down policy which is a result of deviant reasoning.

One example of such perverse reasoning, is where demonstrably abnormal behavior is said to be normal... .

Another is where individuals demand that the CLIMATE IS WARMING, THE SEAS RISING, THE ICE CAPS MELTING... where there is literally ZERO evidence of any of it.

Any idea associated with that, should be isolated from government policy. With such individuals known to have advocated for either, removed from government, at any level, forbidden from ever being associated with government and from any profession which may have any influence over public opinion, including jobs in education, academia, media, military contractors, executive positions in any company, etc.

One thing that I like to point out is that it is said by scientist that in the Jurassic period there were palm trees growing in Canada, then in the ice age there were ice sheets as far south as Mexico. So which is the proper climate of the earth?

Good question...