Posted by: graemebird | October 13, 2009

What If A Candidate LOOKED Too Young To Be Eligible/AUSTRALIA ALONE.

The United States does not have a President currently.

Some things are a matter of degree. And no Republic has ever stuck with full fidelity to its constitution, nor to the rule of perfectly objective law.

Such objections to absolutism in judgments aside, it can now be truly said and fair dinkum that the United States is no longer a free association of States (though this might seem rather old news.) But also:

THE UNITED STATES CAN NO LONGER BE SAID TO BE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.

It must be remembered that Saint Ron Reagan withdrew his Evil Empire accusation PRIOR TO the fall of the Soviet Union. This is a comparative call. A balanced call. And a fair call I think though Gorbachev was just a punk really.

And likewise nit-pickers can make the case that the US was never a constitutional republic. Of course it depends how high you raise the bar.

All this aside it is very clear now that:

THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A FREE ASSOCIATION OF SOVEREIGN STATES, IS NOT DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, NOR ANY NATION UNDER LAW, NOR ANY BODY WITH THE SLIGHTEST SEMBLANCE OF LEGITIMACY.

We here in Australia cannot, and therefore MUST NOT, rely on our former great, true and righteous ally. We cannot rely on her. And our diplomats ought only deal with her State Governors. Except when it comes to getting hold of advanced weaponry. And Likewise we ought not buy into this wicked EU. Filthy and wrong from the start, if too jaded to murder people in the millions quite yet.

When we die and must be rebirthed anew, how is it that we must regard a constitution? Supposing a high official position has been prescribed by this constitution? What if someone subjectively LOOKS ineligible?

A very stupid question was lately asked in this regard by a worse than stupid man. Here is the question and my answer to it:

Given the malign history of Republics, and given the HISTORICAL FACT that a democratic Republic is a thing with “short-legs”……… and given further the observation that democratic republics, that are founded on GOOD constitutional precedents, seem to have fallen foul in a slow tortuous downward drift, from that point at which they let the fidelity to constitutional law morph away……

…… Given all that, if a Presidential candidate showed up, and was something of a mystery, and supposing he INDEED!!!!! looked younger than 35 years……..

Well obviously any concerned citizen of the US would have the absolute and clear right to ask for at least reasonable convergent evidence as to the candidates eligibility.

The question is so stupid it answers itself. Think of the scenario. Think of the scenario where some fellow who looks like he hasn’t yet learned to shave, mystifyingly, and embarrassingly, appears to gain sway over an electorate. The electorate in question subdivided in four, between the wise, the overworked, the unrighteous and the stupid. Wherein the overworked and the wise would normally have a majority against this unknown cuckoo child, supposing the power of the pimping was so prodigious as to take half the overworked votes.

Well under that case you don’t know squat about this kid. He appears so young as not to be able to shave. The only connections you can find for this kid are bad………….

It stands to reason that any US citizen could challenge this hypothetical matter.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Right. Now its time to try and lead you people through the nose again, and try to see if you can resolve something once and for all.

    The Keynesian multiplier. Legitimate doctrine? Or a load of rubbish? Can anyone find any evidence WHATSOEVER for its usefulness as a doctrine. Or for any evidence that that fiscal policy can increase TOTAL spending (as opposed to just nominal GDP.

    Either find evidence for it. Or give it away. Don’t be like Dover, “admitting” things that you have no evidence for. Don’t be like Sinclair before the Senate, quoting a twit like Mankiw, when Mankiw has zero evidence for this jive either.

    Lets have it. Use this doctrine fully. Or put it away forever. Piss or get off the pot. Decide it is bullshit and forever condemn people lying about it. Or prove it is true and useful.

    If you alleged right-wing economists cannot resolve this matter once and for all then WHAT GOOD ARE YOU FOR.

  2. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Here’s an excellent short history of how the public service money-pit known as PARTICLE PHYSICS got so horribly corrupted. So economists. Don’t be afraid and don’t feel you are all alone. You have your public service money pits (for example the doctrine of the Keynesian multiplier) and the physicists have their public service money pits also.

    STOLEN MONEY MAKES SCIENTISTS REALLY STUPID;

    http://www.mauricecotterell.com/gravity1.html

    “Scientists cannot understand why the positive protons in the centre of atoms do not simply spring apart-their positive charges repelling each other. In 1935 a researcher named Yukawa suggested that another…..”

    I started talking about this awhile back. And there were enough physicists around to indeed confirm the idiotic and baseless road the study took. And the billions of wasted dollars involved. This appears to be an internet book. I have no comment on the rest of it. But the rest of that first page is really rather good. It shows the feebleness and baselessness of it all. And it gives you an insight as to how elites work.

    Chodorov
    14 Oct 09 at 9:12 pm
    Leave a Reply

  3. Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “I just caught Shiny lying read handed over at Andrew N’s blog…….”

    Why its Rip Van Cam-bria. Waking up just long enough to figure something out for himself. But he will go to sleep still fervently and unwaveringly supporting the carbon tax. Like the dumbass that he is.

    “LOL of the night. That chick on Q&A who said we had to abolish the coal industry to stop the world from sinking into the oceans.”

    You sure that wasn’t Cambria in drag CL? Don’t forget, he’s a rich airhead and takes pretty good care of himself it must be said.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “3. Existing capitalism is actually pretty shit for most people in the world. (Half live on less than two bucks a day)”

    You see you are never going to get it together unless you get your definitions right. The closest thing to communism in recent times was Hong Kong. It suffered from a rather obvious shortage of land per inflood of migrants, and it had socialist money, in that it linked its dollar to the USD and also allowed fractional reserve.

    Now just don’t be an idiot THR. A bit of mental discipline is required. Let us REWRITE your statement:

    “3. There existing state of affairs is actually pretty shit for most people in the world. (Half live on less than two bucks a day)”

    Here here. I wholeheartedly agree. And though the poorer taxpayers are comparatively well off in Australia, this in no ways mitigates their absolute (as opposed to comparative) deprivation. Which is of course the result of social injustice, not excluding rampant parasitism.

    “You’re as ignorant as you are bigoted, Clown Lad. Hollywood put out heaps of anti-commie films, from at least the 50s onwards.”

    Not thats all rubbish. There was a few indirect ones in the 50’s. But thats about it. On the Waterfront is the only serious one that comes to mind. And that was very mildly anti-commie in that it was in favour of speaking up. Its very hard to think of another serious anti-commie film. I don’t know about those John Wayne movies. More just war movies as opposed to being explicitly anti-commie. You had Red Dawn in the 80’s. Bill Milius always had the right idea about the communists. You had the very evenhanded El Salvador. Hardly and anti-commie flick. Not at least not too soft of them.

    Name names. You are talking nonsense. The Blob? The Zombie flick “The Dead Don’t Die?” If they were anti-commie its all pretty indirect. The communists in Hollywood would just blackball anyone who told the truth about communism. They blackballed Reagan. And his testimony was powerfully short and totally inoffensive. He gets home and his marriage and career are history. From then on its only bedtime for bonzo.

  4. Thank you,
    very interesting article


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: