Today's Read Between The Lines...
Current time: 04-29-2017, 06:10 PM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: eye2i2hear
Last Post: eye2i2hear
Replies: 10
Views: 3406

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Today's Read Between The Lines...
10-08-2013, 01:52 PM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2013 03:23 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #1
Today's Read Between The Lines...
[Image: bokmal.gif]

( Skeptical thinking here particularly of the discussion regarding the [First Last]=Name... and potential for damage control...)

Quote:When she moved to Arizona in 2007, Shirley Preiss was told she couldn't register to vote because she didn't have a document that proved she was a U.S. citizen, as was required by a 2004 state law.

An Arizona driver's license or nonoperator license would suffice, but both require proof of citizenship to obtain. A person without a driver's license could submit a copy of a birth certificate, a U.S. passport, naturalization papers or a tribal identification document.

But Priess was born in 1910, a year before her home state of Kentucky began issuing birth certificates, and she had no other citizesnship proof. Arizona authorities eventually accepted Census Bureau documentation, and Priess cast a ballot in the 2008 election. She died in 2011 at age 100.

This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 7-2 to strike down a portion of Arizona's law and said states can't require voters in federal elections to submit documents proving U.S. citizenship unless they ask for and receive approval by the federal Election Assistance Commission (if deniend, a state could appeal in court).

The Case: Must would-be voters document their U.S. citizenship?
by Emily Sachar, AARP Bulletin, Oct 2013


So a key question currently being asked 'round these parts is: "What evidence do you have that The Code and The Constitution apply to me?"

Might it be that indeed, They have such "documentation" and are taking one's testimony, as one having declared such in the past?
(for any with a sudden twitch here, hang on, "more to it" to come...)

[Judge, looking down at Traffic Citation]: Are you [First Last=Name]?
[NonStatEist]: What evidence has been presented to The Court regarding this matter?

One of the "questions", on the typical Driver's License exam?
"I am a U.S. Citizen? ☒ yes ❏ no"

"Yes" = Declaration? (in Their eyes)
"Yes" = Testimony? (in Their eyes)
"Yes" = CONfirmation? (in Their beady eyes)

14th Amendment Citizen = "Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof"... (per Their words)

[ultimate question: "What's up with The Gun in The Room?"]

i'm not posing this as seeking to say it's irrelevant of the fact that there's indocrtiNation, propaganda, coercion, and threat also in the Room --in this case, the Driver's ExamiNation Room.
Rather, that it may indeed be a question worth examining when it comes to Notfueling The typical Stateist's belief, about such?

It is, after all, but another question... ?
(how powerful as to being the first question, another question?)

[Image: TrainWreck1.gif]
side-trax:
interesting about the "tribal" part; interesting in a coupla regards; one being, potential lessons for learning when it comes to "dealing" with Nationalists/Stateists/Jurists... foolishly?
(i remember back in my paytridiot daze, reading up on similar "exceptions" along the lines of ambassadors e.g. "Ambassadors of The Kingdom Of Heaven"; in those daze, there were as well, many taking the "tribal" -literally- route as well e.g. Ronald Delorme)

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2013, 02:51 PM
Post: #2
RE: Today's Read Between The Lines...
(10-08-2013 01:52 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  (for any with a sudden twitch here, hang on, "more to it" to come...)

Oh now that.... THAT! is just choice, Eye2.

(10-08-2013 01:52 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  (for any with a sudden twitch here, hang on, "more to it" to come...)


NO SHIT? Jaw Drop


In an EYE2 post??? Crap News


NAW! Never happen!!! Oops

Coooodn't be. Kick Me

Nope.




Poke

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2013, 03:28 PM (This post was last modified: 10-08-2013 04:01 PM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #3
RE: Today's Read Between The Lines...
Skeptical

Hey, kiss my Reputation, you ole jealous fart!!

Not Worthy

Run Over
doGownya!!











muwahahahahahahah!!

[Image: snicker.gif]

Yess!!! LOL Yes Nod

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-08-2013, 04:24 PM
Post: #4
RE: Today's Read Between The Lines...
OkeeDokee, Artichokie!


(pauses, politely allowing reader to puke, recover, and return to topic at hand...)

I'm prolly posting this in the rong thred, but that's never been an impediment to me before, and I'll not allow it to interfere now.

