National Sovereignity

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: National Sovereignity

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Apr 07, 2011 6:37 pm

Trouble is, on the paper, the existence of a constitution in the western world means the acknowledgment that a sovereign entity has been created. That's the problem with the EU constitution: it should not be there. I'm perfectly willing to consider that it should have never existed for the colonies as well. We often see that the coalescence of governmental powers is often a political play or a matter of brute force. The stability of some countries is very precarious when it comes to that. Then of course it's a bit more complicated because the EU is effectively seeking to shred nations into smaller entities, and as such it's no surprise that parts of Spain are willing to leave, that Belgium is pretty much revealing its non state nature in successive administrative crisis, and that Italy may very well split into two lands in the nearby future. In essence, the goal is to bring Europe to a state of smaller governmental entities which would give the illusion of a more democracy, only to make an even greater concession to the central European entities, which have largely demonstrated their non democratic and largely corrupted nature. Not to say that the "founding fathers" of the economic European Union were American agents or at the very least formed in the US or founded by the US to sort of copy/paste the model, starting with the CIA supporting the American Committee for United Europe.
Eventually, you'd also see that there are stronger incentives to a very strong western pole wherein North America and the EU would almost fuse together, but still with North America giving all orders. Everything is moving in that direction. The transfer of financial exchanges of peers via the SWIFT system to more than 1271 counter-terrorist agencies in the US is part of this. Eventually, the harmonization of law and educational models is also part of the puzzle. The common scheme in all this? None of this is debated, and people are not part of the decision loop.
In some ways, the USA have clearly feigned the virtue of a sovereign country.
However, many elements, including those that you have presented, show that it is nothing really sovereign, but merely a forced agglomeration and used as a tool.

User1601
Bridge Officer
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: National Sovereignity

Post by User1601 » Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:27 am

WOW. Just... wow. We'll stick with the only coherent sentence in the above:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Trouble is, on the paper, the existence of a constitution in the western world means the acknowledgment that a sovereign entity has been created.
Source?
The dictionary defines a constitution as "the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or the like, is governed," or "the document embodying these principles."

So "the like" here, would define the federal republic among the original 13 sovereign nations, as described by Vattel above regarding a perpetual confederacy in which each state retains its full sovereignty.

Accordingly, Madison likewise expressly rebukes the notion of consolidation in Federalist #39, writing that "the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."

Likewise, he writes in his 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions, that:
...the term "states" ... means the people composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign capacity... in that sense the Constitution was submitted to the "states;" in that sense the "states" ratified it; and in that sense of the term "states," they are consequently parties to the compact from which the powers of the federal government result. ... The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.
And Madison was the chief author of the Constitution.

Finally, no state ever relinquished or transferred its sovereignty, in the Constitution or elsewhere; nor is there any mention of creating a sovereign state of any kind, but only delegating powers to the Union via the Constitution. And hence, the Union only held sovereignty via the states-- not of its own.

Rather, there is no such thing as "creating a sovereign entity," since this term applies soley to a living person; under the American system, this system was simply the individual people of the state themselves, rather than some designated elite (which Madison also makes clear in Federalist 39); i.e. each individual simply delegates authority to a subordinate government agent, by virtue of his inalienable God-given rights; the state is NOT some abstract corporate entity unto itself, like a corporation.

Accordingly, the Constitution does not name any sovereigns; the term "We the People of the United States" is a commonly misattributed semantic phrase which refers to the states respectively rather than collectively, since-- as clearly shown in Article VII-- only the ratifications of nine or more states were required in order to establish the Constitution... and ONLY between those ratifying states.

So of course, it was impossible to know which states would ratify; originally, the Preamble of the Constution read "That the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia do ordain, declare and establish the following constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity."

But since it wasn't known which 9+ states would ratify, then the phrase "We the People of the United States" was substituted as a semantic generalization for those states which did ratify. (As it turned out, only 11 states ratified by the time of establishment in 1789).

Likewise, the phrase "We the People of the United States" would be meaningless in a collective context; for since the states were individual popularly sovereign nations prior to the Constitution, then no such single "People of the United States" existed which held any sovereign national authority to so "ordain and establish" a Constitution among them.
In short, saying that the Constitution formed the same nation that authorized it, is like claiming that a chicken laid the same egg it hatched from.

