|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 23, 2019 9:59:15 GMT
You're going to get a finite number of warnings on this, people. You're not going to be raptured out, and you're not going to fly away to Mars on a rocket ship with Elon Musk. You're going to stay here and take your medicine.
Will you accept these filthy Satanic laws as legitimate, or will you deny them?
The Herald Erjen has spoken.
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Dec 25, 2019 21:00:21 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2019 11:44:51 GMT
You can keep the first two and the fifth one. I'll go with the others, though, they seem quite reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 27, 2019 18:00:06 GMT
You can keep the first two and the fifth one. I'll go with the others, though, they seem quite reasonable. It doesn't work that way. Read the last one about the Dinim. All seven laws, and their hundreds of sub-laws, go together as one package. It's a Hobson's Choice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2019 18:21:13 GMT
You can keep the first two and the fifth one. I'll go with the others, though, they seem quite reasonable. It doesn't work that way. Read the last one about the Dinim. All seven laws, and their hundreds of sub-laws, go together as one package. It's a Hobson's Choice. Good job it's not applicable to me, then.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 27, 2019 18:31:26 GMT
It doesn't work that way. Read the last one about the Dinim. All seven laws, and their hundreds of sub-laws, go together as one package. It's a Hobson's Choice. Good job it's not applicable to me, then. Are you in a human body? If so, then it's applicable to you. I have a mostly-reliable source who doesn't post on this site but tells me that the Noahide Laws have already been signed into law (in my country anyway) by President Bush (the first one), and they're simply not being enforced yet. When they are enforced, and they will be someday, then the more fool you if you think you can pick and choose the ones you like. The evil men who are behind these laws are deadly serious about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2019 18:49:11 GMT
Good job it's not applicable to me, then. Are you in a human body? If so, then it's applicable to you. No it isn't. For instance, I can blaspheme as much as I like. Look : god's an asshole! He's a big jerk! He's a poopy-pants! So who's coming to do anything about it, Erjen? Nobody, that's who. Well then your mostly reliable source needs to brush up on how the US Government works, because it's not possible for a President to just arbitrarily sign something into law. The President of the USA has no power to enact laws; he can choose to sign or not sign laws that are presented to him by the legislature - which is called the legislature specifically because they create the laws, not the President. So I'm afraid your mostly reliable source is just flat-out factually wrong when he says Bush signed the US up to a set of laws. Bush didn't have the power to do so. And even if he somehow had, such laws would fail the constitutional test and be struck down by the supreme court. Which the President cannot prevent. No, they are not. The whole thing is a sham; yet another fantasy to let people like you feel important and in the know, when in truth you're out of your depth and flailing hard. Grow up. You'll feel better for it in the end.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 27, 2019 19:04:45 GMT
Are you in a human body? If so, then it's applicable to you. No it isn't. For instance, I can blaspheme as much as I like. Look : god's an asshole! He's a big jerk! He's a poopy-pants! So who's coming to do anything about it, Erjen? Nobody, that's who. Well then your mostly reliable source needs to brush up on how the US Government works, because it's not possible for a President to just arbitrarily sign something into law. The President of the USA has no power to enact laws; he can choose to sign or not sign laws that are presented to him by the legislature - which is called the legislature specifically because they create the laws, not the President. So I'm afraid your mostly reliable source is just flat-out factually wrong when he says Bush signed the US up to a set of laws. Bush didn't have the power to do so. And even if he somehow had, such laws would fail the constitutional test and be struck down by the supreme court. Which the President cannot prevent. No, they are not. The whole thing is a sham; yet another fantasy to let people like you feel important and in the know, when in truth you're out of your depth and flailing hard. Grow up. You'll feel better for it in the end. Representative government is a sham.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 27, 2019 19:12:20 GMT
Revelation 10Seven Thunders. Seven Laws. Sweet as honey in the mouth. Bitter after being swallowed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2019 19:13:22 GMT
No it isn't. For instance, I can blaspheme as much as I like. Look : god's an asshole! He's a big jerk! He's a poopy-pants! So who's coming to do anything about it, Erjen? Nobody, that's who. Well then your mostly reliable source needs to brush up on how the US Government works, because it's not possible for a President to just arbitrarily sign something into law. The President of the USA has no power to enact laws; he can choose to sign or not sign laws that are presented to him by the legislature - which is called the legislature specifically because they create the laws, not the President. So I'm afraid your mostly reliable source is just flat-out factually wrong when he says Bush signed the US up to a set of laws. Bush didn't have the power to do so. And even if he somehow had, such laws would fail the constitutional test and be struck down by the supreme court. Which the President cannot prevent. No, they are not. The whole thing is a sham; yet another fantasy to let people like you feel important and in the know, when in truth you're out of your depth and flailing hard. Grow up. You'll feel better for it in the end. Representative government is a sham. Here. It's in youtube form, so you can't disagree with it :
