-
It's a tad lengthy, but I found this one (which was originally posted on the Lew Rockwell site, apparently) which puts a real spin on what "freedoms" we really have here in the good 'ole US of A:
USA: Thank Goodness I Live in a Free Country
Date Posted: Sunday 28-Dec-2008
Submitted by S. Bellizzi:
December 27, 2008
Thank Goodness I Live in a Free Country
by Don Cooper, don@qaoss.com
I was talking with some friends over the Christmas holiday break and they were commenting on how lucky we are that we live in a free country where we have the liberty and the opportunity to live our lives the way we want and are not controlled by the government like in other countries.
So I started thinking about a particular day of mine a couple months ago:
I woke up in the morning in my FHA (Federal Housing Administration) approved home that was built in accordance with USDOE (Deptartment of Energy), FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), and numerous CFRs (Code of Federal Regulations).
I went to the bathroom to clean up for work. I showered with soap, shampoo and other toiletry products that have been approved for me by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) using water that meets federal EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) quality standards.
I took my morning vitamins which had to be approved by the FDA.
I went downstairs to eat breakfast foods that had to be approved by the FDA and listened to my morning radio programs which are regulated by the FCC (Federal Communication Commission).
I then got into my EPA and DOT (Dept. of Transportation) standards approved and FTC (Federal Trade Commission) regulated car and was forced by the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) to buckle my seatbelt and put my daughter into an approved child seat. I then drove on DOT regulated roads and was forced to drive a certain speed while listening to more FCC approved programming on my radio.
I stopped for gas but there wasnt any due to state legislated gas quality restrictions which caused a decrease in the supply of gas and also gasoline price controls that kept the price so artificially low that there was an excess demand such that it sold out as soon as it arrived.
I arrived at my DOL (Dept. of Labor) regulated and EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) sanctioned place of employment, running on fumes, and was forced to work the first 2 hours of my 8 hour shift for the federal and state governments by giving almost 30% of my wages to the IRS and SSA (Social Security Administration) with no compensation.
At lunchtime I went with colleagues to eat and was forced to pay with the only medium of exchange the government approves that is regulated by the FRB (Federal Reserve Board): worthless fiat bank notes.
I then went to pick up my daughter from school where shes learning a DOE (Dept. of Education) approved curriculum. I took her to an HMO (Health Maintenance Organization) approved doctor to get her HHS (Health and Human Services) mandated vaccinations that I learned she needed while watching a Disney family movie which was interrupted by an HHS PSA.
After returning to work I checked my SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) and IRS regulated investments in my now federal treasury owned banks to see if Ill be able to retire someday since the SSA trust fund that Ive been paying into for 25 years has been raided by the federal government and is now bankrupt.
That afternoon I had to catch a flight to our office in Detroit aboard an FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) approved plane operating at an FAA regulated airport.
Before boarding I had to pass through a TSA (Transportation Safety Administration) security checkpoint where I was forced to disrobe down to my shirt, pants and socks and pass through a scanning machine that saw right through my remaining clothing.
Onboard I noticed federal sky marshals with weapons so I decided to have a cocktail composed of liquor that is controlled by the ATF (Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms) as are the sky marshal's guns.
Once sufficiently sedated with bourbon, I sat back and relaxed and thought to myself: Thank God I don't live in a country where the government controls your life!
Don Cooper
Source URL: [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com[/url]
-
There are so many problems with that article I don't even know where to start.
-
There are so many problems with that article I don't even know where to start.
Aw, sure ya can, Greg... If Lew Rockwell can post some spin certainly you can, too!
-
"Don't know what I want, but I know how to get it."http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bM_l443VV4
-
It's a tad lengthy, but I found this one (which was originally posted on the Lew Rockwell site, apparently) which puts a real spin on what "freedoms" we really have here in the good 'ole US of A:
I see where some have stated there are "issues' with this article.... I don't see how..... it IS the Way WE the PEOPLE asked and demanded it BE..... so where's the "issues"? WE the PEOPLE demanded OUR LIBERTY from the Law (s) so ...WE the PEOPLE now HAVE most of that LIBERTY, and WE the PEOPLE b*tch about the government TAKING away or RESTRICTING OUR RIGHT to L I B E R T Y.... LIBERTY which stands for FREEDOM FROM the LAW. How MUCH MORE LIBERTY would you (WE) the PEOPLE prefer?
-
That's the worst case for saying that we are not 'free' that I have ever been presented.
-
That's the worst case for saying that we are not 'free' that I have ever been presented.
Really?
How so?
-
Most of the examples given in that piece have nothing to do with freedom. For example, it is true that the FDA regulates dietary supplements. But that doesn't mean they get to tell you what ones you can and can't take. It simply means the companies marketing them are not allowed to advertise them falsely.
There are important issues going on with regards to freedom. Whether you have the freedom to not know you are buying toothpaste with arsenic in it, is not among them.
-
My goodness, people! I am not of the opinion that this SPIN, written by some guy, posted by some other guy online, that I copied and pasted here for our perusing and perhaps commenting on somehow proves we are no longer "free" in this country. It is, quite simply, a fine example of how ingrained the BigBrother government and its alphabet-soup of agencies are in our lives; whether it is 100% accurately depicted, or the examples have been asked/demanded by the people, or necessary to our very existence or not is immaterial.
All laws restrain liberties somewhere somehow, yes; but liberty itself is freedom from unjust laws, not law in and of itself.
-
Really?
How so?
There are more reasons than I care to mention, but for starters, no one forces you to pick what car, what pills, where to work etc.
-
There are more reasons than I care to mention, but for starters, no one forces you to pick what car, what pills, where to work etc.
OK
-
All laws restrain liberties somewhere somehow, yes; but liberty itself is freedom from unjust laws, not law in and of itself.
Ding, Ding, Ding. We have a winner.
-
Quote from: Erich on Today at 12:59:23 PM All laws restrain liberties somewhere somehow, yes; but liberty itself is freedom from unjust laws, not law in and of itself.
Collegekid
Ding, Ding, Ding. We have a winner.
There are two types of liberty; but few realize this. 1. Liberty as it is widely used and understood and 2. True Liberty.
As currently interpreted by the majority of Americans and others worldwide Liberty is expressed as the right of each individual to pursue his/her happiness and live according to that which each individual deems as appropriate. However, Liberty in its true definition is the freedom one has to pursue his/her life in accordance with the true, set laws of morality, in such a way that no other person's rights to the same are infringed.
One, or a group, may feel that a certain law is UNJUST to him/her because it infringes on his/her self-determined "right" to do that which he/she chooses. However, when the rights of OTHERS not to be offended come into play it may JUSTIFY the law in question, thereby "infringing" on the common meaning of "liberty" to that group or person.
There is ONLY one way to have True Liberty. That is to enact and UPHOLD laws that ensure just morality from generation to generation. When these laws are obeyed by ALL then all experience the Freedom of True Liberty.
These are the contexts in which I mentioned LIBERTY in my previous posting. Liberty is an extremely narrow right; NOT the broad RIGHTS people commonly apply to it.
-
Liberty in its true definition is the freedom one has to pursue his/her life in accordance with the true, set laws of morality, in such a way that no other person's rights to the same are infringed.
...when the rights of OTHERS not to be offended....
That's what I said, in fewer words: freedom from unjust laws - justice and morality are inextricable.
Where, oh where, does a "right" not be offended come from??! I, personally, reserve the right to offend mere mortals when appropriate.
-
Spookytooth
Liberty in its true definition is the freedom one has to pursue his/her life in accordance with the true, set laws of morality, in such a way that no other person's rights to the same are infringed.
...when the rights of OTHERS not to be offended....
That's what I said, in fewer words: freedom from unjust laws - justice and morality are inextricable.
Where, oh where, does a "right" not be offended come from??! I, personally, reserve the right to offend mere mortals when appropriate.
Nice play on words...unfortunately it took but about 1/1,000,000 of a sec for me to catch it. That's what happens when words / quotes are taken out of context, ANY "meaning" can be placed on them to satisfy one's personal view / speech. ( ...when the rights of OTHERS not to be offended.... )
Unfortunately, what you stated and what I stated ARE totally DIFFERENT concepts. I invoked the concept of set laws of morality that applied to ALL equally, in the sense of TRUE morality; not giving exception to the perverted opinions of morality that men prefer, ( morality involves MUCH more than JUST sexual issues...). You left the interpretation of morality (what is and isn't moral ) open to interpretation by each person individually.
You spoke from the position of Liberty as man MEANS it to be. I spoke from the position of Liberty as DEFINED by God.
They ARE different.
-
Most of the examples given in that piece have nothing to do with freedom. For example, it is true that the FDA regulates dietary supplements. But that doesn't mean they get to tell you what ones you can and can't take. It simply means the companies marketing them are not allowed to advertise them falsely.
There are important issues going on with regards to freedom. Whether you have the freedom to not know you are buying toothpaste with arsenic in it, is not among them.
Every example Cooper gave (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/cooper1.html) demonstrates arbitrary control over *your* life, and you nitpicked labeling of dietary supplements. Good luck.
-
While I do resent that our government infringes on some liberties that they really should not (i.e. public education, monetary policy, bailouts, etc.)... I am pretty sure that I like the fact that airlines are regulated, that we have speed limits, and people like SPOOKY, ML, and Erich are not allowed to strap uzi's over their shoulders and arbitrarily shoot people they think are taking their "freedoms" away.
The government violates the Constitution every single day, they do it openly and willingly. The Media, Republicans, and Democrats wouldn't have it any other way. Technology has advanced that makes some of these infringements useful (the airline and uzi thing are good examples), the bad stuff (bailouts, the potential of government provided health care) you have to stand up and fight against.
-
I am pretty sure that I like the fact that...people like SPOOKY, ML, and Erich are not allowed to strap uzi's over their shoulders and arbitrarily shoot people they think are taking their "freedoms" away.
...the bad stuff... you have to stand up and fight against.
I don't get your point, jb. In the first sentence you decry that some are more inclined to fight against injustice than others, and then in the second you appear to be a cheerleader for it. Which is it??! Is our nation's well-being worth fighting for, or no?
-
I don't get your point, jb. In the first sentence you decry that some are more inclined to fight against injustice than others, and then in the second you appear to be a cheerleader for it. Which is it??! Is our nation's well-being worth fighting for, or no?
First of all it was nice of you to only paste two sentences of the post in an attempt to make me look as if I were double speaking.
My point is rather simple, who is going to regulate airlines and some industries? Themselves? When it comes to matters of personal safety there is a place for government intervention.
There are also places where the government needs to stay away, like when it tries to manipulate the economy. If you want to stand up and fight the government on the bailouts I'll stand right there with you. If you want to abolish the FAA, I probably won't make that rally.
-
First of all it was nice of you to only paste two sentences of the post in an attempt to make me look as if I were double speaking.
That's what you were doing, even if inadvertently.
My point is rather simple, who is going to regulate airlines and some industries? Themselves? When it comes to matters of personal safety there is a place for government intervention.
That word again: "safety." What are your personal (there are no other) definitions of "safe" and "unsafe;" and how is it your personal definition means others must pay out billions of dollars so you'll feel "safe?" When does your definition end and where do others get to accept some of their own risks? If (when?) your definitions differ from mine why must one of us accept government intervention where/when we think it's unnecessary (and prohibitively costly) interference in our personal choices?