So you're really pushing semantics, hanging your hat on a single word here (i.e. "Constitution"), based on an arbitrary claim with zero support... in addition to contradicting the EU's doing that very thing, as well as the wording of the Constitution itself, and all other evidence. Rather, your claim that "nothing really sovereign, but merely a forced agglomeration and used as a tool" is simply so much nihilistic, antidemocratic foil-hat noise; the fact is that the people of the individual states clearly intended for each state to become a sovereign nation unto itself-- and to remain a sovereign nation. If this were not so, then it wouldn't have been necessary for the Jackson and Lincoln administrations to LIE about this fact in order to invade them, claiming the lawful sovereign national authority to do so.
And all law, as any educated person knows, is interpreted solely according to the context of its original intent.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: National Sovereignity

Post by mojo » Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:55 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
SpaceWizard wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Interesting read. I'm quite attached to the principle of a sovereign nation myself. It's by all means one of THE hot topics that matter a lot to North Americans and Europeans.
Read it again: the states ARE sovereign nations, by law; the current regime is an illegal empire established through mass-murder and censorship.
Read again what? You didn't read what I wrote correctly in the first place. You literally reacted to something not even present in the piece you quoted.
i loled

User1601
Bridge Officer
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: National Sovereignity

Post by User1601 » Fri Apr 08, 2011 5:38 am

Trolled is more like it... (calls pet goat to butt mojo off the bridge)

Oh no, I lost me mojo!

ROTFLMAO

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: National Sovereignity

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:43 pm

SpaceWizard wrote:WOW. Just... wow. We'll stick with the only coherent sentence in the above:
What? Perhaps I should reduce my posts to one sentence so you can actually understand what is obviously nowhere complicated to grasp? Not to say that you're certainly the last guy I'd think would have the right to moan about someone else's coherency here.
I don't even know why you are reacting in such a jerky way. Try to be less on the defensive.

Now my error was that I should have pointed out that I meant the existence of a constitution identifying the existence of a larger governing body.
Which means for example that the US constitution would be the one I'm speaking of, instead of any state's exclusive constitution.
I'm also wrong on the fact that I forgot about the confederation model, which doesn't tend to automatically define sovereignty of the higher ruling political body, since components of a confederation are ought to have more power than their "sum". The reason why I didn't think about them is that they're fairly scarce to begin with.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Trouble is, on the paper, the existence of a constitution in the western world means the acknowledgment that a sovereign entity has been created.
Source?
The dictionary defines a constitution as "the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or the like, is governed," or "the document embodying these principles."

So "the like" here, would define the federal republic among the original 13 sovereign nations, as described by Vattel above regarding a perpetual confederacy in which each state retains its full sovereignty.
As far as it goes in your definition, the only two elements that pertain to the political spectrum are state and nation, and if there's a federation of any sort, the political system is generally identified as a republic, which pretty much means that on the paper, officially, it should be sovereign.
Accordingly, Madison likewise expressly rebukes the notion of consolidation in Federalist #39, writing that "the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."
That's fine and all, but you're missing the point that both a national and a federal constitution tend to identify perfect sovereignty of the larger identity.
Things get more murky with a confederation.
Likewise, he writes in his 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions, that:
...the term "states" ... means the people composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign capacity... in that sense the Constitution was submitted to the "states;" in that sense the "states" ratified it; and in that sense of the term "states," they are consequently parties to the compact from which the powers of the federal government result. ... The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.
And Madison was the chief author of the Constitution.

Finally, no state ever relinquished or transferred its sovereignty, in the Constitution or elsewhere; nor is there any mention of creating a sovereign state of any kind, but only delegating powers to the Union via the Constitution. And hence, the Union only held sovereignty via the states-- not of its own.
A quick googling of said constitution seems to say otherwise.
The 1st Article's 8th Section explains the powers of the Congress in the following form:
Article I, Section 8 wrote: To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
...
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
...
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
The last one clearly means the US will have judicial powers as meant in the Law of Nations, clearly identifying the USA as a nation, which in most meanings does point to a sovereign entity, at least in a context of politics and not ethnicity, culture or demographics.
Providing such powers to the Congress would be illogical if the USA were not a nation by rule of this Constitution.
Besides, considering that this section defines a basic framework for the powers of a political organ, the Congress, then it's pretty clear that we're dealing with a nation as a sovereign entity (a state of its own) than some kind of country, which could be understood in different ways, some not implying sovereignty, if the context were different from a political one.

