[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

J.A. Henshaw jeff at jhenshaw.com
Wed Mar 27 23:16:39 UTC 2002


Wil Cooley wrote:

> Also Sprach Craighead, Scot D <craighead.scot at vectorscm.com> on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 02:16:14PM PST
> 
>>Wil spoke thusly:
>>
>>>You should have been less disingenuous and said "liberals" instead of
>>>"activists."
>>>
>>I do apologize if I gave anyone the impression that I am not a conservative.
>>That was not my intension.  I believe that the constitution was written
>>intensionally so that the lay person could understand it.  That gives it
>>it's power.  ("We, the people...") It takes a special kind of education to
>>read those same words and think that "is" doesn't really mean "is".
>>
> 
> You never have.  It also takes some special education to know
> that the verb "to coin" doesn't mean "to make coins," even with
> regard to money (sorry Jeff).


"No State shall use anything but gold and silver coin as 
payment for debts'


How do you expect them to follow this and yet use paper money?

Do you deny that the federal reserve system is illegal and 
unconstitutional? That it impoverishes people while it 
enriches bankers?
That usury is unjust and unconstitutional?

They can use paper as long as it is redeemable for gold and 
silver coins.

The paper must be backed by the commodity which has the 
intrinsic value.

A worthless paper note that represents one dollar that the 

US govt owes to the private federal reserve bank is not a dollar;

the banks know this full well; legal tender and lawful money 
are two DIFFERENT things legally.

Common law states a debt can be repaid in "like kind of money".

GHow would the banks like it if you paid back a home loan 
(note) with a note?

They ask for lawful money at foreclosures because people who 
know the difference between those terms have used that as an 
example to prove a point;

See "How to Avoid Foreclosure" By Admiral Laurence P. 
Malone, USN Ret


> 
> If you do believe that it was written intentionally so a lay
> person could interpret it, how do you feel about the education
> required to understand a document written in 200-year-old English?
> How about the inability of the average lay person to not understand
> a fair number of the words in the Constitution, particularly the
> afforementioned difference caused by 200 years of language mutation?
> 
> Wil
> 

The language mutation is intentional for the exact reasons 
you mention, you can guess how I feel about that and the 
dumbing down by the board of education.

Oxford was a good school.

The constitution is a good document.

The problems are not with people being educated and 
literate,  it is the uneducated and illiterate which needs 
fixing.

-- 
Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they 
will have for lunch.





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list