Should "In God We Trust" Be Taken Off Of US Currency? What Would Follow?

And your appeal to the Constitution is not an appeal to authority?

Please answer the questions that have been posed regarding what you used to purchase that 100+ ounces of silver coins.

 

It is, however it is the law of the land and as such the only authority that matters.

 

Oh Well.... apparently you folks are not keeping up with the current trend in the law. We no longer work according to the "law of the land"... we are now working under the "Admiralty Law" which incorporates such things as the Lex Mercatoria or the Merchants Law.

But thank you for acknowledging that his comment referencing the Constitution was an appeal to authority.

 

None of my financial dealings are of ANY concern to you. Your request is denied.

 

NO YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY. The Borg demands you give out your information!

 

It would be replaced with "In CEOs we trust".

 

Admiralty Law in the United States:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Admiralty

Pay close attention to the last paragraph.

 

I admit that your 'financial dealings' are not any of my concern when in private discussion, EXCEPT for one little thing... YOU brought your 'financial dealings' into the public venue when you expounded on the fact that you had started stacking silver in the amount of 100+ ounces of Silver. Thus, by you bringing those matters into the public forum, you made it not only my concern, but you made it the concern of others on this public forum. Now you refuse to comment on those matters that YOU brought into the forum. In other words, you refuse to provide empirical evidence of a claim that YOU made.

 

Great! We agree. Now move on.

 

So now you resort to altering the text of what I had stated. In my original request, I publish this :

"I admit that your 'financial dealings' are not any of my concern when in private discussion, EXCEPT for one little thing... YOU brought your 'financial dealings' into the public venue when you expounded on the fact that you had started stacking silver in the amount of 100+ ounces of Silver. " My emphasis added during this posting to show that there is an error in what you quoted.

Nowhere in that quoted text in its entirety for that sentence is there to be found a period (.) after the first use of the word concern. You altered the text in the quote that you made in order for you to take my comments out of context. An intentional misrepresentation. A lie.

Your quoted text shows only this within the quote of my text

Falsehoods are not nice things to get involved in.

 

You admitted to: 'I admit that your 'financial dealings' are not any of my concern'. Nothing else needs to be discussed.

Any and all private financial dealings that is divulged by a member of public board should not be questioned by other members. And if another member does indeed want to question the financial dealings of another, that member being questioned has NO obligation to answer. So therefor, everything you said past the words 'not any of my concern' is completely irrelevant, and should be considered 'flaim-baiting'.

Also, you added 'when in private discussion' AFTER I already responded to your post. How quaint that YOU would accuse me of 'falsehoods' after doing that. I guess I have to wait the full 20 minutes from now on in responding to your posts, since you are now know to change your posts AFTER people respond to them.

 

Wrong again. My edit (according to the system clock and recorded at the bottom of that post shows 5:32 PM) your post also shows the same time. Now how could I conceivably edit after your posting if both have the same time stamp on them. My oh my ... how dishonest can you really be? Even in your opening comment above, you still attempt to amend what I actually stated. Tsk Tsk.. Shame on you. You have told another lie.

 

Are you an American? Do you live in America?

 

Last I checked, there is 60 seconds in a minute. More than enough time for me to post my reply and THEN for you to add 4 words. This can be accomplished in 30 seconds or less.

Again, YOU admitted to the fact that my fancially dealings are of no concern to you. The rest of your post does not matter iota after that.

 

Seeing as you are wanting to speculate on what really happened... suppose I were to say that while you were typing, I was entering my edit, and we both submitted during that 60 second span of time. Now who is guilty of what? Potentially, there is the notion that you might have responded in the manner of a reactionary... not putting a lot of thought in what might have happened.

 

So the issue is still open... you did not respond to my edited comment other than to accuse me of wrong doing... when in FACT you do not know that I have committed any wrongful act because you are SPECULATING ... guessing.

 

Dude your total aruement is based on sematics.

 

And your point? Most 'debates' (though I don't like to use that word) get involved in 'semantics'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute

So why do you have an issue with 'semantics'?

 

Read the 1st Amendment and come back.

 

Relevance is what?

 

For what purpose? If you go into a courtroom today and attempt to claim a 'Constitutional Right', you are likely to hear a judge tell you... 'don't talk about the constitution in my courtroom'. Do judges under the Constitution declare ownership of the courtrooms? Anyway, what relevance does the Constitution have with the motto that is placed on currency and coins of the United States? My point is simply this... if you want to gripe about the way government controls the currency of this United States, then you need to address that problem you are having with those that see those issues differently than you and have the authority to control those issues.. Have you got the manhood necessary to wage a war against those in control of this government?

 

Wow, you went from saying the Law of the Land is irrelevant in the governments treatment of religion, to waging war with the government.

Your posts are making less and less sense as we go on.

 

Hey... you and others keep dragging this thread off-topic... so why not go all the way? I see you still avoid the portion where I attempted to bring the discussion back on topic by asking you "Anyway, what relevance does the Constitution have with the motto that is placed on currency and coins of the United States? ", and you completely disregarded that question.

To show you how abandoned the Constitution really is, let me present you with another question: How many states within the 50 states of the Union pay their employees in Gold and Silver coin?
""No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.""

 

Answer my question first.

 

Are you saying that your government should interfere with the free establishment of religion because state employees are compensated via electronic money transfer??

Besides that state employee payment still satisfies the contract clause as long as it's redeemable in gold or silver, this "argument" smells rather fishy. Red herring fishy.

What do those two things have to do with one another besides saying that you personally think it's fine to have a governmental institution make religious preference?