These are the typical powers of a sovereign entity as seen across the world today (and the fact that most EU nations have ceded some of these rights obviously show how they're not sovereign nations anymore). Anyone thinking otherwise while signing this constitution would be a fool.

The Articles of Confederation had very similar wording on the minting of coins, but the use of the word money and Money was different. More, Section 8 has a logic that precisely shows that no state could still possess its own power to mint money.
Indeed, it identifies the sole entity capable of controlling the money as the Congress. The rule is very straight forward. Money is general so it refers to all money, and no state is said to have similar rights.

As an example, when Section 8 makes some concessions to states, it is worded that way:
Article I, Section 8 wrote: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
No such concession is ever made on the money part, and the identity of the money itself is left general, while the Articles of Confederation, it was clear the money coined by power of the Congress was only representative of the US as a confederation.
But this crucial concession over the power of money was already present in the Articles of Confederation, which would really fuel the debate about how much sovereign the states still were.
One could say that the AoC themselves were a clever spin:
Articles of Confederation, Article II wrote: Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
We hit a crucial topic here, in that if the control of money shall determine the sovereignty of a state/nation.

Article IX was quite clear on the topic from the beginning after all:
Articles of Confederation, Article IX wrote: The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective States — fixing the standards of weights and measures throughout the United States — regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States, provided that the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated — establishing or regulating post offices from one State to another, throughout all the United States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office — appointing all officers of the land forces, in the service of the United States, excepting regimental officers — appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the United States — making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations.
Articles of Confederation, Article IX wrote: The united States in congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque or reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the united States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be determined, unless by the votes of the majority of the united States in congress assembled.
That one is quite tricky in fact. Notably because the paragraph jumps between the use of the terms "united States", and "United States", and then some later time has this bit "United States, or any of them", which would imply them = the states (themselves).
Still, technically, this clearly deprives the states from being able to control their own money.

As summarized on this page, "Under the Articles, on paper, the Congress had power to regulate foreign affairs, war, and the postal service and to appoint military officers, control Indian affairs, borrow money, determine the value of coin, and issue bills of credit. In reality, however, the Articles gave the Congress no power to enforce its requests to the states for money or troops, and by the end of 1786 governmental effectiveness had broken down."

I'm not the side of those who think the power to mint your own money defines the very fabric of a sovereign state. So by virtue of the AoC, the last existence of the term sovereign, or any derivative, in any constitution of constitution-like paper of the United States, shall be seen as nothing else but a sheer joke.

After all, what a state is to do if it cannot control its own money?

Answer: zlitch.

Eventually, although I think you're wrong on some points (which I had not even intended to debate but the topic is interesting enough nonetheless), it would still go towards your direction that the texts of the US constitution were the result of a clever spin doctoring, an intellectual fraud which had already started since the AoC.
Rather, there is no such thing as "creating a sovereign entity," since this term applies soley to a living person;
What are you talking about? :|
It can apply to the populace of a nation. That's already a sum of people, not just one living person.
under the American system, this system was simply the individual people of the state themselves, rather than some designated elite (which Madison also makes clear in Federalist 39); i.e. each individual simply delegates authority to a subordinate government agent, by virtue of his inalienable God-given rights; the state is NOT some abstract corporate entity unto itself, like a corporation.

Accordingly, the Constitution does not name any sovereigns; the term "We the People of the United States" is a commonly misattributed semantic phrase which refers to the states respectively rather than collectively, since-- as clearly shown in Article VII-- only the ratifications of nine or more states were required in order to establish the Constitution... and ONLY between those ratifying states.
To clarify that, we need to look at former texts to see if the concept of United States and people were formerly used.
For that, we actually take a look at the AoC, and we do see that there is quite a difference made (as seen in Article IX) between the united States, and the United States as a unique entity.

So the people of the United States would be the people of that unique entity.

Of course, this is where it gets funny, because the entity "United States" of the AoC would obviously not be the same entity as the United States of the US constitution, solely due to the fact that the texts that describe both obviously differ on a great many points.

That said, since the constitution wouldn't really aim at making this part more complex, the United States would obviously be an entity similar, say updated, from the one described in the AoC.