I refer to a post you just made regarding lines and head shots and such. I do think you are seriously pursuing some understanding on this issue, and that is probably commendable. My issue is not with the topic nor the truth which may or may not apply thereto, rather my topic is regarding your presentation of your material in a manner which makes it impenetrable.

You listed several positions, horizontally, one position per line, regarding "trespassing," "lines in sand," and such as that. Then you went on to talk about these. But the problem is that your material is presented in the manner that you, as the author, assume that it is OBVIOUS from the material you've presented, what you are thinking, and what ANY SANE PERSON (such as yourself, for example) MUST come to upon having seen this aforementioned list.

Well Jesus H. Christ in a Phucking Phrying Pan, Eye2! I can't read your mind, and it should be obvious to you by now that there are a few others who can't either.

SO... (therefore, hereby and whereas and shit like that)

I will once again (from this you are to understand the DEEP level of my frustration, my endless generosity of spirit regarding your forthcoming lashing, and my boundless goodwill Angel ) point out to you that if you were to FIRST (<- Note that this means BEFORE other shit) posit your position, the idea which you would like for one to conclude from the evidence about to be presented, it might then follow that the reader could grasp the POINT (the PHUCKING POINT OF IT ALL) of the listed data points as they cascade gleefully down the page... Applause

- NonRindMeaderExtraordinareAndSuch

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-30-2014, 09:05 AM
Post: #5
RE: Today's Read Between The Lines...
Sick

a facebook post today:
Quote:
This new secured drivers license crap is killing me. You have to have your birth certificate, Social card, and two proofs of residency. But you can't get your social security card or birth certificate without a valid license. Wth? Word of advice: don't let your license expire!

Nutshot Prank

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-30-2014, 04:53 PM
Post: #6
RE: Today's Read Between The Lines...
The citizenship issue has come up before, this is how I handle it. When a bureaucrat asks, instead of answering the question about evidence, "Aren't you a citizen/resident?" I respond 2 things, first, you already determined you had jurisdiction, I just want to know the facts, 2. citizenship presupposes the constitution and law apply to me because of my physical location (this also applies to naturalization).

The truth of what is presented on the driver's license application (are you a citizen) is irrelevant as it is information/testimony given under threat, duress and coercion. The big issue for them, the one that defeats the citizenship/residency argument, is that it is illogical (presupposes the argument) and I've had them back off many times. It's why I having been questioning their basic premise, the if X, then Y argument:

If I'm physically in Arizona, then the laws of the state of Arizona apply to me.

This cuts through it all because the applicability of the law is not based entirely on political relationships. It's why I ask them if the laws of Idaho apply to me even if I'm just driving through for the day. At the end of the day I just don't know how this happens.Stare

If government services were valuable and the market wanted them, they wouldn't be provided on a compulsory basis.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-30-2014, 05:29 PM
Post: #7
RE: Today's Read Between The Lines...
(05-30-2014 04:53 PM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  At the end of the day I just don't know how this happens. Stare

I take it you're okay with things in the morning then? Angel LOL

- NonE the severely deluded Sister Sleazious .).

"I just don't understand how this happens." Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-16-2014, 07:57 AM (This post was last modified: 10-16-2014 08:05 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #8
RE: Today's Read Between The Lines...
(another) Today:

someone going by Walter Geiger Wrote:
PIKE COUNTY
JOURNAL REPORTER

Family returns to Alabama

A 6-year old boy who took the family's two rusty revolvers to his first day of class at Pike County Primary School Sept. 29 will soon be on his way back to Alabama with his mother and two siblings after a juvenile court hearing here Oct. 7.

Judge Ben Miller Jr. dismissed a motion that Georgia take jurisdiction in the case, clearing the way for the move.
www.pikecountygeorgia.com

Wait, it is fact that this mother was physically in the (geographical) state of Georgia, no?.

Yet a motion was (had to be) filed by the Prosecution to "take jurisdiction"?!? (and subsequently Denied)?

Facepalm <--for the lost, that's Jesus facepalming (really! take my word on it!? --and you too, will get 3 wishes miracles!)