When was the last time you heard of a salmonella or e-coli break-out at a kosher meatpacking plant? Never. Not only are they not inspected by the USDA the goons are forbidden to inspect them by federal law. If government regulation is so desirable why, as in this example, do we only get sickened by regulated and inspected meatpacking plants and not the others??
-
Every example Cooper gave ([url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/cooper1.html[/url]) demonstrates arbitrary control over *your* life, and you nitpicked labeling of dietary supplements. Good luck.
How is it arbitrary? Which one is arbitrary?
-
That's what you were doing, even if inadvertently.
That word again: "safety." What are your personal (there are no other) definitions of "safe" and "unsafe;" and how is it your personal definition means others must pay out billions of dollars so you'll feel "safe?" When does your definition end and where do others get to accept some of their own risks? If (when?) your definitions differ from mine why must one of us accept government intervention where/when we think it's unnecessary (and prohibitively costly) interference in our personal choices?
When was the last time you heard of a salmonella or e-coli break-out at a kosher meatpacking plant? Never. Not only are they not inspected by the USDA the goons are forbidden to inspect them by federal law. If government regulation is so desirable why, as in this example, do we only get sickened by regulated and inspected meatpacking plants and not the others??
Because kosher law won't allow the admittance of entrails and hind quarters into the plant... e coli h:157 is commonly from the 'gut' of the animal and therefore the entrails and hindquarters are typical culprits in recalled beef; rarely is a roast recalled... almost always ground beef.
peace,
Griff
-
Because kosher law won't allow the admittance of entrails and hind quarters into the plant... e coli h:157 is commonly from the 'gut' of the animal and therefore the entrails and hindquarters are typical culprits in recalled beef; rarely is a roast recalled... almost always ground beef.
peace,
Griff
(http://members.airsoftcanada.com/digital_assasin/Forum%20Stuff/Misc/oh_snap.gif)
-
That word again: "safety." What are your personal (there are no other) definitions of "safe" and "unsafe;" and how is it your personal definition means others must pay out billions of dollars so you'll feel "safe?" When does your definition end and where do others get to accept some of their own risks? If (when?) your definitions differ from mine why must one of us accept government intervention where/when we think it's unnecessary (and prohibitively costly) interference in our personal choices?
So you are simply promoting aggressive anarchy, where ML proposes passive anarchy? The funny thing about life... sometimes you have to pick and choose. I do not personally think the government does a great job of picking and choosing where and when to regulate me all the time, but the system we have now sure beats letting any johnny come lately inspect a commercial aircraft.
Of course then again we are going to have to have some government around when the day comes that you decide it is time for the world according to Erich and the rest of us are a threat to your freedom.
I really don't need a lesson in regulation. I own a pizzeria, I KNOW REGULATION! It also may suprise you that I find the Health Inspector a highly useful tool in my craft, not someone to be feared or sneered as just another government agent.
-
How is it arbitrary? Which one is arbitrary?
"How is it arbitrary?"
Look at those constraints upon your life.
Which of those constraints were you specifically, personally, consulted about, and how many did you specifically, personally agree to comply with?
You would never tolerate a group of your neighbors imposing such constraints upon you without your explicit consent. Why would you tolerate such impositions from complete strangers?
You are lost.
-
"How is it arbitrary?"
Look at those constraints upon your life.
Which of those constraints were you specifically, personally, consulted about, and how many did you specifically, personally agree to comply with?
You would never tolerate a group of your neighbors imposing such constraints upon you without your explicit consent. Why would you tolerate such impositions from complete strangers?
You are lost.
These constraints and regulations are put in place by our duely elected officials. You see Matt this is why we have elections, and this is the joy of living in a Representative Republic (You probably thought I was goning to say Democracy there). The ones that are lost are those who do not participate in the election process. There is no weight to your argument since you have not attempted to elect persons to office that hold your beliefs. But I do understand your point, you just like to complain, and by not voting you can take the rightous high ground and say you were not complicit in the process. How am I doing?
-
I still believe my vote matters, and I think withholding it can send a message too.
And it feels PRETTY DARN GOOD to say I didn't vote for McCain or Obama!
-
I still believe my vote matters, and I think withholding it can send a message too.
Not really, you just get classed in with the stats that show how apathetic the majority of American voters are. Also, I feel that anyone who failed to vote, does not have the right to complain about leadership.
-
Not really, you just get classed in with the stats that show how apathetic the majority of American voters are. Also, I feel that anyone who failed to vote, does not have the right to complain about leadership.
So one must vote for the sake of voting, principles be damned?
Do you think Americans should be fined or jailed for not voting, like in Austrailia?
-
So one must vote for the sake of voting, principles be damned?
Do you think Americans should be fined or jailed for not voting, like in Austrailia?
Actually I do believe that people should be forced to vote, and that in turn they should be forced to be knowledgeable about the candidates and issues. Also that election day should be more of election week to give everyone the time to do so.
One can use their 'principles' to vote for a third party candidate, or even a write in candidate, it is your civic duty to vote. If you don't vote, your opinion does not matter as you are not even trying to be a part of the solution.
-
Actually I do believe that people should be forced to vote, and that in turn they should be forced to be knowledgeable about the candidates and issues. Also that election day should be more of election week to give everyone the time to do so.
One can use their 'principles' to vote for a third party candidate, or even a write in candidate, it is your civic duty to vote. If you don't vote, your opinion does not matter as you are not even trying to be a part of the solution.
I don't think people should be forced to vote, and I don't believe there should be any test to deem a voter worthy of voting! Thank God for the Constitution.
I would consider an "election week." That may be a good idea.
I'll make an analogy, and hopefully it will make sense lol.
What arm would you like cut off, your left or your right?
Neither!
Okay, we can go for a third choice and cut off your nose, your ears, or your toes.
No Way!
Alright, you may write in which part of your body you would like cut off.
NO! I don't like any of the options, so I'm not participating in this vote.
-
Michigan congressional delegation seeks more federal aid (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090123/AUTO01/901230440)
Obama wants 1 million plug-in vehicles or vehicles that get at least 150 mpg on the roads by 2015, but that is nearly impossible without significant government funding, experts say.
Obama's eco-fantasizing about our manufacturing capabilities and the civil servants we've sent to Washington, D.C. are reduced to beggary? They've helped create the mess we're in and are begging for more? When are we going to learn??
-
SWAT TEAM CONDUCTS FOOD RAIDS IN RURAL OHIO (http://www.newswithviews.com/BeritKjos/kjos98.htm)
The present circumstance raises the obvious question: is there some rabid new interpretation of an existing drug law that considers food a controlled substance worthy of a nasty SWAT operation? Or worse, is there a previously unrecognized provision(s) pertaining to food in the Homeland Security measures?
This incident has raised the ominous specter of a restrictive new era in State regulation and enforcement over the nation’s private food supply.
There is a sense of foreboding that this state crackdown on a longstanding, reputable food cooperative operation could adversely impact the peaceful agrarian way of life not only for the Amish, but homeschoolers and those families living off the land on rural acreages. It raises the disturbing possibility that it could become a crime to raise your own food, buy eggs from the farmer down the road, or butcher your own chickens for family and friends – bustling activities that routinely take place in backwater America.
I never even heard of those dirty rotten scoundrels the National Socialist Gestapo raiding food pantries...what's going on in this country??!
-
How am I doing?
You fail.
There is no moral difference between a representative republic and a democracy. Both presume to rule the unconsenting. Why would any rational person participate in their own and others' destruction?
Come to my house and impose your beliefs upon me, in person. Do your own dirty work instead of sitting back and watching while your "duely elected" take things from me, on your behalf.
I'd never do such a thing to you. Why would you do that to me?
-
Also, I feel that anyone who failed to vote, does not have the right to complain about leadership.
Pay attention:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyYpYS-wI_4
You rolled those dice. You don't get to complain. And you most certainly don't get to compel me to pay for the obligations you agreed to when you voted.
-
I miss George Carlin
-
"How is it arbitrary?"
Look at those constraints upon your life.
Which of those constraints were you specifically, personally, consulted about, and how many did you specifically, personally agree to comply with?
You would never tolerate a group of your neighbors imposing such constraints upon you without your explicit consent. Why would you tolerate such impositions from complete strangers?
You are lost.
These constraints and regulations are put in place by our duely elected officials. You see Matt this is why we have elections, and this is the joy of living in a Representative Republic (You probably thought I was goning to say Democracy there). The ones that are lost are those who do not participate in the election process. There is no weight to your argument since you have not attempted to elect persons to office that hold your beliefs. But I do understand your point, you just like to complain, and by not voting you can take the rightous high ground and say you were not complicit in the process. How am I doing?From all this you pull "How am I doing?" as your rebuttal point. Let everyone see the context instead of starting at an arbitrary point that suits you.
You fail.
There is no moral difference between a representative republic and a democracy. Both presume to rule the unconsenting. Why would any rational person participate in their own and others' destruction?
Come to my house and impose your beliefs upon me, in person. Do your own dirty work instead of sitting back and watching while your "duely elected" take things from me, on your behalf.
I'd never do such a thing to you. Why would you do that to me?
I do not need to come to your house to impose anything on you, nor do I wish to. No one takes anything from you on my behalf. The duely elected take from you to enrich society (that's what they call it, I call it buying votes), and being an American citizen you are subject to those laws just as much as I am. I am sorry that living in a Representative Republic offends you so, maybe you should try Europe, or China and see if those systems suit you better. Or you could vote, try to affect change instead of just coming on the site every 2 weeks and restarting your "laws suck, anarchy now" engine.
BTW I have yet to be destructed by the government. Can you tell me exactly how you have? Maybe then we can get to the root of your issues.
Fry, I too miss George Carlin!
-
No one takes anything from you on my behalf.
You voted, didn't you?
Can you tell me exactly how you have? Maybe then we can get to the root of your issues.
As of last year's tax return, governments have taken at least $261,369.97 from me in my life.
My "issue" is people who can't see past their infatuation with delegated coercion.
Every power pig claiming to represent you, sending bipedal rottweilers to collect from you - and me - is a direct result of your lending an air of legitimacy to their actions by your voting, for them, to act on your behalf. Ayn Rand described this as the sanction of the victim (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ar_sanction). Unfortunately, your sanction has consequences for me as well because there is no way for me to opt out of the consequences of your vote. Whether you understand it or not, the only reason to vote in a government election is the hope that one of the aspirants will act on your behalf to make your neighbors comply with your preferences. No one votes in any government election for any other reason.
Again, I'd never do such a thing to you. Why would you do that to me?
-
I miss George Carlin
you and me both!!
-
I still believe my vote matters, and I think withholding it can send a message too.
And it feels PRETTY DARN GOOD to say I didn't vote for McCain or Obama!
Right On!!!!!!
-
Not really, you just get classed in with the stats that show how apathetic the majority of American voters are. Also, I feel that anyone who failed to vote, does not have the right to complain about leadership.
Nice.
Another one who believes if you don't participate in the rigged game set up by the owners of the country your 1st Amendment rights should be suspended.
Freedom, the American way.
-
Actually I do believe that people should be forced to vote, and that in turn they should be forced to be knowledgeable about the candidates and issues. Also that election day should be more of election week to give everyone the time to do so.
One can use their 'principles' to vote for a third party candidate, or even a write in candidate, it is your civic duty to vote. If you don't vote, your opinion does not matter as you are not even trying to be a part of the solution.
