Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

Full story: Newsday 71,707
Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family. Read more
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#64633 Dec 26, 2013
ericfromchi wrote:
<quoted text>You have absolutely no ethics. The post is still there. Link http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/judaism/T...
Now, you hold up your part of the deal.
Criminal, when I click on your link I am taken back to 2007. I made no mention of luggage in 2007. Also your 197551 is a number on the Allah thread but that post has been deleted. See page 9312.

Instead of your attempts at deception give me the post number for the response and copy and paste your response. Show everyone that you are not the as big a SCUM that WE know you to be. Show me that I am mistaken.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#64634 Dec 26, 2013
64540 P2913

1.HughBe---You could give the luggage question a try.

2.Eric, the deceiver---Been there; DONE that

64562 P2914

3.HughBe---Why do you always lie? I have never asked the luggage question prior to now and I have seen no response from you.

4.Eric---What do I get when I show you my response to the luggage question?

5. HughBe--- In number 2 above he said that he had done that meaning answered MY question.

64578 P2915

Eric---The question was not whether I responded to you but whether I responded to the luggage question.

----------
HughBe--- Normal people would expect to get a DIRECT response to their questions but this fellow is ABNORMAL and thinks that I am strange to think it odd that he responded to another person besides the one who asked the question. Why did that IDIOT Eric "respond" to someone else and not to my question?.

I asked a question and so should not that IDIOT respond to me as others did including Buford and BMZ.

I have yet to see the deceiver's response.

Since: Dec 13

Mount Prospect, IL

#64635 Dec 26, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Criminal, when I click on your link I am taken back to 2007. I made no mention of luggage in 2007. Also your 197551 is a number on the Allah thread but that post has been deleted. See page 9312.
Instead of your attempts at deception give me the post number for the response and copy and paste your response. Show everyone that you are not the as big a SCUM that WE know you to be. Show me that I am mistaken.
What in the hell are you talking about? Go back to your own post No. 64613. You used the reply function. Everything you asked for is contained therein.

I just checked the Allah thread. Although you unethical slime excuse for a person had my post deleted it's still in the cache for the site. Here it is again (note the update on the date):

ericfromchi

Since: Dec 13
196
Arlington Heights, IL
Reply »|Report Abuse|Judge it!|#197551Tuesday Dec 24

Alex WM wrote:
<quoted text>
Greetings dear HughBe, long time! Hope you are well.
Good question indeed.
As long as the rest of the baggage is not excessive, s/he should not pay for a piece of essential medical equipment to combat a life-threatening disease.
Hope it helps.
All the best for the Season to you and your loved ones.
Alex
Example

There are no weight limits or overweight charges for personal wheelchairs, mobility aids and medical equipment but please check our special assistance information for some rules and requirements.

http://www.britishairways.com/en-lb/informati ...

IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE SO DISHONEST AS TO HAVE MY POST DELETED, YOU HAD BETTER HAVE THEM DELETE THE CACHE TOO. WHEN YOU DON'T, MY PRIOR POST IS STILL ACCESSIBLE.

You have now shown your true colors. When you get caught, you have the prior post deleted. Then you challenge people to show the post knowing you had it deleted. You've done it twice now to me. But you have forgotten that the original post is still contained in replies. And you have forgotten that the cache is still available. You are scum.

I expected you to renege on your promise. I didn't expect you to go to such lengths of dishonesty.

I do not blame the Christians or the Jamaicans for your lack of ethics and honesty. It's all on your shoulders.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#64636 Dec 26, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>

Ok, boy-CRUFF.
Oiled your butt?

Bend, it's the holidays, Monny.

I want to sodomize you, Cruff.

(winks)

Since: Dec 13

Mount Prospect, IL

#64637 Dec 26, 2013
HughBe wrote:
HughBe--- Normal people would expect to get a DIRECT response to their questions but this fellow is ABNORMAL and thinks that I am strange to think it odd that he responded to another person besides the one who asked the question. Why did that IDIOT Eric "respond" to someone else and not to my question?.
I asked a question and so should not that IDIOT respond to me as others did including Buford and BMZ.
I have yet to see the deceiver's response.
Because I was not responding to you at the time.

And, shortly I won't be responding to you again.

You have no ethics. You are dishonest. When you are shown to be wrong, you cheat. You have the posts deleted. How much did it cost you to have the posts deleted so quickly? What offense did you tell topix that I committed? I guess the best way to have me silenced is to attempt to have me banished.