Butt cum'on, muh fellow Americunts, let's US get back to the dang actual important News here already --like how this here pregnant-again- Alabama *spit* trailer trash let her boy take not one, but two dad-gum nazi weapons of mass destruction into our precious neo indoctrination compound Public School!! God have mercy on (& bless!) America! [/sarcasm]

reading a bit (more) between the lines [sic] here, how probable is it that the "Judge" "Ruled" this way solely because his other-side of the border mafia would "have" ("take" back?) Jurisdiction?

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
10-17-2014, 07:09 AM (This post was last modified: 10-17-2014 07:29 AM by djy.)
Post: #9
RE: Today's Read Between The Lines...
(10-08-2013 01:52 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  [Image: bokmal.gif]

( Skeptical thinking here particularly of the discussion regarding the [First Last]=Name... and potential for damage control...)

Quote:When she moved to Arizona in 2007, Shirley Preiss was told she couldn't register to vote because she didn't have a document that proved she was a U.S. citizen, as was required by a 2004 state law.

An Arizona driver's license or nonoperator license would suffice, but both require proof of citizenship to obtain. A person without a driver's license could submit a copy of a birth certificate, a U.S. passport, naturalization papers or a tribal identification document.

But Priess was born in 1910, a year before her home state of Kentucky began issuing birth certificates, and she had no other citizesnship proof. Arizona authorities eventually accepted Census Bureau documentation, and Priess cast a ballot in the 2008 election. She died in 2011 at age 100.

This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 7-2 to strike down a portion of Arizona's law and said states can't require voters in federal elections to submit documents proving U.S. citizenship unless they ask for and receive approval by the federal Election Assistance Commission (if deniend, a state could appeal in court).

The Case: Must would-be voters document their U.S. citizenship?
by Emily Sachar, AARP Bulletin, Oct 2013


So a key question currently being asked 'round these parts is: "What evidence do you have that The Code and The Constitution apply to me?"

Might it be that indeed, They have such "documentation" and are taking one's testimony, as one having declared such in the past?
(for any with a sudden twitch here, hang on, "more to it" to come...)

[Judge, looking down at Traffic Citation]: Are you [First Last=Name]?
[NonStatEist]: What evidence has been presented to The Court regarding this matter?

One of the "questions", on the typical Driver's License exam?
"I am a U.S. Citizen? ☒ yes ❏ no"

"Yes" = Declaration? (in Their eyes)
"Yes" = Testimony? (in Their eyes)
"Yes" = CONfirmation? (in Their beady eyes)

14th Amendment Citizen = "Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof"... (per Their words)

[ultimate question: "What's up with The Gun in The Room?"]

i'm not posing this as seeking to say it's irrelevant of the fact that there's indocrtiNation, propaganda, coercion, and threat also in the Room --in this case, the Driver's ExamiNation Room.
Rather, that it may indeed be a question worth examining when it comes to Notfueling The typical Stateist's belief, about such?

It is, after all, but another question... ?
(how powerful as to being the first question, another question?)

[Image: TrainWreck1.gif]
side-trax:
interesting about the "tribal" part; interesting in a coupla regards; one being, potential lessons for learning when it comes to "dealing" with Nationalists/Stateists/Jurists... foolishly?
(i remember back in my paytridiot daze, reading up on similar "exceptions" along the lines of ambassadors e.g. "Ambassadors of The Kingdom Of Heaven"; in those daze, there were as well, many taking the "tribal" -literally- route as well e.g. Ronald Delorme)

I just discovered this post (there's so much to go thru on this site!), and it goes a long way to uncover the misunderstanding that most have about citizenship. As you say, "14th Amendment Citizen = "Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof"... (per Their words)".

Shirley Preiss' legal case did not address whether she might have been qualified to vote as a state citizen of Arizona. They restricted their inquiry to whether or not she was a state resident. The two citizenships are not equal; the first is a lawful one of We, the People, the second a corporate citizenship that is unabashedly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States government.

Can you imagine any of the Founding Fathers declaring themselves to be subject to the jurisdiction of the general government that their states created? This is exactly the statement you make when you check that "I am a U.S. Citizen? ☒ yes ❏ no" box. And the court does notice your declaration, Mr. & Mrs. U.S. Subject.

(05-30-2014 04:53 PM)Marc Stevens Wrote:  ... If I'm physically in Arizona, then the laws of the state of Arizona apply to me...