Solution?
To what?
Um, let's see. Bush for Obama or McCain.
And that was the solution to........................................................
-
Nice.
Another one who believes if you don't participate in the rigged game set up by the owners of the country your 1st Amendment rights should be suspended.
Freedom, the American way.
If you think it's so rigged then do somethig to change it. Are you out there protesting?
-
Are you out there protesting?
What do you think Smash is doing right here?
You don't have to carry a sign on a sidewalk to protest.
-
What do you think Smash is doing right here?
You don't have to carry a sign on a sidewalk to protest.
IF sitting on an internet forum is a form of protesting, it's the laziest form of protesting I have ever heard of. Do you really think that people actually pay attention to people who ***** and moan on net forums anyway?
-
What do you think Smash is doing right here?
You don't have to carry a sign on a sidewalk to protest. (that's funny, because that's what I thought protesting meant.)
Posting an opinion isn't much of a "protest"... :-\
In fact it's just stating whats on your mind for others to read or not, and people can be very selective in what they wish to read(and how they interpret it!)...No, spouting off "OBEY YOUR MASTERS" on an Internet forum is not protesting or furthering any cause and it's not that great of a way to enlighten or convince others of your view point either.
-
If you think it's so rigged then do somethig to change it. Are you out there protesting?
I do much more than protest. I participate in the process.
This forum is nothing more than a mechanism to facilitate conversation. Very important conversation I might add.
I have found that this forum is actually a pretty fair microcosm of our community and the opinions of the community.
To that end it has helped me formulate the methods and direction of my lobbying efforts in the "process" by better identifying my potential adversaries and their motivations.
What I find dissapointing the the amount of folks who will look in on our conversations and offer no input by just lurking and not participating.
I also find it somewhat gratifying that I have 6 Iggys!
I look at them as 6 that have no stomach for the fight, or are too weak to articulate and defend their positions when they are in opposition to mine. Or, possibly 6 that are so indoctrinated to their position they have simply given up in trying to persuade me over to their view.
I have much more respect, even in disagreement, with those such as Shaggy and FF for their defense of their positions in the face of open opposition than those that will willingly concede the debate. Even when some comments may take a personal tone I take no offense at all. I have been called much worse by my Drill Instructors many years ago. Hell, to be honest if the topic goes personal most times you're winning!
-
I do much more than protest. I participate in the process.
This forum is nothing more than a mechanism to facilitate conversation. Very important conversation I might add.
I have found that this forum is actually a pretty fair microcosm of our community and the opinions of the community.
To that end it has helped me formulate the methods and direction of my lobbying efforts in the "process" by better identifying my potential adversaries and their motivations.
What I find dissapointing the the amount of folks who will look in on our conversations and offer no input by just lurking and not participating.
I also find it somewhat gratifying that I have 6 Iggys!
I look at them as 6 that have no stomach for the fight, or are too weak to articulate and defend their positions when they are in opposition to mine. Or, possibly 6 that are so indoctrinated to their position they have simply given up in trying to persuade me over to their view.
I have much more respect, even in disagreement, with those such as Shaggy and FF for their defense of their positions in the face of open opposition than those that will willingly concede the debate. Even when some comments may take a personal tone I take no offense at all. I have been called much worse by my Drill Instructors many years ago. Hell, to be honest if the topic goes personal most times you're winning!
I'll agree with you. I respect guys like you who actualy sand up for their beliefs. I didn't mean to get on your case but I find people who take no action annoying.
-
You voted, didn't you?
As of last year's tax return, governments have taken at least $261,369.97 from me in my life.
My "issue" is people who can't see past their infatuation with delegated coercion.
Every power pig claiming to represent you, sending bipedal rottweilers to collect from you - and me - is a direct result of your lending an air of legitimacy to their actions by your voting, for them, to act on your behalf. Ayn Rand described this as the sanction of the victim ([url]http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ar_sanction[/url]). Unfortunately, your sanction has consequences for me as well because there is no way for me to opt out of the consequences of your vote. Whether you understand it or not, the only reason to vote in a government election is the hope that one of the aspirants will act on your behalf to make your neighbors comply with your preferences. No one votes in any government election for any other reason.
Again, I'd never do such a thing to you. Why would you do that to me?
Huh? It must kill you to live in America where we have a system that allows you take make enough money to be TAXED OVER A 1/4 OF A MILLION DOLLARS. No freaking wonder you don't like the system, you are flat out greedy.
I revert back to my earlier suggestion that maybe you should find a system that benefits your needs better than the good 'ol USA, since you have it so bad here.
Been taxed over $261,000.....and I'm guessing you are not an invalid geriatric. Your posts are beginning to resound as if you attempted to cheat the government and got caught. Is this the source of your anger? You don't want government but don't feel real bad about enjoying its benefits do you. There should be a damn toll booth at the end of your driveway. Taxed over $261,000. How many years has it been since you voted GOP?
-
Do you really think that people actually pay attention to people who b**** and moan on net forums anyway?
You paid enough attention to read it and reply.
-
In fact it's just stating whats on your mind for others to read or not, and people can be very selective in what they wish to read(and how they interpret it!)...No, spouting off "OBEY YOUR MASTERS" on an Internet forum is not protesting or furthering any cause and it's not that great of a way to enlighten or convince others of your view point either.
See the above.
And fix your cite from me.
-
Huh? It must kill you to live in America where we have a system that allows you take make enough money to be TAXED OVER A 1/4 OF A MILLION DOLLARS. No freaking wonder you don't like the system, you are flat out greedy.
I revert back to my earlier suggestion that maybe you should find a system that benefits your needs better than the good 'ol USA, since you have it so bad here.
Been taxed over $261,000.....and I'm guessing you are not an invalid geriatric. Your posts are beginning to resound as if you attempted to cheat the government and got caught. Is this the source of your anger? You don't want government but don't feel real bad about enjoying its benefits do you. There should be a damn toll booth at the end of your driveway. Taxed over $261,000. How many years has it been since you voted GOP?
Just as I knew you'd do, you got bent out of shape over that number, even though you don't know me, and have no idea how generous I am. You wrote all those words and exhibited not one glimmer of recognition that all that money I earned was taken from me on behalf of you and your fellow votistas.
You want to take things that belong to me. You said it yourself: "There should be a damn toll booth at the end of your driveway." I'd never do such a thing to you. Why would you do that to me? Why should I leave because you want something that belongs to me?
The thing is, you won't do it yourself. That's why you vote. You want someone else to do your dirty work. Again, whether you understand it or not, (and it's abundantly clear that you don't) the only reason to vote in a government election is the hope that one of the elected will make your neighbors comply with your preferences.
"There should be a damn toll booth at the end of your driveway."
**** you. I'd never do such a thing to you. Why would you do that to me?
-
I participate in the process.
Would you participate in the process of your own execution?
That's what's going on, and that process is gaining speed.
-
Just as I knew you'd do, you got bent out of shape over that number, even though you don't know me, and have no idea how generous I am. You wrote all those words and exhibited not one glimmer of recognition that all that money I earned was taken from me on behalf of you and your fellow votistas.
You want to take things that belong to me. You said it yourself: "There should be a damn toll booth at the end of your driveway." I'd never do such a thing to you. Why would you do that to me? Why should I leave because you want something that belongs to me?
The thing is, you won't do it yourself. That's why you vote. You want someone else to do your dirty work. Again, whether you understand it or not, (and it's abundantly clear that you don't) the only reason to vote in a government election is the hope that one of the elected will make your neighbors comply with your preferences.
"There should be a damn toll booth at the end of your driveway."
**** you. I'd never do such a thing to you. Why would you do that to me?
How is this? First give you back your $261K THEN put the toll booth at the end of your road. You don't want to pay for the roads then why should you be able to use them without paying for them?
-
Just as I knew you'd do, you got bent out of shape over that number, even though you don't know me, and have no idea how generous I am. You wrote all those words and exhibited not one glimmer of recognition that all that money I earned was taken from me on behalf of you and your fellow votistas.
You want to take things that belong to me. You said it yourself: "There should be a damn toll booth at the end of your driveway." I'd never do such a thing to you. Why would you do that to me? Why should I leave because you want something that belongs to me?
The thing is, you won't do it yourself. That's why you vote. You want someone else to do your dirty work. Again, whether you understand it or not, (and it's abundantly clear that you don't) the only reason to vote in a government election is the hope that one of the elected will make your neighbors comply with your preferences.
"There should be a damn toll booth at the end of your driveway."
**** you. I'd never do such a thing to you. Why would you do that to me?
So how long did it take for the government to come knocking on your door for the taxes you didn't pay? Is that what happened? You are crying like a kid who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
You don't want any government? Fine keep your $261,000 in a mattress or under your bed. When the gang of 6 street thugs comes and takes it from you (you may get one or two of them but your $$$$ will be gone) just remember that it will be legal for them to do it since there are no laws anymore.
Now back to your question about why I vote. Because I am participating in the process of my representation. This process has been in place since this country was founded. Voting is not some twist added by violent overthrow of our old government so that the desires of some can be thrust upon you. You don't have to vote R or D. I didn't. Did you know there was a candidate in this past election that favors abolishing the IRS?
I understand why I vote. It is abundantly clear that YOU don't understand why I vote.
I too pay my fair share of taxes, pay in every year. Also donate whenever and wherever I can, so don't say I have "no idea how generous I am", that's just you trying to look like the white knight on the rainbow colored horse..... "LOOK AT ME I'M GENEROUS". If you have to broadcast that you are generous, you either are trying to convice yourself that you are, or you have a complex that requires everyone to see your generosity so they can think highly of you.
To me you still seem like a greedy person that want to take and not give. You have decided what your fair share is and since you pay more than the amount you have in mind, the rest of the world is "taking" from you. So thank you for your donation. Coupled with mine and everyone else's I can drive to work on roads made from asphalt not gravel, I can drink water from my tap, and I don't have to wait for 60 degrees weather to take the snow off of my road because a nice guy paid by us comes by and plows it for me.
I reiterate my three questions to you:
What country better suits your needs of being able to keep all of the money you have been allowed to make as an American citizen?
Why haven't you moved there?
When did you stop voting GOP?
-
Some of the biggest names in "American" politics are enroute to Munich to discuss (or is that "receive their marching orders for" ??) our future. I would have thought such an important discussion would take place somewhat closer to home, if not here. Silly me.
Searching for a New World Order (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,604571,00.html) <- link
The closely watched Munich security conference, which starts next week, has become a large-scale summit for world leaders. This year the US is sending a high-ranking delegation, led by Vice President Joe Biden
The Americans are coming in force. Accompanying Biden will be General David Petraeus...Richard Holbrooke...
The American delegation also includes old Munich hands John McCain, John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman, three influential senators who all once wanted to be president. Kerry, who would have liked to have had Hillary Clinton's job as secretary of state, is now chairman of the influential Senate Foreign Relations Committee and will decide whether Obama's ideas on disarmament agreements with Russia are pushed forward. And James Jones, Obama's national security adviser, is coming too. The general in the White House was a surprising choice for the post -- even for Obama, who is known for his surprises.
Delegates prefer to hold the so-called exploratory talks on the sidelines of the conference.
"Exploratory" and "on the sidelines"? Sounds like marching orders to me...
-
I am so glad that I have yet to smoke as much weed as it would take me to get as paranoid as you are Erich.