Piece of chicken drek.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#64638 Dec 26, 2013
ericfromchi wrote:
<quoted text>What in the hell are you talking about? Go back to your own post No. 64613. You used the reply function. Everything you asked for is contained therein.
I just checked the Allah thread. Although you unethical slime excuse for a person had my post deleted it's still in the cache for the site. Here it is again (note the update on the date):
ericfromchi
Since: Dec 13
196
Arlington Heights, IL
Reply »|Report Abuse|Judge it!|#197551Tuesday Dec 24
Alex WM wrote:
<quoted text>
Greetings dear HughBe, long time! Hope you are well.
Good question indeed.
As long as the rest of the baggage is not excessive, s/he should not pay for a piece of essential medical equipment to combat a life-threatening disease.
Hope it helps.
All the best for the Season to you and your loved ones.
Alex
Example
There are no weight limits or overweight charges for personal wheelchairs, mobility aids and medical equipment but please check our special assistance information for some rules and requirements.
http://www.britishairways.com/en-lb/informati ...
IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE SO DISHONEST AS TO HAVE MY POST DELETED, YOU HAD BETTER HAVE THEM DELETE THE CACHE TOO. WHEN YOU DON'T, MY PRIOR POST IS STILL ACCESSIBLE.
You have now shown your true colors. When you get caught, you have the prior post deleted. Then you challenge people to show the post knowing you had it deleted. You've done it twice now to me. But you have forgotten that the original post is still contained in replies. And you have forgotten that the cache is still available. You are scum.
I expected you to renege on your promise. I didn't expect you to go to such lengths of dishonesty.
I do not blame the Christians or the Jamaicans for your lack of ethics and honesty. It's all on your shoulders.
OF, I need to talk to intelligence and integrity now.

Bi.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#64639 Dec 26, 2013
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
<quoted text>
Oiled your butt?
Bend, it's the holidays, Monny.
I want to sodomize you, Cruff.
(winks)
I am fully aware of that, it is my magnetism. Please try and control your strong unnatural desires.

Much love, Mon

Since: May 13

Location hidden

#64640 Dec 26, 2013
I am going out. Bye. Later.

Since: Dec 13

Mount Prospect, IL

#64641 Dec 26, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
OF, I need to talk to intelligence and integrity now.
Bi.
Don't look in the mirror then.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#64642 Dec 26, 2013
JOEL THUMBS UP wrote:
I am going out. Bye. Later.
Later
Abolish The Fed

Baltimore, MD

#64643 Dec 26, 2013
ericfromchi wrote:
<quoted text>Yes it is. Supreme Court said so in Citizens United v. FEC.
So let's stop playing semantics and give us an example of a privilege accorded only to corporations.
You are a real fucking idiot.
The ruling is summarized as people acting through corporations, has nothing to do with corporations being citzens.
If you look at the definition of a citzen that will shed some light on the discussion.

In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168, 180 (1868), the Court pointed out that “it was the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned” The Court went on to say that “Special privileges enjoyed by citizens in their own States are not secured in other States by this provision.” Paul at 181. The Court found that a “corporation” was not a “citizen” within the meaning of the PIC4, but rather a grant of special privileges by the home state. So it was established early on that while the protection afforded by the Commerce Clause was wide-reaching insofar as it applies to corporations and other entities as well as individuals, the PIC4 protection would extend only to individual persons.
nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/C...

Since: Dec 13

Mount Prospect, IL

#64644 Dec 26, 2013
Abolish The Fed wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a real fucking idiot.
The ruling is summarized as people acting through corporations, has nothing to do with corporations being citzens.
If you look at the definition of a citzen that will shed some light on the discussion.
In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168, 180 (1868), the Court pointed out that “it was the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned” The Court went on to say that “Special privileges enjoyed by citizens in their own States are not secured in other States by this provision.” Paul at 181. The Court found that a “corporation” was not a “citizen” within the meaning of the PIC4, but rather a grant of special privileges by the home state. So it was established early on that while the protection afforded by the Commerce Clause was wide-reaching insofar as it applies to corporations and other entities as well as individuals, the PIC4 protection would extend only to individual persons.
nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/C...
You know, the Supreme Court has the power to change it's mind. Further, it appears that the current court believes that as far as the First Amendment is concerned - and we are talking about the First Amendment and not the Commerce Clause - that corporations are protected by the First Amendment.

Now let's stop running from the question. What privilege do Corporations have that everyone else doesn't? That's your basis for turning private action into government action. So, let's have it. Name a privilege that Corporations enjoy that everyone else doesn't.
Abolish The Fed

Baltimore, MD

#64645 Dec 26, 2013
A corporation is not afforded any right or privilege against self-incrimination by the Fifth Amendment. Hale V. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 75 (1906). The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a personal right, reserved only to a “natural person”, who must directly assert the privilege.**Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 89 (1974).