But do you notice that they are being enforced by the executive office of the United States general government? This brings up some good questions to ask during arraignment, like why am I in a U.S. court and not one of Arizona's? Are these U.S. laws covering an Arizona "district" that I am alleged to have transgressed? Does the prosecutor allege that I am subject to U.S. jurisdiction just because I was traveling in Arizona? Where is the verified complaint, or other moving papers bringing this matter before this particular court? Where in them is jurisdiction avered?

I don't understand these charges! I can't plead until I do.

.
I’m giving you a choice: Either put on these glasses or start eatin’ that trash can.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-16-2015, 07:56 AM (This post was last modified: 11-16-2015 07:56 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #10
RE: Today's Read Between The Lines...
Ole Ben Franklin, among the prophets?! (or insider of the profits)...
[I spotted a coupla chicken turkey nuggets besides the one intended in this one; how'bout you?]
Quote:Maybe you’ve heard this story before: Ben Franklin, enamored with the “respectable” personality of the wild turkey, wanted to see it, instead of the bald eagle, become the national bird and be used as a symbol for the new United States. However, he lost out to the eagle supporters in Congress.
It’s a quirky little story, often brought up when conversation turns to turkeys or eagles, and has been repeated both by average joes and the National Wildlife Federation.

The hitch is that the story has become so warped over time that it's more myth than fact.

First off, Franklin wasn’t involved in the designation of the eagle as the national bird or its selection as an element in the Great Seal of the United States. He did sit on the first [of three] committee appointed to work on the seal’s design with Thomas Jefferson and John Adams in 1776, but there’s no record of him arguing against an eagle design or suggesting a turkey. Franklin’s official suggestion for the seal while on the committee was actually a Biblical scene: “Moses standing on the Shore, and extending his Hand over the Sea, thereby causing the same to overwhelm Pharaoh who is sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his Head and a Sword in his Hand. Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Clouds reaching to Moses, to express that he acts by Command of the Deity. ‘Motto - Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.’”

The committee decided to make this the reverse side of the seal, and on the front wanted to depict a shield with emblems symbolizing “the Countries from which these States have been peopled,” including an Imperial Eagle to represent Germany. There’s no written record to suggest that Franklin had anything to say about the eagle. Congress, however, did have some issue with the design. The same day they received the committee’s report and proposal, they had it tabled.

Two more committees, neither of which Franklin served on, were formed in 1780 and 1782 and continued work on the seal. The final design and inclusion of the bald eagle was the work of the third committee. Their design was initially similar to the first committee’s, with a central shield flanked by the figures of a soldier and “maiden America.” They then simplified the image and replaced the two figures with a bald eagle “on the wing and rising.” Here again, there’s no record of a complaint from Franklin, who was then serving as an envoy to Paris and hadn’t participated in the seal design process for six years. Franklin probably couldn’t have said anything about the design even if he had wanted to. Congress approved the seal just three weeks after the design was finished, and travel time from Europe to the U.S. at the time was closer to six to eight weeks, leaving no time for there to be a turkey-versus-eagle debate for Franklin to have lost.

So, if Franklin didn’t propose the turkey in committee or argue against the eagle design when it was being considered, where did people get the idea that he was a turkey lover?

It wasn’t until two years after the final seal was designed and approved that Franklin put his feelings about eagles and turkeys down for posterity. In January 1784, he wrote his daughter a letter, the main subject of which was the Society of the Cincinnati, a military fraternity formed by revolutionary war officers. Franklin griped at length about the society, complaining that membership was hereditary and that the group had taken on many of the characteristics of a chivalric order, which contradicted many of the ideals the society’s members had just fought a war to promote and protect.

Eventually, Franklin turned his attention to the society’s badge. Some of the Society’s critics, Franklin said, complained about the badge’s use of Latin. Others found fault with the title for members that it used. And others took issue with the bald eagle that it depicted, which Franklin said looked “too much like a Dindon, or Turkey.”

He wrote:

“For my own part I wish the Bald Eagle had not been chosen as the Representative of our Country. He is a Bird of bad moral Character. He does not get his Living honestly. You may have seen him perch’d on some dead Tree near the River, where, too lazy to fish for himself, he watches the Labour of the Fishing Hawk; and when that diligent Bird has at length taken a Fish, and is bearing it to his Nest for the Support of his Mate and young Ones, the Bald Eagle pursues him and takes it from him. With all this Injustice, he is never in good Case but like those among Men who live by Sharping and Robbing he is generally poor and often very lousy. Besides he is a rank Coward: The little King Bird not bigger than a Sparrow attacks him boldly and drives him out of the District. He is therefore by no means a proper Emblem for the brave and honest Cincinnati of America who have driven all the King birds from our Country, tho’ exactly fit for that Order of Knights which the French call Chevaliers d’Industrie.