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 27, 2019 19:25:19 GMT
Representative government is a sham. Here. It's in youtube form, so you can't disagree with it : Yes, I can disagree with it. That's the same stuff that was shoveled on us in 9th grade civics class, but I didn't know any better then. Also, there's quite a lot on YouTube that I disagree with, and I've posted some of it on the RFS and Politics boards occasionally. I plan to still be alive ten years from now, although I'd prefer to have done with it and leave. If you're still alive ten years from now and can still tell me that nothing has changed, please do so, and I'll concede that I was wrong. I say that most people will accept these Noahide Laws in their entirety, and they will be the laws of the world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2019 19:28:30 GMT
Here. It's in youtube form, so you can't disagree with it : Yes, I can disagree with it. Nope. Youtube, so you agree. Stop lying.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 27, 2019 19:30:18 GMT
Yes, I can disagree with it. Nope. Youtube, so you agree. Stop lying. Do you know what an executive order is?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2019 19:42:42 GMT
Nope. Youtube, so you agree. Stop lying. Do you know what an executive order is? Oh, suddenly the civics lessons are true after all? Yes, I know what an executive order is. Which is how I know that they are 1) limited to the management of the Federal government, and 2) can't be used by the President to violate the law. For example, in 1995 President Clinton issued Executive Order 12954, which prevented the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll. Note, it had no power to arrest strike breakers, or shoot them, or stop state governments from hiring them, or stop private companies from hiring them. It could only say "if you have striker breakers working for you, you can't work for the Federal Government" - because Executive orders can only regulate how the Federal Government works. And in this case, the courts ruled that Executive Order 12954 was in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, an actual law, and invalidated the order. And there wasn't a thing President Clinton could do about that. So the courts struck down an EO because it violated a labour law, but if a President used one to literally start murdering people for blasphemy... well, obviously that would be just fine. Courts wouldn't have the slightest bit of an issue with that one even though it would violate multiple laws, including at least a couple of the most important parts of the Constitution, right? For Pete's sake man, I'm a foreigner that's never even set foot in your country and I know how this stuff works. Does it not embarrass you at all to be this clueless?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 27, 2019 19:46:20 GMT
Do you know what an executive order is? Oh, suddenly the civics lessons are true after all? Yes, I know what an executive order is. Which is how I know that they are 1) limited to the management of the Federal government, and 2) can't be used by the President to violate the law. For example, in 1995 President Clinton issued Executive Order 12954, which prevented the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll. Note, it had no power to arrest strike breakers, or shoot them, or stop state governments from hiring them, or stop private companies from hiring them. It could only say "if you have striker breakers working for you, you can't work for the Federal Government" - because Executive orders can only regulate how the Federal Government works. And in this case, the courts ruled that Executive Order 12954 was in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, an actual law, and invalidated the order. And there wasn't a thing President Clinton could do about that. So the courts struck down an EO because it violated a labour law, but if a President used one to literally start murdering people for blasphemy... well, obviously that would be just fine. Courts wouldn't have the slightest bit of an issue with that one even though it would violate multiple laws, including at least a couple of the most important parts of the Constitution, right? For Pete's sake man, I'm a foreigner that's never even set foot in your country and I know how this stuff works. Does it not embarrass you at all to be this clueless? I'm not clueless. Representative government is a sham.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2019 19:48:06 GMT