We shall also notice that the few times the term "people" is used -thrice only- it is always presented as referring to the people of the States:

Article IV: "among the people of the different States in this union"
Article IV: "and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State"
Article IX: "of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to"

This clear distinction is completely absent of the USC's Preambule.
It is valid to consider this to mean the "We the People" of said Preambule do no longer represent people of each respective state, but the people of the new entity. Indeed, it is written "We the People of the United States".

Eventually, all this nitpicking is fruitless, since the constitution is titled "The Constitution of the United States", and proceeds to describe what this United States entity is all about, and so it's absolutely clear that "We the People of the United States" is the people of the US.
So of course, it was impossible to know which states would ratify; originally, the Preamble of the Constution read "That the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia do ordain, declare and establish the following constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity."

But since it wasn't known which 9+ states would ratify, then the phrase "We the People of the United States" was substituted as a semantic generalization for those states which did ratify. (As it turned out, only 11 states ratified by the time of establishment in 1789).
Whatever was written first doesn't really matter anymore, since what matters is what is present in the text, not the successive "production" iterations that led to the final draft.
Likewise, the phrase "We the People of the United States" would be meaningless in a collective context; for since the states were individual popularly sovereign nations prior to the Constitution, then no such single "People of the United States" existed which held any sovereign national authority to so "ordain and establish" a Constitution among them.
In short, saying that the Constitution formed the same nation that authorized it, is like claiming that a chicken laid the same egg it hatched from.
Doesn't matter. First because intuitively, people would understand that WtP refers to the people of the USA entity defined by the constitution. Secondly, because even if WtP referred to the USA of the AoC, the USA back then already was a unique "suprastate" entity.

Both ways, the WtP could only refer to a global entity, not each people of each state. It requires some exceptional back bending skull fuckery to get people admit the contrary.
So you're really pushing semantics, hanging your hat on a single word here (i.e. "Constitution"), based on an arbitrary claim with zero support...
I don't think so. It's quite sad that despite having spent less time reading material about the birth of the USA, I have spotted facts that you have missed and largely explain your mistakes.
As a summary of what's written above shows that the AoC bothered to pretend the States were still sovereign entities. The USC completely left such details out.
We've also seen that the USA as defined by the AoC were already taking a lot of essential powers that no sovereign nation should be deprived of. The only reason the initial project failed was because of a lack of a good text, agreements and strong force for the USA to enforce its rules. All of which was largely corrected in the USC.

If you want to claim that under the AoC, the States were realistically sovereign powers, we won't agree. Again, no money, no power. As simple as that. You can pass laws and shit and giggles as much as you want, if you don't have your own money and if you can fix its value and use it for trade with others close or distant states, you're no sovereign in my book.
in addition to contradicting the EU's doing that very thing,
Doing what? Depriving nations of many of their powers? Dude, it's a sandbox secret to everyone. What do you think radical right wing arguments are in Europe (Britain, France, etc.)?
They're about getting the fuck out of the EU for those very reasons. And from what can be seen, every day that passes is worse.
Rather, your claim that "nothing really sovereign, but merely a forced agglomeration and used as a tool" is simply so much nihilistic, antidemocratic foil-hat noise;
It's pretty much a tool since all the laws that matter are generally going in favour of international, industrial and financial powers, with the help of the awfully numerous lobbyists buzzing at the Congress, largely launching wars for nothing but the sole benefit of a few privates hands and some other rich contractors.
As for the money part of it, you must be aware that Federal Reserve is out of the control of the US people.
the fact is that the people of the individual states clearly intended for each state to become a sovereign nation unto itself-- and to remain a sovereign nation.
Clearly?
I see nothing of that in the constitution though, nor even in the AoC imho.
If this were not so, then it wouldn't have been necessary for the Jackson and Lincoln administrations to LIE about this fact in order to invade them, claiming the lawful sovereign national authority to do so.
It's more like he ran this invasion in order to make the retentive states became part of the big family. Some other states had already been brought into the USA by having their "representatives" sign the constitution, no?
And all law, as any educated person knows, is interpreted solely according to the context of its original intent.
Source? :)

User1601
Bridge Officer
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: National Sovereignity

Post by User1601 » Sat Apr 09, 2011 2:21 am

WOW... I've never seen anyone talk through their ass like that!
Amazing.