“I am on this account not displeas’d that the Figure is not known as a Bald Eagle, but looks more like a Turkey. For in Truth the Turkey is in Comparison a much more respectable Bird, and withal a true original Native of America. Eagles have been found in all Countries, but the Turkey was peculiar to ours, the first of the Species seen in Europe being brought to France by the Jesuits from Canada, and serv’d up at the Wedding Table of Charles the ninth. He is besides, tho’ a little vain and silly, a Bird of Courage, and would not hesitate to attack a Grenadier of the British Guards who should presume to invade his Farm Yard with a red Coat on.”

In repetitions of the Franklin-turkey story, these passages are often taken out of context and made to seem like public statements by Franklin, or made in direct response to the use of the eagle on the Great Seal, instead of private musings made about the eagle’s use by a military society. And while Franklin does lament the eagle becoming symbolic of both the Society and the United States after the fact, he doesn’t say that the turkey would have been a better choice for the Great Seal; he only suggests that he likes that the Society’s eagle resembles a turkey because the turkey is a “more respectable” bird.

Given his criticism of the Society’s practices, “brave and honest” as its members are, and the line about the turkey being “a little vain and silly” but still “a Bird of Courage” driving out the Red Coats, one might read Franklin’s comparisons as just poking some fun at the Society. Even if you take what Franklin said about both birds at face value, though, the story as it's usually told misses the mark and takes some liberties with both Franklin’s opinions and actions. To portray Franklin in “strenuous opposition to it [the eagle] when the great seal was under consideration” and unsuccessfully advocating to replace it with the turkey, says the American Heraldry Society, “is a gross exaggeration of the historical record.”

Matt Soniak, [l]No, Ben Franklin Didn’t Want a Turkey on the Great Seal[/I], November 27, 2013
[Image: turkey.gif]

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
03-27-2017, 11:50 AM (This post was last modified: 03-27-2017 11:53 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #11
RE: Today's Read Between The Lines...
Q: When is a forum like a cereal box...?

some1 here included in what they Wrote:
3. Working On A Dictionary Will Change The Way You See Cereal Boxes

It will also change the way you see matchbooks, shampoo bottles, barf bags—anything with text on it. Dictionaries must keep up with the language, and lexicographers are trained to notice not just new words, but emerging new uses of old words. They don't just sit around looking through great literature and scientific journals; every piece of text in the culture is another bit of evidence to consider. What sort of uses are quick and cook in the phrase “quick cook steel cut oats”? Evolving new uses? A good lexicographer cannot resist the impulse to clip out and file away the relevant piece of the oatmeal canister on which the phrase appears for future reference.

4. What A Good Dictionary Editor Most Needs Is Best Captured By A German Word: Sprachgefühl.

While anyone setting out to be a dictionary editor would benefit from having a firm grounding in grammar and etymology, it's not a requirement: Editors come from many backgrounds and fields not necessarily related to the study of language. What is a requirement is a quality so elusive yet specific that we had to borrow a German word for it. Sprachgefühl is a “feeling for language” or, Stamper writes,

Quote: "the odd buzzing in your brain that tells you that ‘planting the lettuce’ and ‘planting misinformation’ are different uses of ‘plant,’ the eye twitch that tells you that ‘plans to demo the store’ refers not to a friendly instructional stroll on how to shop but to a little exuberance with a sledgehammer. Not everyone has sprachgefühl, and you don’t know if you are possessed of it until you are knee-deep in the swamp of it."

Sprachgefühl can abandon even the best editors at times, putting them in an odd, confused state of “verbal fatigue” where they are driven to take a break and go searching for another human to confirm that they do, indeed, speak English.

#evolve #anarchy anarky #odd=confused=notsomuch!?

--Sprachgefühl2i (the artist formally known as Captain Crunchspies2i, but also under the surreal professional stage name of CocoPuffs2i)

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)