From: budo@qgtuwa.eu   
      
   New York Libertarians wrote:   
      
   > I know that many liberals are confused, and that they still suppose   
   > there are various alternatives before them. But it isn’t true. At this   
   > point, most of the alternatives that existed a few years ago are gone.   
      
   People need to read what a capitalist *mandate* means, and challenge it in   
   court. A mandate is only binding when it is issued by the holder of a   
   contract, and the agreeing party has entered it, or upon a person   
   similarly bound, such as a criminal under bail and/or held under legal   
   power. It is not an Emperor's command, as from Caesar in Rome. It does not   
   have this meaning and application in the US.   
      
   All these capitalist thugs can do is authorize a recommended action,   
   which citizens can then agree to as if by contract and if they do agree,   
   they can be bound by the terms. Moreover, If anyone presses this   
   contractual power in order to deprive someone of their constitutional   
   rights if they refuse the contract, such as losing their ability to   
   freely travel, etc, then the Official must forfeit their office and   
   authority as an oath breaker (Section 98 Ex Parte Milligan, 71 US 2   
   (1866))   
      
   The capitalism supporters are worse than the capitalists self. They are   
   supporting it for dirt evil. They are scumbag parasites.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)