Just a liberal reminder

[Sue U]

Isn't that what I said above, but with less words??

Fewer, dear; fewer.

[wesw]

is that semi-colon really necessary ?

[Lord Jim]

Wading into this morass, reluctantly (very reluctantly):

Lib:

Though the points you are attempting to make are not clearly made, I believe I have got a hold of at least one of them...

It seems to me that you are defining "sovereign" as "ultimate authority"....

Laying aside all the problems with that definition as a matter of established case law, (which defines "sovereign" in different ways in different situations) the individual states do not meet your definition of "sovereign"...that matter has been settled...

(See US History, 1861-1865)

It is well established by the courts that no law passed by any state can trump (an unfortunate word to use in the current political environment) federal law. If an individual state passes a law that conflicts with federal law, it is the federal law that prevails.

So, even using your somewhat flawed definition of "sovereign" as "ultimate authority" the individual states don't meet that criteria any more that towns, cities, counties etc....

ETA:

You may personally think they should, but the reality is they don't....

[liberty]

the federal govt has assumed powers far greater than were envisioned by our founders and has assumed powers that are relegated to the separate states in the constitution, and the supreme court has played a role in that usurpation of powers.



I think that this is his point, but I m often wrong....

That is pretty close, but only in part. This thread was meant to be series reminders that might foretell the coming catastrophe this country faces, at least it was until we took a side trip to DC.

Point 1

Power is dangerous; the people need to retain power, because government can not be trusted. Each sovereign government the people have created need’s to be kept with in it’s area of responsibilities. Also the two governments need to do a better job of monitoring and controlling their own creations.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Side trip to DC? The principal part of your OP is this:

There is only one thing wrong with the definition: D.C. is not a part of the federation any more than a city is a part of a state. The district is a creation of the federal government on land that is on loan from the state of Maryland. The US Government could abolish the current district, return the land to Maryland and relocate DC to any other federal territory. The district does not have a sovereign government and therefore has no right to exist.

That's twaddle - you got called to explain it - and you cannot because it's twaddle.

As to your Point 1, aside from the excessive apostrophes (this really is quite easy to avoid), can you possible make a coherent point out of it?

Power is dangerous - ho hum, next

The people need to retain power - how, what, where, when? I retain water, myself. Less dangerous.

Government can not (sic) be trusted - ho hum, next

Government needs to be kept within its area of responsibility - no apostrophes. How, what, where, when?

Also the two governments (Which two? There are two?) need to do a better job monitoring their creations - what creations? And ho hum, so what, next

Are you reading slogans from a Trump site? What?

[Lord Jim]

aside from the excessive apostrophes

Maybe he could lend some to wes...

[wesw]

no thanks. I am opposed to excessive apostrophes.

I don t even like recommended apostrophes.

I prefer a barely sufficient amount of apostrophes.

I use 'em sparingly.

[Scooter]

Since some people are having trouble understand let me use an analogy:

A family is composed of related people, mother, father, brother and sister. The house they live in is not a part of the family; it is just real estate.

Does that make it clear?

No, because your analogy is bullshit, just like everything else you say.

The Smith family can move from one house to another and they will still be the Smith family. Someone who moves into the house occupied by the Smith family does not become a member of the Smith family just by virtue of living in that house for a certain number of years, nor is any child born to that person in the Smith family's house considered a member of the Smith family just because they were born there.

Whether you like it or not, a nation state is defined by the land upon which it sits as much as by anything else. The citizens of the United States of America cannot collectively pull up stakes. relocate to another part of the globe, and decide that their new location is the United States of America. U.S. citizens are composed almost exclusively of those who were either (a) born on land belonging to the United States of America, or (b) entered into such land and lived there for such time and under such conditions as was required for them to become citizens.

Whether you like it or not, the District of Columbia is, was, and forever shall be part of the United States of America.

until we took a side trip to DC

Excuse me? You created an OP that was almost in its entirety a pathetic attempt to assert that DC is not a part of the USA, and now that you have had your ass handed to you fifteen ways from Sunday on that subject, you have decided that it wasn't what you really wanted to talk about after all. And you wonder why you are the object of mockery.

Keep 'em coming, lib. Reading the latest asininery that spews forth from your keyboard is easily 90% of the laughs that we all get from coming here.

[liberty]

Iran has only one leader who’s opinion matters.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/w
orld/irans-supreme-leader-bans-negotiations-with-the-united-states/ar-Afdxbl?ocid=spartandhp