If a corporation was a citizen it would be afforded 5th amendment protection.

Since: Nov 13

Denver, CO

#64646 Dec 26, 2013
Abolish The Fed wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference is public relations.
rabbee: just like i said," not a lot". just a matter of who has the better, fantasy version of themselves.

Since: Dec 13

Mount Prospect, IL

#64647 Dec 26, 2013
And, ATF, the Supreme Court directly overruled the finding in Paul v. VA in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association 322 U.S. 533 (1944).

Since: Dec 13

Mount Prospect, IL

#64648 Dec 26, 2013
Abolish The Fed wrote:
A corporation is not afforded any right or privilege against self-incrimination by the Fifth Amendment. Hale V. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 75 (1906). The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is a personal right, reserved only to a “natural person”, who must directly assert the privilege.**Bellis v. United States, 417 U.S. 85, 89 (1974).
If a corporation was a citizen it would be afforded 5th amendment protection.
Now let's stop running from the question. What privilege do Corporations have that everyone else doesn't? That's your basis for turning private action into government action. So, let's have it. Name a privilege that Corporations enjoy that everyone else doesn't.
Abolish The Fed

Baltimore, MD

#64649 Dec 26, 2013
ericfromchi wrote:
<quoted text>You know, the Supreme Court has the power to change it's mind. Further, it appears that the current court believes that as far as the First Amendment is concerned - and we are talking about the First Amendment and not the Commerce Clause - that corporations are protected by the First Amendment.
Now let's stop running from the question. What privilege do Corporations have that everyone else doesn't? That's your basis for turning private action into government action. So, let's have it. Name a privilege that Corporations enjoy that everyone else doesn't.
What a stupid question, a corporation has a privilege to operate as an entity within the host state by statute.
And that privilege can be revoked.
Its existence is a privilege.
A citizen can not operate as a proprietorship without having his personal assets amenable to suit.
Abolish The Fed

Baltimore, MD

#64650 Dec 26, 2013
ericfromchi wrote:
By the way ATF (wow deja vu), your argument that the government bestowing a power upon someone makes that person's actions governmental has been shot down again and again by the courts. One instance I remember from law school is where someone tried to argue that repos had to accord the debtor due process was summarily shot down by the 9th Circuit. Court spelled out the difference between State Action and Private Action.
Adams v. Southern California First National Bank, 492 F.2d 324 (1974).
Read this http://www.uakron.edu/dotAsset/56e69c29-514f-...
The decision just killed the law professors because they had used the District Court decision for our appellate moot court case.
Why would a company have to afford due process to an individual that they were in contract with and that did not hold title/ownership to the property?

Since: Nov 13

Denver, CO

#64652 Dec 26, 2013
Abolish The Fed wrote:
<quoted text>
Corporations wouldn't exist if governments didn't exist.
rabbee: just who are you trying to fool with that illusion - yourself or me? giving them a fancy name, so you can tax them does not mean they did not pre-exist. in fact governments try to thwart corporations, and companies, from becoming more powerful than they. ever hear, of the anti-trust laws?

Since: Dec 13

Mount Prospect, IL

#64653 Dec 26, 2013
Abolish The Fed wrote:
<quoted text>
What a stupid question, a corporation has a privilege to operate as an entity within the host state by statute.
And that privilege can be revoked.
Its existence is a privilege.
A citizen can not operate as a proprietorship without having his personal assets amenable to suit.
And a corporation cannot operate without having its personal assets amenable to suit. Using your own statement previously, it is the shareholders that enjoy the personal asset protection and not the corporation. The corporation is the same as anyone else. Its assets are amenable to suit, to use your phrase. No different than anyone else.

Now tell me how a corporation can have the ability to operate revoked except by failure to renew its charter/articles. And not renewing is an act of its owners not the government.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
where can I find heroin in monterey? Mar 27 Rosiedosie 7
News Homicide suspect Victor Cabrera has long histor... (Oct '08) Mar 24 mando 12
News Carmel waste broker accused of bribery (Dec '08) Mar 20 Gary 16
Review: Salazar Auto Repair (Sep '13) Mar 10 fed up 3
News Ezekiel Lopez-Figueroa at his sentencing this m... (Dec '11) Mar 5 Carlos Slim 14
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Mar 3 Joe Balls 1,530
News Dual language immersion program offered for kin... (Jan '10) Mar 3 fed up 30
Monterey Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Monterey People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]