You're bent on blaming a group for something. Anyone that steps in and says this is logically inconsistent by attacking groups and not issues is just "censoring" you. The Jews have done just as many atrocities as Whites, Blacks, Asians, and any other ethnic groups. Race doesn't exist. Your just paranoid for nor reason. I am not proud to be white like I am not proud to be human. It's nothing to be proud of.
Oh and the Illuminati died in Belgium in the 1700's.
-
Would you participate in the process of your own execution?
That's what's going on, and that process is gaining speed.
I agree 100%.
-
I do much more than protest. I participate in the process.
This forum is nothing more than a mechanism to facilitate conversation. Very important conversation I might add.
I have found that this forum is actually a pretty fair microcosm of our community and the opinions of the community.
To that end it has helped me formulate the methods and direction of my lobbying efforts in the "process" by better identifying my potential adversaries and their motivations.
What I find dissapointing the the amount of folks who will look in on our conversations and offer no input by just lurking and not participating.
True, but one has to hope that those on the sidelines are being informed and are seeking the truth for themselves; or at least are seeking to prove for themselves that which we here say as to truth or fiction. These and the many other boards like it across this nation serve much the same purpose that the town "fliers" did in the 1700's.
If just ONE person listens and HEARS..........
I also find it somewhat gratifying that I have 6 Iggys!
I got you beat!...I got you beat! I got More than you do!!!! ;D :D ;D :D ;) ... ohh, sorry, :-X
I look at them as 6 that have no stomach for the fight, or are too weak to articulate and defend their positions when they are in opposition to mine. Or, possibly 6 that are so indoctrinated to their position they have simply given up in trying to persuade me over to their view.
I have much more respect, even in disagreement, with those such as Shaggy and FF for their defense of their positions in the face of open opposition than those that will willingly concede the debate. Even when some comments may take a personal tone I take no offense at all. I have been called much worse by my Drill Instructors many years ago. Hell, to be honest if the topic goes personal most times you're winning!
;D
-
Here's a outstanding example of how retrograde our American World has moved; Russia dispenses with some economic wisdom:
Putin to the West: Take Your Medicine
And don't go socialist (http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=14178) <- link
We've truly entered a Bizarro World universe, where up is down, right is left – and the Russians, of all people, are now lecturing us about the virtues of free enterprise.
Putin showed that his economic understanding was superior to that of the Obama team when he said that creating more debt on top of the “hopeless debts,” as Obama is doing, would “prolong the crisis.”
And on the opposite end of that spectrum we've got a new administration that is doing just what we do not need:
The Death of American Leadership (http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02022009.html) <- link
Vast numbers of people in the United States and abroad are hoping that President Obama will end America’s illegal wars, halt America’s support for Israel’s massacre of Lebanese and Palestinians, and punish, instead of reward, the shyster banksters whose fraudulent financial instruments have destroyed economics and imposed massive sufferings on people all over the world. If Obama’s appointments are an indication, all of these hopeful people are going to be disappointed.
We have been just free enough to pick our own poison...
-
California, which used to have what amounted to the "Fourth largest economy in the world," or some such crap, is another financial basketcase exemplifying for the rest of us Americans what the socialist "obligations" we've brought upon ourselves (or had force-fed down their throats by the federales) can do to a state. Like bring it down. Quickly. Righteously. Ignominiously. Millions of illegal immigrants have crashed California's "health care system" (sic), overwhelmed its "criminal justice" (sic) systems, and displaced the people who made that state "Golden." Californians "freely elected" (from the typical Frick v. Frack "choices") those who brought about the destruction, and are getting a lesson most of us should already know: Ideas have Consequences. Is its golden luster forever tarnished?
Revolt brews in counties (http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/1600656.html) <- link
Counties in California say they've had enough – and they aren't going to take it anymore.
In what amounts to a Boston Tea Party-style revolt against the state Capitol, they're threatening to withhold money.
Closer to home, Sacramento County is planning to file a lawsuit this week against the state and Controller John Chiang for withholding millions of dollars – much of it for social service programs.
By the time leaders from Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Imperial and San Bernardino counties come together, the revolt could be at full steam.
The beginning of the "Second American Revolution," perhaps?
-
I reiterate my three questions to you:
What country better suits your needs of being able to keep all of the money you have been allowed to make as an American citizen?
Why haven't you moved there?
There it is, like clockwork.
"Love it or leave it."
-
There it is, like clockwork.
"Love it or leave it."
And like clockwork ............ NO ANSWER!
Thanks for playing.
-
There it is, like clockwork.
"Love it or leave it."
While I share your disdain for the "love it or leave it" argument, is there a reasonable argument against it? I think there could be, given people's right to abode and so forth. Dismissing it outright gets us nowhere.
-
"The Land of the Free" is surely one of the most over-utilized and most incorrectly over-utilized expressions in our American lexicon. We have "rights" to redress government actions we don't like. We have "rights" to "free speech." Or so they tell us, anyway. Not so, it seems, in the (colony?) of Iraq our government has created: you see, where there are times that "actions" rightfully constitute a form of "speech" here (like wearing BushIsAMoron T-shirts to school and such) it's a criminal offense in Iraq. Case in point - the infamous ShoeThrowerGuy didn't actually HIT 'ole BushieBoy with his tattered shoe, thereby transforming the attempt to do so into a form of IThinkYou'reAMoron "speech," or so one would think. Had he actually hit the man there are legal concepts such as "Assault and Battery" which might be applicable (although "Attempted Assault and Battery" may have made it's way into our legalese, I don't quite know.) Either way the ShoeThrowerGuy is being charged with "Assault," but could have gotten the lesser charge of "Insulting the President." Oy. Sure glad I don't live in Iraq - I'd have been tossed in the clink a long, long time ago...
Shoe thrower in Iraq to face assault charge (http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090209/NATION/902090354/1020/NATION) <- link
Court refuses to reduce count to that of merely insulting ex-President Bush
Muntadhar al-Zeidi, 30, who won folk hero status throughout the Arab world for his protest, has been in custody since the Dec. 14 outburst at Bush's joint news conference with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
He had been due to stand trial in December, but his defense team won a delay as it sought to reduce the charge to simply insulting Bush.
Neither leader was injured, but Bush was forced to duck for cover as the journalist shouted in Arabic: "This is your farewell kiss, you dog! This is from the widows, the orphans and those who were killed in Iraq."
"This type of expression is well-known in America and Europe, where people throw eggs or rotten tomatoes at their leaders to express their rejection of their policies," al-Saadi told Associated Press Television News
Hmm. I never thought of that...! Eggs-as-in-Ebli?? RottenTomatoRichardville?? What a novel idea! ;)
-
While I share your disdain for the "love it or leave it" argument, is there a reasonable argument against it? I think there could be, given people's right to abode and so forth. Dismissing it outright gets us nowhere.
Reasonable?
The "love it or leave it" from people like jbs, who prefer to let others do their dirty work, is no different than a mobster muscling "protection" fees from a shopkeep, or a common thug demanding "your money or your life."
They're all resorting to force to get what they want at the expense of someone else. They forcibly take what they haven't earned.
Is that reasonable?
You are stunting yourself when you apply qualifications such as the "right to abode" as you did. You own yourself. Period. One implication of that self-ownership is that you own everything you produce. You may exchange what you produce for whatever you wish, including a place to live. You either own yourself, or you do not.
This is a wish for arbitrary force against me, an attempt to forcibly take what I've produced: "There should be a damn toll booth at the end of your driveway," and that idiot jbs refuses to see it for what it is, even when he's dragged around by the eyeballs.
No amount of reason will overcome a lust to use force to acquire the unearned.
-
And like clockwork ............ NO ANSWER!
I've given you all the answer you're worth.
Come try to build your tollbooth, thief. I dare you.
-
I've given you all the answer you're worth.
Come try to build your tollbooth, thief. I dare you.
jbs.... (YAWNS)
-
jbs.... (YAWNS)
Any rational person with morality on his side would defend his honor, thief.
Your feigned indifference is a testament to the fact that you're a cannibal, and you know it. You relish it. You wallow in the self-absorbed satisfaction that someone else is being devoured more than you are.
-
The "love it or leave it" from people like jbs, who prefer to let others do their dirty work, is no different than a mobster muscling "protection" fees from a shopkeep, or a common thug demanding "your money or your life."
Well, if I may, here is how they would explain it:
They would say that the nation is like a country club, and that to be a member of it you have to pay dues, taxes they call it. And if you do not want to pay dues you can leave their club/country. Nobody is preventing you from leaving. They agree you own yourself and your productivity. You just have to pay to play in their country.
I don't agree with that one bit, but that is the liberal mindset. That is what they truly believe, and I have yet to find an argument to convince them otherwise.
-
Every tyrannical regime the world has ever known have had one thing in common: get the children on board as soon as possible. Lord knows our government has already gotten a goodly portion of the adult population here worshipping at the altar of the state (and/or scared to death of it) now the kiddies are being programmed to accept fewer liberties in exchange for promised "security." They're going to get a whole lot of neither and, as B. Franklin said, "...deserve neither..."
(http://www.notmytribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/playmobil-security-checkpoint-airport-dhs-metal-detector.jpg)
Playmobil Police State (http://www.notmytribe.com/2009/playmobil-police-state-86439.html) <- link
Whenever Playmobil comes out with new toys, the kids empty their piggy banks and hurry to Little Richard’s Toy Store. Not this time. Our beloved Playmobil has decided to exploit the global war on terror for profit with Playmobil Security Checkpoint and Playmobil Police Checkpoint.
(article continues)
-
The only surprising thing in this headline is the "dollar" amount:
Pentagon War Machine now spends close to $5 billion/year rigging the press (http://www.notmytribe.com/2009/pentagon-war-machine-now-spends-close-to-5-billion-year-on-rigging-the-press-86375.html) <- link
(http://www.notmytribe.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/military-pr-control.gif)
In 2009 the Pentagon will employ 27,000 people just for recruitment, advertising and public relations — almost as many as the total 30,000-person work force in the State Department.
Is it desperation, or just the usual Ministry of Propaganda hard at work?
-
Any rational person with morality on his side would defend his honor, thief.
Your feigned indifference is a testament to the fact that you're a cannibal, and you know it. You relish it. You wallow in the self-absorbed satisfaction that someone else is being devoured more than you are.
Seriously, what method of 'collection' do you propose for those items that are now shared-services; police, fire, roads, etc?
-
"How Happy We Are to Have Freedom!" Only a people that are so hardened by their government's foibles at home and over the entire globe that they won't send their sons to "defend" such a monstrosity would need to import mercenaries to do the job. Once such imported goons start patrolling our streets with M16s and armored personnel carriers and tanks aimed at US I wonder how many people will finally realize something is radically wrong with this picture:
US army 'wants more immigrants' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7891222.stm?lss) <- link
The United States army is to accept immigrants with temporary US visas, for the first time since the Vietnam war, according to the New York Times.
The programme will be limited to 1,000 enlistees in its first year, but if successful could be spread to other services and expanded. It could eventually provide the army with one in six of its recruits, the Times said.
Army recruiters say their job has become easier in recent months as unemployment has risen in the US. But even so, they regret having had to turn away many immigrants because they had only temporary residency.
However, the Times said there appeared to be some opposition from officers and veterans, who expressed concern that some foreigners might have divided loyalties or be terrorists seeking to infiltrate the US armed services.
