Comments on: Tex(as), Lies and Videotape

By: » Tex(as), Lies and Videotape

» Tex(as), Lies and Videotape — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:06:29 +0000

[...] Tex(as), Lies and Videotape [...]

By: Week in Review « Craig W. Wright

Week in Review « Craig W. Wright — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 03:24:43 +0000

[...] Tex(as), Lies and Videotape [...]

By: dakealo

dakealo — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:16:38 +0000

And the Tea Party nation has named Perry as their favorite for President. Disgusting. I will give up my membership if Paul doesn't get their support.

All You Need To Know About Tea Partiers: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/168987-poll-…

By: MichaelBoldin

MichaelBoldin — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:48:00 +0000

I REALLY need to start paying attention to context! thank you for clarifying!

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:42:32 +0000

I was contradicting the prior comment that 'flying wasn't a right'. It is a right because someone else allows us to enter their private property. No other authority was needed but the contractual agreement that allowed that transaction to occur. The government uses its force to enforce that agreement and without an agreement then the government can't force the airline to allow you to fly. I'm saying that most positive rights only exist in contractual agreements such as my right to use a cell phone exist because I signed a contract with the cell phone provider. Government can't make that transaction occur so it can neither grant a positive right nor deny a positive right that has been contractually agreed upon.

In other words, the civil authority can't declare flying a right or say that it isn't. Only a contractual agreement between two parties can since the flier can not walk on the plane and the airline can not sell a ticket to him.

By: MichaelBoldin

MichaelBoldin — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 19:13:32 +0000

Are you claiming that the feds somehow have authority to do what they are doing? Seems like you might be conflating a private property contractual agreement with government force. or maybe i misread…

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:21:53 +0000

I'm going to defend Texas's move as prudent since they were not ready for the 'shock and awe' of the federal government by declaring a no fly zone. I believe that a temporary pullback (if that is what this is) is a good idea so that it gives Texas time to adjust to the federal government's strategy. Some of you, I think, seem to believe that texas should get our of their trenches and march headlong into the proverbial machine guns.

Personally, it would be better if states just assumed the right to regulate all air traffic in their states, turn it into a interstate compact, so that the federal government has no power over this.

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:18:16 +0000

Actually, if someone allows you onto an airplane then it is your right to accept. That makes it a right and the only time you are not allowed on an airplane is when the owners say you can not enter the airplane. Do you see what I am saying? We all have contractual rights with others and if they agree then we are allowed whatever they agreed to give us. The right to have food only exist as long as someone else freely decides to give it to you. A right to food does not compel other people to feed you. It only means you can have those things if someone else is willing.

By: KLAUS

KLAUS — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:42:54 +0000

PERRY OF COURSE IS A CROOK, DONT LET HIM FOOL YOU.
ANYONE PARTICIPATING IN A BILDERBERG MEETING (2007 ISTANBUL) IS SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE "NO VOTE" LIST FOR ALL TEXANS.
HE FAVORS THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION, OPEN BORDERS (DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO HIS WORDS) GARDASIL VACCINE MANUFACTURER BRIBED HIM, ETC. ETC .ETC………
HE IS THE PERFECT PUPPET FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING CARTEL (SHADOW GOVERNMENT)

By: Mindcemetery.net

Mindcemetery.net — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 06:00:01 +0000

So if flying isnt a right, do you not have any of the rights of the constitution when flying?