Iran's supreme leader bans negotiations with the United States © Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader via AP In this picture released by the official website of the office of the Iranian supreme leader on Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2015, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei attends a graduation ceremony of… Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Wednesday banned any further negotiations between Iran and the United States, putting the brakes on moderates hoping to end Iran's isolation after reaching a nuclear deal with world powers in July.
Khamenei, the highest authority in the Islamic Republic, already said last month there would be no more talks with the United States after the nuclear deal, but has not previously declared an outright ban.
His statements directly contradict those of moderate Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who says his government is ready to hold talks with the United States on how to resolve the conflict in Syria, where the two countries back opposing sides.
"Negotiations with the United States open gates to their economic, cultural, political and security influence. Even during the nuclear negotiations they tried to harm our national interests.," Khamenei was quoted as saying on his website.
"Our negotiators were vigilant but the Americans took advantage of a few chances," he said.
Although he supported the last 18 months of negotiations, Khamenei has not publicly endorsed the nuclear agreement with the United States, Germany, France, Britain, China and Russia that settled a standoff of more than a decade.
The West feared Iran wanted to develop nuclear weapons, suspicions Tehran denies.
The agreement, which curbs Iran's nuclear program in exchange for crippling sanctions being lifted, was welcomed by Iranians who are keen to see their living standards improve and better relations with the rest of the world.
It was also a great political victory for Rouhani and his faction in Iran ahead of some key elections next year and as such has deepened the divide in Iran's complex power structure between moderates and hardliners.
"CRITICAL SITUATION"
In his address to Revolutionary Guards Navy commanders, Khamenei said talks with the United States brought only disadvantages to Iran.
"Through negotiations Americans seek to influence Iran ... but there are naive people in Iran who don't understand this," Khamenei was quoted as saying to the IRGC commanders, who are also running much of Iran's military involvement in Syria.
Hundreds of Iranian troops arrived in Syria last month, sources told Reuters, where they will join government forces and their Lebanese Hezbollah allies in a major ground offensive backed by Russian air strikes.
The West dispute the aims of Russia's air campaign, which is causing friction between Moscow and NATO.
"We are in a critical situation now as the enemies are trying to change the mentality of our officials and our people on the revolution and our national interests," Khamenei told the Guards.
Khamenei often invokes an unspecified "enemy" when talking about Western powers, particularly the United States and Israel, which he suspects of plotting to overthrow the Islamic Republic.
His comments might invigorate the hardline lawmakers seeking the impeachment of Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif over shaking hands with U.S. President Barack Obama on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly.
"On and off the record, it was an accident," Zarif said in an interview with New Yorker on Tuesday.
"It has already cost me at home. But everything I do costs me at home, so this is not an aberration."
(Reporting by Bozorgmehr Sharafedin; Editing by Toby Chopra and Raissa

[Econoline]

At the beginning of 1978, Iran had only one leader whose opinion mattered.


And then, by the end of 1979, Iran had only one leader whose opinion mattered.


Just sayin'...

Both the Iranian people and the Iranian "supreme leader" know that (to quote another would-be "supreme leader" ) STUFF HAPPENS...and if it happens once, it can happen again.

[Scooter]

A lifetime of drinking that stumphole whiskey has clearly rotted someone's brain (and I'm not talking about Econoline).

What in the name of high holy fuckpuppets does any of that have to do with anything preceding it in this thread?

Seriously dude, the drugs your psychiatrist is pumping you with to treat your delusional disorder, they ain't working.

[liberty]

At the beginning of 1978, Iran had only one leader whose opinion mattered.


And then, by the end of 1979, Iran had only one leader whose opinion mattered.


Just sayin'...

Both the Iranian people and the Iranian "supreme leader" know that (to quote another would-be "supreme leader" ) STUFF HAPPENS...and if it happens once, it can happen again.

I agree things can happen and some times they can happen almost over night. But I would willing to bet the position of the Ayatollah
is pretty secure. For the same reason his ragtag Islamic militia was able to overwhelm the Shaw’s professional police and military is the same reason he is not likely to be seriously challenged. He has thousands revolutionary guard troops who are fanatically dedicated to his vision of an Islamic state. He may have to give a little around the edges, but he has firm grasp on the basics and there is no doubt who makes the final decisions. You won’t see any gay pride parades in Iran.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I agree things can happen

Oh now, steady on. That's a bit radical.



"But what does it have to do with my city, eh? That's what I'd like to know"

[Econoline]

Ah, but the reason the Iranian revolution happened in the first place is not so much because of Ayatollah Khomeni but rather because of the Iranian people--people who overwhelmingly have a positive attitude toward Americans and American values. I'm sure the Shah and his SAVAK thought their position was secure, too...until it wasn't. Any "supreme leader" who wants to stay in power has to look to the people he is "leading" to determine the direction in which his "followers" can be led. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

[Scooter]

Still waiting to hear how any of this bears on the ridiculous claims made in the OP. Apparently the cat got the village idiot's tongue when it comes to that subject, so now he has to pontificate about Iran,

The drugs in LA must be some pretty good shit to facilitate that stream of consciousness. Junkies of the world take note.

[liberty]

Ah, but the reason the Iranian revolution happened in the first place is not so much because of Ayatollah Khomeni but rather because of the Iranian people--people who overwhelmingly have a positive attitude toward Americans and American values. I'm sure the Shah and his SAVAK thought their position was secure, too...until it wasn't. Any "supreme leader" who wants to stay in power has to look to the people he is "leading" to determine the direction in which his "followers" can be led. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

That is true it was a popular revolution, but the point of the spear was the people who were willing to run head long into the guns and be shoot down. And those where overwhelming the supporter of the Ayatollah. The Shah’s forces were secular and not as eager to die. And those men who where eager to die are the same people that support and protect supreme leader today. Faith has it’s limits, but true truth faith in God can be a very powerful.

The reminder is: There is only one person’s opinion in Iran that matters. What the people feel or think will have no effect on Iran’s foreign policy.

Do you really see a revolution in Iran’s future?

[Scooter]

Do you see yourself returning to the topic of the thread that you created, or are you going to slither away from it as you always do?

[wesw]

liberty it is your thread, talk about whatever you want....

...no matter how silly it is.

[liberty]

Thanks, I always have and will continue to do so. But where is the silly that you refer to; you don’t think that faith can be a powerful force?

[wesw]

lib, the whole thing about DC was kinda cuckoo, silly was just being polite.

as far as iran, yes the revolution in 79 was a popular uprising.

the same was true in 2009 when the people filled the streets shouting "death to atsmydinnerjacket"

the people rose up against the ayatollahs, they poured into the streets in cities across the country

Obama yawned, and didn t offer even words of encouragement, not even as the people were being put down.., savagely

the people don t love the ayatollahs anymore

that was when I first had my doubts about Obama, and whether or not he was some scary thing.

I repeatedly dismissed such ideas. I can do that no longer.

I doubt his patriotism, I doubt his loyalty, I doubt every word or action of his.

he is a disgrace and he wants to destroy us as a nation.

the only question I have is why.