-
Seriously, what method of 'collection' do you propose for those items that are now shared-services; police, fire, roads, etc?
Any form of collection is fine with him as long as he does not have to participate.
Matt when you drive the next time you can thank me as much as yourself for that asphalt your car rides on. You thief, how dare you allow the government to take money from me so you can have a paved road, you are such a hypocritical *** hole! Next time you take a drink from the tap, you can thank me! Next time you need a police car because your neighbor is looking at your wallet and drooling you can thank me!
You act as if voting and paying taxes was something that was invented 3 years ago just to piss you off. You tell me to justify myself, how about you justify to me and the rest of us, why YOU should not have to participate, aside from the fact that you are greedy and rich and just plain don;t feel you should have too.
Let me remind you that I have never taken a thing from the government other than what are common shared services (city water, roads, public schools, etc.). I have never taken a dime of welfare, in any form (unemployment, financial aid, etc.). Why are you so special?
I cannot believe that Greg even tends to side with you on this one, other than the fact that Republicans hate taxes. So do I, but I pay my share. Like I said I didn't just realize a month and a half ago that we have to pay taxes, I've been doing it my entire adult life. Just because you have paid more in taxes in your lifetime than me does not make you any more worthy of the air we breath.
You should really find a political platform to get behind and vote for their candidate. I think you and Erich could create quite a voting tandem. I am sure that there is a party that could really benefit from the heartless, greedy, paranoid anarchists. Your voting block could probably put a party right over the top!
No body likes to pay taxes. The less taxes we can pay, the better. The less government involvement in our lives the better. But at some point there is a common $$$ value that must be paid for basic services that we all use.
I suppose you could always live on a mountainside somewhere and live off the radar. Please?!?!?!
-
They would say that the nation is like a country club, and that to be a member of it you have to pay dues, taxes they call it. And if you do not want to pay dues you can leave their club/country. Nobody is preventing you from leaving. They agree you own yourself and your productivity. You just have to pay to play in their country.
I don't agree with that one bit, but that is the liberal mindset. That is what they truly believe, and I have yet to find an argument to convince them otherwise.
The comparison to a country club doesn't fit. You don't have to move house to withdraw from a country club. A shopkeep beset by an extortionist mobster is not obligated to move because he is a victim of force.
Whether or not they agree that each of us owns himself and what he produces is not at all clear. On the contrary, note the pervasive emphasis on "giving something back." It belies a belief that one's mere existence imposes an obligation to everyone.
-
Seriously, what method of 'collection' do you propose for those items that are now shared-services; police, fire, roads, etc?
Look, there is no possible way I can have all the answers to everything.
What I do know is that there are far too many things I don't need or want that I'm compelled to finance.
-
Any form of collection is fine with him as long as he does not have to participate.
Don't ever presume to speak for me.
You went out like a light when I asked why you presume to impose your preferences on me without my consent, when I'd never do such a thing to you.
Matt when you drive the next time you can thank me as much as yourself for that asphalt your car rides on.
Compliance under duress does not imply agreement. Do I really need to point out that I pay for fuel just like you?
You thief, how dare you allow the government to take money from me so you can have a paved road, you are such a hypocritical *** hole!
Am I now supposed to personally defend you and every other person who's been victimized by government and its apologists such as you? I have enough work to do defending myself and my family.
You don't know which way is up.
Next time you take a drink from the tap, you can thank me! Next time you need a police car because your neighbor is looking at your wallet and drooling you can thank me!
You're making an awful lot of assumptions. Too many to address in my precious lifetime.
You act as if voting and paying taxes was something that was invented 3 years ago just to piss you off.
Nope. Taxation has an extraordinarily long and violent history, and unfortunately, an endless mob of apologists like you.
You tell me to justify myself...
I don't vote because I won't impose my preferences upon you, because it's wrong. I have asked simply this: why would you do such a thing to me, when I would never do such a thing to you? Why would you impose your preferences on me?
...how about you justify to me and the rest of us, why YOU should not have to participate, aside from the fact that you are greedy and rich and just plain don;t feel you should have too.
More assumption. You don't know me. You don't know how old I am or how long I've been working. You're still stuck on that number, which, by the way, I tossed out as bait, and you swallowed right straight through 'til it clattered on porcelain.
All you need to know is that you have no right to make me participate in your game.
You rolled those dice. Not me. You pay the consequences. Not me.
Let me remind you that I have never taken a thing from the government other than what are common shared services (city water, roads, public schools, etc.). I have never taken a dime of welfare, in any form (unemployment, financial aid, etc.). Why are you so special?
...
I pay my share.
There is more at stake than confiscation of property.
Like I said to Smash, would you participate in your own execution?
You should really find a political platform to get behind and vote for their candidate.
Right there is where you can't see past the shadows on your cave wall. Thoreau nailed it:
"As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way: its very Constitution is the evil. This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconciliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it. So is all change for the better, like birth and death, which convulse the body."
But at some point there is a common $$$ value that must be paid for basic services that we all use.
This is like saying a little murder is necessary.
I suppose you could always live on a mountainside somewhere and live off the radar. Please?!?!?!
Yet another supplication to the nasty old "love it or leave it."
Come build your toll booth. I dare you.
You and I both know you won't. You'd rather hide behind the excuse of "common $$$ value."
After all, it's just a little murder.
-
Look, there is no possible way I can have all the answers to everything.
What I do know is that there are far too many things I don't need or want that I'm compelled to finance.
I was expecting more flesh to the skeleton than what you provided in your reply.
Your starting point when answering others led me to consider that you may have been able to articualte a reasonable alternative to our current method of payment for shared services.
Since many of us would take the similar position that we each pay more than we desire to finance projects that we dislike; it seems reasonable to me that your extreme position would have been more forthcoming in alternatives.
So, where does a government exist that functions more similarly to your desires and where does a government exist that finances shared services in a manner consistent with your beliefs?
-
Don't ever presume to speak for me.
You went out like a light when I asked why you presume to impose your preferences on me without my consent, when I'd never do such a thing to you.
Firstly, I would never presume to speak for you. I could never relate your beliefs and keep a straight face at the same time! "I would never do that to you, why would you (JBS CANT"S HELP IT AND STARTS TO LAUGH!) do that to me"
I do not impose anything upon you by my act of voting. I am participating in the established process by which we choose our leaders and decisions are made. Your consent is implied because you are a US citizen, as such you have an equal say in the same exact process as I do. Because you refuse to participate in the process does not make you exempt from the bi-products of said process.
As far as "going out like a light"... I have been very consistent in rebutting your "points", it is you that refuses to answer questions when probed, not me.
Compliance under duress does not imply agreement. Do I really need to point out that I pay for fuel just like you?
Buying fuel is not compliance under duress! You don't have to drive, buy a horse, ride a bike, you have choices!
Am I now supposed to personally defend you and every other person who's been victimized by government and its apologists such as you? I have enough work to do defending myself and my family.
As I said before, I need nothing from you. The only thing I would like from you is for you to answer the question why you feel you should be exempt from the bi-products of our electoral process simply because you refuse to participate. If I could save every penny I pay in taxes just because I refused to vote my mortgage would be paid, and I would have no debt at all.
What are you defending your family from? Who is knocking at your door seeking an unreasonable bounty from you. Has the government suggested you pay more than you legally should by the Tax Codes? Are they there with guns waiting for your wallet?
You don't know which way is up.
You're making an awful lot of assumptions. Too many to address in my precious lifetime.
Nope. Taxation has an extraordinarily long and violent history, and unfortunately, an endless mob of apologists like you.
I thought we were talking about voting. You are putting the cart before the horse now. This discussion is about the immorality of participating in the process of electing officials, the rest is bi-product. YOU DON'T LIKE THE BI-PRODUCT NOW SO THE PROCESS HAS BECOME IMMORAL TO YOU! That only makes you a sore loser.
I don't vote because I won't impose my preferences upon you, because it's wrong. I have asked simply this: why would you do such a thing to me, when I would never do such a thing to you? Why would you impose your preferences on me?
Again I re-itterate... You don't vote because the bi-product is not favorable to you. If the bi-product was favorable to you, I am more than confident in the fact you would file a ballot. The answer to you "simple question" remains the same: I vote because I am a citizen of the United States of America. Voting has been the way we choose our elected officials since the birth of our Country. I realize that not every citizen votes and to them all I can say is.... YOUR LOSS! The United States being a Representative Republic, allows for, encourages, and expects, its citizenry to choose the Representation that makes decisions regarding how the Country is run. Every US citizen is subject to these decisions, good or bad, and has the incredible ability to redress through future elections. Because one forgets, or in your case refuses to participate in this process does not make him any less a citizen, or any less bound to these decisions. Win or lose I participate because it is my right, and obligation as a citizen.
More assumption. You don't know me. You don't know how old I am or how long I've been working. You're still stuck on that number, which, by the way, I tossed out as bait, and you swallowed right straight through 'til it clattered on porcelain.
So you are a liar then as well? How can we have any type of meaningful back and forth if none of your premises can be regarded as truth? Of course that is the great thing about the internet, everyone is a bigshot, cowboy astronaut. To use a line from Family Guy: "Hey this guy's a phony... this cowboy hat comes right off!"
All you need to know is that you have no right to make me participate in your game.
This you are correct about. I have no right to make you participate. The beauty of it is I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE, and you have no right to keep me from participating. Ironically, this being such a great country, you still have every right to redress, even though you do not participate, unfortunatly you do not have the right to be heard. Basically I see you talkin, but I couldn't care less what you are saying.
You rolled those dice. Not me. You pay the consequences. Not me.
My horse didn't come out a winner this time, but yes I am still subject to the bi-product. SO ARE YOU! You are a citizen of this country, participation or not, you are still subject to the bi-product.
There is more at stake than confiscation of property.
Like I said to Smash, would you participate in your own execution?
Of course not, then again no one is waiting at my door with a gun either as apparently they are all at your house. The only way to change the date of the execution is to redress the judge. If that judge does not suit you, you have to pick a new one. If you choose not to find a new judge, only then is your execution a done deal.
Right there is where you can't see past the shadows on your cave wall. Thoreau nailed it:
"As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should be petitioning the Governor or the Legislature any more than it is theirs to petition me; and if they should not hear my petition, what should I do then? But in this case the State has provided no way: its very Constitution is the evil. This may seem to be harsh and stubborn and unconciliatory; but it is to treat with the utmost kindness and consideration the only spirit that can appreciate or deserves it. So is all change for the better, like birth and death, which convulse the body."
I would argue that this is the age old "me before thee" argument. And as Thoreau is in this passage, you as well are expressing your greed. You can put yourself first all you want, but failing to recognize that you have a responsibility to society as well simply makes you greedy, and yes very clearly explains why you hold this position.
This is like saying a little murder is necessary.
I am pretty sure I am not equating roads, and police to genocide. Although if we were to have it your way, there would be plenty of murder now would there not? Those feeling they are entitled to what you have so they will just come and take it. Like I said before... Have it your way, but what will happen when the street gangs come with guns and knives to take forcibly what you own? You may get one or two of them, but you will perish and your belongings will be gone. We will only be left to wonder why no one was there to protect you from these thugs. Remeber this will be a legal activity, laws will be gone, heaven forbid we impose a law against you that says you cannot kill another.