Oh, suddenly the civics lessons are true after all? Yes, I know what an executive order is. Which is how I know that they are 1) limited to the management of the Federal government, and 2) can't be used by the President to violate the law. For example, in 1995 President Clinton issued Executive Order 12954, which prevented the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll. Note, it had no power to arrest strike breakers, or shoot them, or stop state governments from hiring them, or stop private companies from hiring them. It could only say "if you have striker breakers working for you, you can't work for the Federal Government" - because Executive orders can only regulate how the Federal Government works. And in this case, the courts ruled that Executive Order 12954 was in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, an actual law, and invalidated the order. And there wasn't a thing President Clinton could do about that. So the courts struck down an EO because it violated a labour law, but if a President used one to literally start murdering people for blasphemy... well, obviously that would be just fine. Courts wouldn't have the slightest bit of an issue with that one even though it would violate multiple laws, including at least a couple of the most important parts of the Constitution, right? For Pete's sake man, I'm a foreigner that's never even set foot in your country and I know how this stuff works. Does it not embarrass you at all to be this clueless? I'm not clueless. Representative government is a sham. Because Youtube said so. So explain to me how it works. One day somebody will decide to enforce these laws... and all the cops and courts will just go along with it? Just because?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 27, 2019 19:53:32 GMT
I'm not clueless. Representative government is a sham. Because Youtube said so. So explain to me how it works. One day somebody will decide to enforce these laws... and all the cops and courts will just go along with it? Just because? Because they'll either want the laws or they'll be afraid to not enforce them, I should think. Not a lot different from today or any other time in that regard. The part of one of my previous posts that you saw fit to omit from your reply....I meant it. You say this is impossible? I say tell me the same in ten more years. I can wait. Patience is one of the virtues, you know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2019 20:03:22 GMT
Because they'll either want the laws or they'll be afraid to not enforce them, I should think. Not a lot different from today or any other time in that regard. So this depends on the idea that hundreds of thousands of cops will just all decide to start murdering people one day, because the President tells them to? And thousands of judges will decide to just go along with it? Not to mention hundreds of thousands of jurors? Or is the idea that the cops will go all Judge Dredd on you? It's beyond impossible. It's nonsensical. It's not just not going to happen, there is literally no way it possibly could happen. All that rapture/armageddon/end times stuff - there's a reason it's impossible to depict it in a movie or book without it coming across as ridiculously stupid, you know. Because it IS ridiculously stupid. And we both know that in ten years from now, you'll just make a feeble excuse and start telling me it will happen by 2040. I've been around to remember how long you bleated about how 2012 would be the end of the world. When it didn't happen, exactly as I told you it wouldn't, you just shut up about it and moved on to the next insanity. Same with the FEMA death camps, the WalMart death camps, the chemtrails, all that bullshit. You latch onto whatever the crazies are posting on youtube lately, and it becomes gospel until it fails. Then it's the next crazy.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 27, 2019 20:09:47 GMT
Because they'll either want the laws or they'll be afraid to not enforce them, I should think. Not a lot different from today or any other time in that regard. So this depends on the idea that hundreds of thousands of cops will just all decide to start murdering people one day, because the President tells them to? And thousands of judges will decide to just go along with it? Not to mention hundreds of thousands of jurors? Or is the idea that the cops will go all Judge Dredd on you? It's beyond impossible. It's nonsensical. It's not just not going to happen, there is literally no way it possibly could happen. All that rapture/armageddon/end times stuff - there's a reason it's impossible to depict it in a movie or book without it coming across as ridiculously stupid, you know. Because it IS ridiculously stupid. And we both know that in ten years from now, you'll just make a feeble excuse and start telling me it will happen by 2040. I've been around to remember how long you bleated about how 2012 would be the end of the world. When it didn't happen, exactly as I told you it wouldn't, you just shut up about it and moved on to the next insanity. Same with the FEMA death camps, the WalMart death camps, the chemtrails, all that bullshit. You latch onto whatever the crazies are posting on youtube lately, and it becomes gospel until it fails. Then it's the next crazy. Not the President. The buck will go a lot higher. The camps are still there, and they were there even when you and your kind were saying they didn't exist. End of the world in 2012...no, that's a complete lie. In fact I've gone on record more than once as saying that the world isn't going to end for a good long time. There is going to be a rapture, but it won't be of God. I advise people to not fall for it. It won't be an uneventful ten years. I'll certainly find more to post about, thus making more work for you. Isn't that nice?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2019 20:15:59 GMT
Not the President. The buck will go a lot higher. There have never been FEMA death camps. And I do not have a "kind". It's what you said. In ten years, will you claim that you never said any of this, too? It's not work, my delusional friend. More of a hobby. If it were work, I'd want paying for it.
|
|