Seriously, there's a point where the manure just gets so deep, that there's no point in even trying to wade through it anymore... and you passed that point around line 1.

Therefore, I just have to say that you simply have absolutely NO CLUE what you're talking about, and have neither the intellectual honesty or ability to be able to discuss it with any credence whatsoever.
Good luck.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: National Sovereignity

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Apr 09, 2011 6:23 pm

SpaceWizard wrote:WOW... I've never seen anyone talk through their ass like that!
Amazing.

Seriously, there's a point where the manure just gets so deep, that there's no point in even trying to wade through it anymore... and you passed that point around line 1.

Therefore, I just have to say that you simply have absolutely NO CLUE what you're talking about, and have neither the intellectual honesty or ability to be able to discuss it with any credence whatsoever.
Good luck.
Reported for rudeness, trolling and sniping.
You seem to have no will to learn anything.
See ya.

User1601
Bridge Officer
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: National Sovereignity

Post by User1601 » Sat Apr 09, 2011 10:03 pm

Sorry, not even gonna read your crap anymore, you should really go into the fertilizers business... or politics, same thing really. But in real-world debate you can't just make things up, crap them out and expect them to serve as facts-- not while other people have the free-speech right ot reject it, anyway, if they have a smidge of knowledge of the facts-- it doesn't take an informed legal scholar to see through your line of horse-manure; they can SMELL it a mile away.
The three monkeys of Obama-monkey, Curious George and Bonzo-Bill may have made it look easy; but there's only one of each of them, while your type of pseudo-intellectual bull-slingers is a dime-a-dozen: lying on the internet doesn't make you president, just like singing into your hairbrush in front of the mirror doesn't make you Madonna.
Good luck though, you're gonna need it.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: National Sovereignity

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Apr 09, 2011 10:16 pm

SpaceWizard wrote:Sorry, not even gonna read your crap anymore, you should really go into the fertilizers business... or politics, same thing really. But in real-world debate you can't just make things up, crap them out and expect them to serve as facts-- not while other people have the free-speech right ot reject it, anyway;
What the fuck has free speech to do with any of this? Did I deny you the right to argue and engage my arguments? No, you just went through a tantrum and insulted me, among other things. Not to say that you have actually completely failed to debate from there.
You've been warned a great many times since the last week.
I think there's no point really bothering to read your replies if we know that you simply can't handle yourself and will always end being banned because of stupid behaviour.
Simply put, I don't see the point bothering replying to a soon-to-be-exile (not to say that if you're KSW, you already were banned once, and that after an impressive amount of fair warnings).
... the three monkeys of Obama-monkey, Curious George and Bonzo-Bill may have made it look easy, but there's only one of each of them, while your type of pseudo-intellectual bull-slingers is a dime-a-dozen: lying on the internet doesn't make you president, just like singing into your hairbrush in front of the mirror doesn't make you Madonna.
Good luck though, you're gonna need it.
What is the meaning of this? Are you attempting to bait me?

User1601
Bridge Officer
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: National Sovereignity

Post by User1601 » Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:14 am

Ok, since don't listen so well, here's a limerick I wrote JUST for you:

Mr. Oragahn talked through his ass,
passing lies as freely as gas.
Since his bunk made me snore,
I put him on "ignore,"
Now his drivel my screen won't harass.


And if that is not clear enough,
then I'll just say that the shit's tough.
Since you don't have a brain,
Then there's nothing to strain,
Or get going when the going gets rough.


Perhaps someday maybe you'll find,
you're in a self-delusional bind.
then, though I quite doubt it,
maybe you'll figure out that
You're just a legend in your own mind.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: National Sovereignity

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:29 am

SpaceWizard wrote:Ok, since don't listen so well, here's a limerick I wrote JUST for you:

Mr. Oragahn talked through his ass,
passing lies as freely as gas.
Since his bunk made me snore,
I put him on "ignore,"
Now his drivel my screen won't harass.


And if that is not clear enough,
then I'll just say that the shit's tough.
Since you don't have a brain,
Then there's nothing to strain,
Or get going when the going gets rough.


Perhaps someday maybe you'll find,
you're in a self-delusional bind.
then, though I quite doubt it,
maybe you'll figure out that
You're just a legend in your own mind.
I'm merely quoting this just for the sake of it. And to add it to the other reports, of course.

Post Reply