So my question to you is this: Which is more immoral? The person electing a representative to make decisions on thier behalf based on thier personal views? Or the sharp point of the street thugs knife being thrust into your chest when he leaglly takes your belongings because he can?
Yet another supplication to the nasty old "love it or leave it."
I am not really suggesting "love it or leave it"! I have asked you where is the country that does a better job securing the rights and well being of its citizenry? Is there a country that better suits your desires to live as you choose? Last I checked we all choose to be citizens of this country, you are allowed to leave! Where is it you would go?
Come build your toll booth. I dare you.
You and I both know you won't. You'd rather hide behind the excuse of "common $$$ value."
I don't need to... you voluntarily buy gas!
-
Ah, yes. "Change." "Change We Can Believe In!" The Obamessiah and his sidekicks are looking just like the last several occupants of the White House: some cronyism here, a few bombs there, taking care of the globalists' agenda first... "We're from the government, and we're "Here To Help!" Please, please! They've "helped" us quite enough already:
Obama's war on terror (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29249066/) <- link
In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A. ’s program of transferring prisoners to othercountries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone.
The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team’s arguments that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on the “state secrets” doctrine. It has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials.
Endowed by (our) Creator is a concept of Rights that doesn't exist in the New World Order or to its henchmen - and to oppose them makes one a "Terrorist!"
-
I was expecting more flesh to the skeleton than what you provided in your reply.
I owe you nothing, despite your expectations. I exist to live to my life. It doesn't matter one whit if I meet your expectations.
Your starting point when answering others led me to consider that you may have been able to articualte a reasonable alternative to our current method of payment for shared services.
Since many of us would take the similar position that we each pay more than we desire to finance projects that we dislike; it seems reasonable to me...
Check your premises. And be very, very careful when you call upon what passes for "reasonable" in what has become a rapaciously unreasonable society.
...that your extreme position would have been more forthcoming in alternatives.
Like I said, there is no possible way for me to have all the answers. I have never claimed to be a constructive critic. Must I have a solution before I point out a problem?
So, where does a government exist that functions more similarly to your desires and where does a government exist that finances shared services in a manner consistent with your beliefs?
You are making the absurd assumption that government (that is, force imposed upon your neighbors) is necessary to live your life. You're also flirting with those "love it or leave it" microcephalics.
-
I see you are on Matt,
If you are going to spend an hour typing a diatribe of all the same 'ol why would I do that to you, "love it or leave it", I dare to you to build a toll booth..... don't waste my time (or yours) I have already got you covered.
Convince me why you should be counted as an American citizen but still not have to be subject to the laws created by our election process, just because you choose to refuse to participate.
-
Firstly, I would never presume to speak for you.
That's bull****. You've already presumed to speak for me. Click this sentence, liar:
Any form of collection is fine with him as long as he does not have to participate. (http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11926.msg312268#msg312268)
This is the problem with lying: when someone catches you doing it, even one time, no one can completely trust a thing you say, ever again.
I do not impose anything upon you by my act of voting. I am participating in the established process...
Here you've demonstrated that you're delusional. If your vote didn't impose anything, why cast it?
Klansmen also have an established process. Your participation in a process that's "established" doesn't make it any less murderous.
Your consent is implied because you are a US citizen...
The accident of my birth in a particular place is irrelevant. Once again, you're jerking off to the "love it or leave it" mantra.
...as such you have an equal say in the same exact process as I do.
That's no different than voting on which thug takes money from both of us. There is no way to opt out of being rolled.
You're using "process" as a substitute for moral discernment.
Because you refuse to participate in the process does not make you exempt from the bi-products of said process.
This, unfortunately, is brutally true. I didn't opt in, yet I'm compelled to finance things I despise. This is like a nun being compelled to participate in a rape.
As far as "going out like a light"...
I'll ask you again: why would you do such things to me? Would you personally come to my house and take part of my paycheck from my employer? You and I, and everyone here knows you wouldn't. You lack the stones to do it yourself. That's where you went out like a light. You got lazy and used the pathetic excuse of "process" to make your moral decisions for you.
...you can thank me as much as yourself for that asphalt your car rides on. ([url]http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11926.msg312268#msg312268[/url])
Buying fuel is not compliance under duress!
If it's true that buying fuel is not compliance under duress, then why would I have any reason to thank you for paying my way?
As I said before, I need nothing from you.
Cite it.
The only thing I would like from you is for you to answer the question why you feel you should be exempt from the bi-products of our electoral process simply because you refuse to participate.
Why would a Klan victim feel he should be exempt from the lynching "process" despite his refusal to "participate"?
...pay more than you legally should...
More "process", without regard to morality. Do you smoke more marijuana than you "legally" should?
I thought we were talking about voting. You are putting the cart before the horse now. This discussion is about the immorality of participating in the process of electing officials, the rest is bi-product. YOU DON'T LIKE THE BI-PRODUCT NOW SO THE PROCESS HAS BECOME IMMORAL TO YOU! That only makes you a sore loser.
So the "workers" at Auschwitz were just sore losers? The native Americans who were exploited and murdered were just sore losers? The voting process certainly served them well, wouldn't you agree?
You don't vote because the bi-product is not favorable to you.
Again, you presume to speak for me, liar.
I don't vote because it's wrong.
I realize that not every citizen votes and to them all I can say is.... YOUR LOSS!
For whose gain?
The United States being a Representative Republic, allows for, encourages, and expects, its citizenry to choose the Representation that makes decisions regarding how the Country is run.
...with no possible way to opt out of that "process" for any reason.
So you are a liar then as well?
I never lie. I revealed the enormity of my very real and painfully confiscated earnings to make a point. "Bait" doesn't mean "false." Leech bait is still bait. You rose to the occasion and immediately advocated theft, (http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11926.msg306887#msg306887) viz, "There should be a damn toll booth at the end of your driveway."
This you are correct about. I have no right to make you participate.
You don't understand what participation or its implications mean.
When you vote, you approve of the imposition of your mere preferences upon your neighbors.
...you have a responsibility to society as well simply makes you greedy,
What is my responsibility to "society"? Define it. While you're at it, define "society."
Even more close to home, tell me: what, precisely is my responsibility to you? What do I owe you, that would make you call me a liar, and presume that you should be able to build a toll booth at the end of my driveway to steal what I've earned?
"...laws will be gone..."
You're making more assumptions. Laws can exist, and have existed, without coercive government.
What's disturbing here, though. is the fact that you continue to equate "legal" with with "right."
So my question to you is this: Which is more immoral? The person electing a representative to make decisions on thier behalf based on thier personal views? Or the sharp point of the street thugs knife being thrust into your chest when he leaglly takes your belongings because he can?
"Legal" is not the standard of what is right. It should mirror what is right, but it doesn't, and hasn't for a very long time.
How long ago was it legal to own another human? How many times do I have to point this out?: legal does not equal right.
I am not really suggesting "love it or leave it"!
Yes, you are, every time you invoke "the process".
...you are allowed to leave!
Again, a mobster's thinly veiled threat. "You're free to go somewhere else if you don't like the extortion." In other words, "Love it or leave it." You're chanting it, and you don't even realize it.
-
Convince me why you should be counted as an American citizen but still not have to be subject to the laws created by our election process, just because you choose to refuse to participate.
I owe you nothing. You're the one advocating theft.
"There should be a damn toll booth at the end of your driveway."
That reveals more about you than you'll ever realize.
-
Quote from: jbs49238 on Today at 12:32:23 AM
"Convince me why you should be counted as an American citizen but still not have to be subject to the laws created by our election process, just because you choose to refuse to participate."
I owe you nothing. You're the one advocating theft.
"There should be a damn toll booth at the end of your driveway."
That reveals more about you than you'll ever realize.
[/color]
IN OTHERWORDS, YOU CAN'T! You hold a far fringe viewpoint that cannot produce an answer to any question that may potentially expose its flaws.
Anyone who reads the thread will easily understand what the "toll booth" comment meant. I of course did not advocate that a toll booth should arbitrarily be placed at the end of your driveway as a means of extracting more from you than you already pay. I stated that if you were to have your way and not be subject to paying taxes as a result of your refusal to participate in what you call the immorality of voting that you should have a toll booth at the end of your driveway if you still planned on using the roads.
Your attempt to call me a thief as a result of the "toll booth" comment further shows not only to me, but everyone else that if given the opportunity, you would keep every penny for you and never pay for the services that we all share.
As for the rest..... I asked you not to spend hours rehashing all of your talking points, but I think you indeed hit every single one of them.
And as far as love it or leave it................. Why do you refuse to answer the question:
What country does it better? (this is not a love it or leave it question, it begs only for a simple answer)
Oh and BTW, where I "presumed to speak for you" by saying any form of tax collection would be fine with you as long as you didn't have to participate........ Was I wrong? If not then ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!
"That's no different than voting on which thug takes money from both of us. There is no way to opt out of being rolled."
That statement is complete proof that you only find voting immoral because you cannot find where the bi-product benefits YOU! Just because you don't like way things are going don't call the rest of us immoral for attempting to shape it. That is what the Constitution demands of the citizenry we shape our country by voting.
"This, unfortunately, is brutally true. I didn't opt in, yet I'm compelled to finance things I despise. This is like a nun being compelled to participate in a rape."
First of all, your comparisons astound me, your attempt to draw the darkest most violent comparisons tells me that you know your ideology is factually deficient so you use fear and fright to make your points have some weight.
Secondly, your refusal to attempt to change things leads you to your own rape. Like you asked "would I participate in my own murder (again graphic fear, and scare)" I answered of course not, I would redress until my conviction was overturned, I would fight using every avenue available to me. You choose not to fight, thus guaranteeing your own murder, or rape, or sodomy or whatever scary, violent event you want to use.
"More "process", without regard to morality. Do you smoke more marijuana than you "legally" should?"
Actually I don't smoke any marijuana. I choose not too. I am not sure I understand your point here anyways... how did you go from me asking if the government is asking you to pay more taxes than you legally should to you asking me if I smoke more marijuana than I legally should. I would normally say this is comparing apples to oranges, but those at least are both fruits. Your comparison here is like apples to color TV sets. It serves only to divert the reader from the fact that you didn't address the point presented to you.
Quote from: jbs49238 on February 16, 2009, 03:54:31 PM
As far as "going out like a light"...
"I'll ask you again: why would you do such things to me? Would you personally come to my house and take part of my paycheck from my employer? You and I, and everyone here knows you wouldn't. You lack the stones to do it yourself. That's where you went out like a light. You got lazy and used the pathetic excuse of "process" to make your moral decisions for you."
Actually you said I went out like a light because I wouldn't answer your question about using voting to force my preferences upon you, except I have answered the bell every round. Everytime you ask that question I give you a concise answer. You are the one that "goes out like a light". You have yet to answer the questions I asked you, apparently because your time is too precious. If your time is too precious why did you spend hours (literally) coming up with this response? Your time cannot be too precious if you are willing to invest hours of time spewing your logic, yet you fail to answer questions using the premise that I am not worth your time. Interesting. So in other words... we are only supposed to hear you, not ask questions or expose flaws in your logic?
Quote from: jbs49238 on February 16, 2009, 03:54:31 PM
The United States being a Representative Republic, allows for, encourages, and expects, its citizenry to choose the Representation that makes decisions regarding how the Country is run.
"...with no possible way to opt out of that "process" for any reason."
This isn't a Staples commercial you don't just smack a button and get to "opt out"! Let me trumpet some "love it or leave it" here. YOU CAN OPT OUT! No one would even stand in your way, the government does not flash a gun at the border and force you back in. If things have gotten so bad in this sandbox pick up your toys and go play elsewhere, I only ask that you tell me where it is you would go. What country does it better?
"You're making more assumptions. Laws can exist, and have existed, without coercive government.
What's disturbing here, though. is the fact that you continue to equate "legal" with with "right."
How can laws exist if no one is directed on how to sculpt them? If we do not choose how the laws are written and who writes them for us, then WHO WRITES THEM FOR US? You are now beginning either to see the light or contradict yourself. The whole pillar of your argument is that I am immoral for voting for people to draft laws, yet you are saying that it is OK for laws to be drafted? By who? Who gets to choose who makes the rules? You but not me? You offer no solution to get to this point you just throw it out there like it has been established as fact.
Name me a non-coercive government that has established laws. I will either show you a dictatorship, or a country that has elected officials. What country has laws but no government? Who made those laws? How did they come about the authority to do so? These are even more questions that you probably will just not answer and instead tell some story about killing a puppy or something else horrific to divert attention away from your lack of an answer.
This is the last time I will answer your posts unless you can skip the rehashed diatribe. I have posed over the course of the last couple of weeks many questions to you that were crafted after reading your thoughts. I have answered your questions, but you refuse to answer when questioned about your anarchist rhetoric. Since you refuse to answer questions concerning your thoughts I can only assume that you know your ideas are intellectually flawed and basically just self-serving! And honestly I'll put most of my eggs in the "self-serving" basket.
-
Oh and how exactly am I supposed to "cite" not needing anything from you?
You don't have to answer that one, just thought I'd throw it out there.
-
Quote from: jbs49238 on Today at 12:32:23 AM
"Convince me why you should be counted as an American citizen but still not have to be subject to the laws created by our election process, just because you choose to refuse to participate."
IN OTHERWORDS, YOU CAN'T! You hold a far fringe viewpoint that cannot produce an answer to any question that may potentially expose its flaws.
As if being a citizen in the election process were the pinnacle of being a human.
I of course did not advocate that a toll booth should arbitrarily be placed at the end of your driveway as a means of extracting more from you than you already pay.
Yes, you did, liar. Here's another clicky link to the citation for your lazy lyin' ***:
There should be a damn toll booth at the end of your driveway. (http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11926.msg306887#msg306887)
I stated that if you were to have your way and not be subject to paying taxes as a result of your refusal to participate in what you call the immorality of voting that you should have a toll booth at the end of your driveway if you still planned on using the roads.
Again, cite it. Where in this thread did you say that? You're just making **** up.
Your attempt to call me a thief...
"Attempt?" You did it to yourself. I just pointed out the obvious.
And as far as love it or leave it................. Why do you refuse to answer the question:
What country does it better? (this is not a love it or leave it question, it begs only for a simple answer)
Still stuck in the love it or leave rut, despite your denial of the blatantly obvious. You're operating with stunted concepts. Countries are merely convenient groupings based on arbitrary lines on a map. You're completely missing what's right.
Besides, I asked first:
Why would you steal from me when I'd never do that to you? Why would you allow someone to constrain my life on your behalf? Why would you do that to me, when I'd never do that to you?
Never, ever, would I lend any shred of legitimacy to anyone who would constrain your life in any way. Why would you do that to me? Why would you do that to your neighbors? Why would you perpetuate such a thing upon the young and innocent who don't yet have any idea what sort of cannibals will tear the flesh off the very best parts of their lives?
Oh and BTW, where I "presumed to speak for you" by saying any form of tax collection would be fine with you as long as you didn't have to participate........ Was I wrong? If not then ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION!
You're a piece of work. You did try to speak for me. Go back and look. I made it real easy, and used small words, with links and everything. If you have to ask if you were wrong, after all that, you're beyond hope.
"That's no different than voting on which thug takes money from both of us. There is no way to opt out of being rolled."
That statement is complete proof that you only find voting immoral because you cannot find where the bi-product benefits YOU! Just because you don't like way things are going don't call the rest of us immoral for attempting to shape it. That is what the Constitution demands of the citizenry we shape our country by voting.
More process in lieu of moral discernment.
Look: once upon a murderous time, there was a process for loading humans on cattle cars.
"This, unfortunately, is brutally true. I didn't opt in, yet I'm compelled to finance things I despise. This is like a nun being compelled to participate in a rape."
First of all, your comparisons astound me, your attempt to draw the darkest most violent comparisons tells me that you know your ideology is factually deficient so you use fear and fright to make your points have some weight.
I use analogies to illustrate concepts. Often those concepts have already been demonstrated by history. Take, for example, my reference to cattle cars, just above. It's happened before. It will happen again, abetted by people following process. People like you, who will later ask, slack-jawed, "How did it come to this?"
...your refusal to attempt to change things...
You choose not to fight...
What do you think I'm doing right here? There is far more to this than following some prescribed process.
Again, Thoreau:
"As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad."
"More "process", without regard to morality. Do you smoke more marijuana than you "legally" should?"
Actually I don't smoke any marijuana. I choose not too. I am not sure I understand your point here anyways... how did you go from me asking if the government is asking you to pay more taxes than you legally should to you asking me if I smoke more marijuana than I legally should. I would normally say this is comparing apples to oranges, but those at least are both fruits. Your comparison here is like apples to color TV sets. It serves only to divert the reader from the fact that you didn't address the point presented to you.
Yeah, that analogy was a bit of a stretch for you. The point is: legal is not the same as right, and illegal is not the same as wrong. As for my analogy, smoking dope may be illegal, but it's certainly not wrong. Conversely, voting in government elections is legal, but it's certainly not right.
Quote from: jbs49238 on February 16, 2009, 03:54:31 PM
As far as "going out like a light"...
You are the one that "goes out like a light".
In other words, "I know you are, but what am I?"
That'd be cute coming from a toddler.
You have yet to answer the questions I asked you, apparently because your time is too precious. If your time is too precious why did you spend hours (literally) coming up with this response? Your time cannot be too precious if you are willing to invest hours of time spewing your logic, yet you fail to answer questions using the premise that I am not worth your time. Interesting. So in other words... we are only supposed to hear you, not ask questions or expose flaws in your logic?
You can't go one nanosecond without making assumptions.
"...with no possible way to opt out of that "process" for any reason."[/color]
...you don't just smack a button and get to "opt out"!
That's precisely the problem. I'm constrained by the preferences of the likes of you. At least here you admit that I can't opt out.
Let me trumpet some "love it or leave it" here. YOU CAN OPT OUT! No one would even stand in your way, the government does not flash a gun at the border and force you back in. If things have gotten so bad in this sandbox pick up your toys and go play elsewhere, I only ask that you tell me where it is you would go.
Leaving is not the same as opting out.
What country does it better?
You complain that I haven't answered your questions. The problem with your questions is that they're infested with smuggled premises.
For example, if I were to ask "When did you stop molesting kittens?" I'd have smuggled in the assumption that you're a kitten molester.
Here, you're assuming that the only way people can co-exist is by organizing into countries ruled by coercive governments.
Just as a shopkeep beset by mobsters demanding protection money isn't obligated to pack up and leave, neither am I obligated to go elsewhere to live my one and only life.
"You're making more assumptions. Laws can exist, and have existed, without coercive government.
What's disturbing here, though. is the fact that you continue to equate "legal" with with "right."
How can laws exist if no one is directed on how to sculpt them?
...
The whole pillar of your argument is that I am immoral for voting for people to draft laws, yet you are saying that it is OK for laws to be drafted? By who? Who gets to choose who makes the rules? You but not me? You offer no solution to get to this point you just throw it out there like it has been established as fact.
You're still assuming laws can only come from a central coercive source: government.
Partial alternatives exist even today. Arbitration is one.
I don't have all the answers. I've never claimed to be a constructive critic. The first step in resolving any problem is to identify it. Here, I'm identifying the fact that I'm compelled to live a life constrained by people like you.
Name me a non-coercive government...
There is no such thing. Government is, by definition, coercive.
How did they come about the authority to do so?
You've stumbled upon a critical question.
How did governments acquire authority? I know how. Do you?
Even more important: how does that authority continue?
I certainly don't give any authority to any government, so how is it that any government continues to constrain me?
This is the last time I will answer your posts unless you can skip the rehashed diatribe.
Boo hoo.
Run away from your premises. Run far, run fast.
Inlookers note: you can lead a person to concepts, but you can't make him think.
-
Your entire post, answered nothing.
I'll let the rest look back and read the text of the arguments not how you are now trying to spin them.
I guess am going to walk away from this now. There is no point in trying to pose questions to a person that refuses to answer.
Enjoy not voting again in 2010, I guess I will relish imposing my views on you yet again.
In the interim, without implying assumtions:
Why do you feel as a US citizen you should be exempt from the results of our election process, citing only that you refuse to participate?
What country does it better? (No f-ing assumptions just name one.)
Why have you not sought refuge there?
There they are yet again. No assumptions intended, I just want you to answer. You won't, you can't!
Maybe someday you will realize that you are a US citizen and wake up from your anarchist utopia slumber.
-
Oh and the answer to what I think you are doing here in this thread?
You are complaining about having to pay taxes, you are using what you call the immorality of voting as the smokescreen to hide your intentions.
If you had your choice you would not pay a dime in taxes, I also firmly believe that if a political party were to rise that held your beliefs that had a snowballs chance in hell of gaining any type of national support you would be standing right in line with the rest of us immoral heathens to cast your imposition on someone else, I mean vote.
Just to set the record clear......... I do not steal from you, no one from the government has ever come to your home and demanded you follow as I wish, and if your viewpoint is that you should not have to pay taxes because you refuse to participate in the elctoral process, then yes, you sir should have a toll booth at the end of your driveway.
You also got real tripped up in your own double speak about the existence of law by non-coercive governments, I noticed you didn't quote yourself there just tried to copy and paste some stuff together to make you look like you didn't say it. You said it here is the quote:
"You're making more assumptions. Laws can exist, and have existed, without coercive government."
I asked you for examples and your response was to ignore that you said it.
I wish you the best of luck in your crusade, it is a fruitless folly, but I wish wish you the best regardless.
-
Oh and I have spent some good time engaging you or at least attempting to engage you in a question answer but you continue to say the same things over and over.
Your lack or respect to have the common courtesy to answer questions posed to you all while continuing to drag out your point is what is leading me away from the thread, not because I am defeated in any way.
I will probably read your reply, but likely I will give it all its due worth, I'll probably print just to crumple it up and throw it away.
Your lack of respect given to the replies you give is amazing and in total just wastes time.
I would never knowingly waste your time, why would you do that to me?
-
I owe you nothing, despite your expectations. I exist to live to my life. It doesn't matter one whit if I meet your expectations.
Check your premises. And be very, very careful when you call upon what passes for "reasonable" in what has become a rapaciously unreasonable society.
Like I said, there is no possible way for me to have all the answers. I have never claimed to be a constructive critic. Must I have a solution before I point out a problem?
You are making the absurd assumption that government (that is, force imposed upon your neighbors) is necessary to live your life. You're also flirting with those "love it or leave it" microcephalics.
Yes, I was expecting a more reasoned response than you have twice provided.
Thus, twice bit I will leave and you can stay.
I wasn't trying to draw you into anyting more than a conversation that would lead to my understanding your position. You couldn't be bothered with an explanation so I WILL now PRESUME that no explanation exists.
peace out, I understand you now.
-
Your entire post, answered nothing.
bull****.
Your inability to understand basic concepts imposes no obligation upon me, or anyone else.
I'll let the rest look back and read the text of the arguments not how you are now trying to spin them.
If you've learned nothing else, you ought to have at least figured out that I don't care what anyone else thinks.
I guess am going to walk away from this now. There is no point in trying to pose questions to a person that refuses to answer.
Again, I've given you plenty of answers.
And again, boo hoo.
You can lead a person to concepts but you can't make him think. You're that person.
Enjoy not voting again in 2010, I guess I will relish imposing my views on you yet again.
After all the crap you've spewed, now you state this, acknowledging that you do, indeed, impose your preferences upon me when you vote.
So, I'll ask you again, even though you'll go out like a light, again:
Why would you do such a thing a thing to me? I'd never do such a thing to you.
In the interim, without implying assumptions:
...
What country does it better? (No f-ing assumptions just name one.)
Why have you not sought refuge there?
You deny assumptions, but your questions are loaded with them.
Go back and read again about smuggled premises and mobsters.
I would never force you to leave because you have different prefences than I do. Why would do that me?
No assumptions intended, I just want you to answer. You won't, you can't!
Here's the thing: I'm certain you don't intend any assumptions, but those assumptions infect you to your core. You lack introspection, which is required to ferret out false premises.
The whole thing boils down to this:
You want what's mine:
"There should be a damn toll booth at the end of your driveway"
...but you're too much of a coward to come and take it on your own, so you let others do your dirty work:
"I will relish imposing my views on you yet again."
**** you, thief.
-
bull****.
Your inability to understand basic concepts imposes no obligation upon me, or anyone else.
If you've learned nothing else, you ought to have at least figured out that I don't care what anyone else thinks.
Again, I've given you plenty of answers.
And again, boo hoo.
You can lead a person to concepts but you can't make him think. You're that person.
After all the crap you've spewed, now you state this, acknowledging that you do, indeed, impose your preferences upon me when you vote.
YOU OBVIOUSLY ALSO DON"T UNDERSTAND BLATENT SARCASM! NOT SURPRISING. Actually I think you do but you just used a quote to again twist a comment into looking like you achieved some major conquest. Nice try. Try again.
So, I'll ask you again, even though you'll go out like a light, again:
Why would you do such a thing a thing to me? I'd never do such a thing to you.
You deny assumptions, but your questions are loaded with them.
Go back and read again about smuggled premises and mobsters.
I would never force you to leave because you have different prefences than I do. Why would do that me?
Here's the thing: I'm certain you don't intend any assumptions, but those assumptions infect you to your core. You lack introspection, which is required to ferret out false premises.
The whole thing boils down to this:
You want what's mine:
"There should be a damn toll booth at the end of your driveway"
...but you're too much of a coward to come and take it on your own, so you let others do your dirty work:
"I will relish imposing my views on you yet again."
**** you, thief.
<sarcasm on>
I am glad we could come to an understanding!
<sarcasm off>
"**** you, thief."
Actually I think you are just jealous. See if you had your way and got to forego paying taxes then it would be you that was the thief, every time you drove or drank from the tap, or called a cop about someone building strange shaped buildings with gates on them at the end of your driveway. You would just be stealing from those of us that contribute to the system. You just want the shoe on the other foot. I get it, actually always have, you are just greedy.
So from one thief (oops sarcasm) to a wanna be thief, I return your closing:
"**** you, thief."
-
"Again, I've given you plenty of answers.
And again, boo hoo.
You can lead a person to concepts but you can't make him think. You're that person."
An answer to a question that was not asked is a statement or a thought and yes you have provided plenty of thoughts.
You again refused or were unable to put into words answers to the three main questions I continue to ask and will ask again at the end of this post.
When you refuse to answer questions it shows that either you are unable to, or you won't because you know that your answers will only show a general lack of intellectual capacity. I will let the others decide for themselves, I have already made my mind up.
So again:
Why do you feel as a US citizen you should be exempt from the results of our election process, citing only that you refuse to participate?
What country does it better?
Why have you not sought refuge there?
The floor is open.............
-
What size are those tappin shoes anyways?
-
It seems apparent that a host of our federales were BoyScouts at one time, and took the motto "Be Prepared" to heart. It should come as no surprise to any thinking individual that there really is no such thing as "unintended consequences" when it comes to the political spectrum: what happens was the intended result. When the servants in DC are found to be flouting the LittlePeople laws it's called a "loophole," with cries to "close" it emanating from both sides of the proverbial aisle. Of course it is no such thing, we just can't have the LittlePeople realizing that we're not all equal pigs after all, now can we? Some pigs are MORE equal than others...
The same thing goes for our present "Economic Crisis:" the Voodoo Economics Wizards at the Fed along with their lackeys in Congress have known for quite some time that the house of cards that our monetary system actually is would come crumbling down - one of these days. With that in mind it then becomes imperative that they prepare for that fateful day, and all the civil unrest that will surely follow. How to prepare for such a scenario? Several things come to mind, but two are primary: disarm the populace however and wherever possible, and make sure the government goons and stooges are armed to the teeth. Quite simple, really, as even simpletons understand the power of a barrel of a gun aimed at their heads:
Sci-fi Raytheon riot control (http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/auto/newsdesk/20090119232711ymnews.html) <- link
The US military sees the modern city as the battleground of the 21st century. Now it's reported that the Pentagon is experimenting with an array of weapons, including the Active Denial System (ADS), a microwave 'ray gun' designed by Raytheon, which directs unbearable heat on the skin from a 2km distance and is specifically designed for crowd dispersal.
Other ongoing projects include acoustic devices and Pulsed Energy Projectiles (PEPs) which hurl plasma at crowds, causing 'pain and temporary paralysis'.
These weapons were originally intended for the urban battlegrounds of the Third World. 'But if Barack Obama fails to reactivate the ailing US economy, they may well find themselves deployed in the United States,' writes Carr.
...trouble is, indeed, brewing on the not-so-distant horizon...
-
I have had a thorough respect and admiration for Alan Keyes for the last decade or so, and this recent interview (http://stopbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/stop-obama-or-us-will-cease-to-exist/) <- link only furthers it. Solidifies it. From an article titled "Stop Barack Obama or the United States Will Cease to Exist" (how could one NOT click on such a thing?!) we learn that the pre-election "quandary" of Obama's fitness for the Office of President of the United States is moving into the next stage: members of the military are suing him to prove he has the Executive Authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Of course way too many people's opinions of the matter tend toward "He's President, Get Over It," but such anally-retentive opinions are without legal merit. Still. Are we, in fact, Free to question that which our Servant/Masters do and say, or are we not?
-
(http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd49/airborne373/225px-Goering1932.jpg)
“Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
- Hermann Goering
-
... the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
- Hermann Goering
Wow. Now I know how George W. Bush got his inspiration to invade Iraq..
-
(http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/gallery/images/HomerCrazy.gif)
-
When you refuse to answer questions it shows that either you are unable to, or you won't because you know that your answers will only show a general lack of intellectual capacity. I will let the others decide for themselves, I have already made my mind up.
Stop lying. I've answered you many times. The fact that you don't understand doesn't impose any obligation upon me. You're a chimp, trying to chew the foot off a caller at the door, because you're frightened by the color of his suit. If you've learned anything by now, you should know that I don't care what others think.
So again:
Why do you feel as a US citizen you should be exempt from the results of our election process, citing only that you refuse to participate?
What country does it better?
Why have you not sought refuge there?
The floor is open.............
And again:
Still your questions are infested with smuggled premises.
"Why do you feel as a US citizen you should be exempt from the results of our election process, citing only that you refuse to participate?"
This is your "election process":
"If I were walking past your house and came upon a crowd deliberating whether to enter the premises and take things that belonged to you, and they invited me to vote on the matter, I would swiftly inform them that there could be no vote about it because the matter is completely closed on the principle of private property. There is no such thing as a moral right to take a vote on whether to violate others' rights. In plain language, this is known as a conspiracy." -- Billy Beck (http://www.two--four.net/comments.php?id=P2130_0_1_0)
Only a microcephalic would rely on such a thing.
"What country does it better?"
Does what better? Presume to represent people residing within its borders, without their explicit consent? Conspire to violate rights? What? Name it. Name it.
"Why have you not sought refuge there?"
And once again you bring us to this: "Get the **** out or my gang will kill you." In other words, love it or leave it, which I pointed out, right from the very beginning of your thuggish bull****. (http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11926.msg310001#msg310001)
Make me. I ******* dare you.
-
Stop lying. I've answered you many times. The fact that you don't understand doesn't impose any obligation upon me. You're a chimp, trying to chew the foot off a caller at the door, because you're frightened by the color of his suit. If you've learned anything by now, you should know that I don't care what others think.
And again:
Still your questions are infested with smuggled premises.
"Why do you feel as a US citizen you should be exempt from the results of our election process, citing only that you refuse to participate?"
This is your "election process":
"If I were walking past your house and came upon a crowd deliberating whether to enter the premises and take things that belonged to you, and they invited me to vote on the matter, I would swiftly inform them that there could be no vote about it because the matter is completely closed on the principle of private property. There is no such thing as a moral right to take a vote on whether to violate others' rights. In plain language, this is known as a conspiracy." -- Billy Beck ([url]http://www.two--four.net/comments.php?id=P2130_0_1_0[/url])
Only a microcephalic would rely on such a thing.
"What country does it better?"
Does what better? Presume to represent people residing within its borders, without their explicit consent? Conspire to violate rights? What? Name it. Name it.
"Why have you not sought refuge there?"
And once again you bring us to this: "Get the **** out or my gang will kill you." In other words, love it or leave it, which I pointed out, right from the very beginning of your thuggish bull****. ([url]http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11926.msg310001#msg310001[/url])
Make me. I ****ing dare you.
So you refuse to answer?
OK Fine, I've moved on!
BTW just to blow your little quote to s*&t..... Your vote in the group at my front door would not have any legal bite to it. By participating in the vote you are involving yourself in a conspiracy to commit a crime "robbery". By voting in an election you are choosing people to represent you in government or pass a millage, neither of these things are illegal. Unless you are a greedy delusional anarchist who thinks he shouldn't have to pay simply because he refuses to vote.
And since I know your next move will be to say that my actions of votiong have lead to the theft of a quarter million of your dollars (or $8 or whatever figure you want to fudge in there) you are wrong. No one has stolen anything from you, had they they would be in jail. File a police report, I would love to see them laugh so hard at you that thier drink from lunch shot out their noses. The taxes you have paid, even though you don't like it, have been legally collected from you.
The only reason you suggest my questions contain "smuggled premesis" is so you can dodge having to answer them. TAP TAP TAP all day long. TAP TAP TAP while I sing my song! You either refuse to answer because you cannot or you know your answer is philosophicaly flawed, or you could answer:
Why do you feel as a US citizen you should be exempt from the results of our election process, citing only that you refuse to participate?
What country does it better? (What country better represents your beliefs on this subject?)
Why have you not sought refuge there?
The floor is open............. you can either answer or send me another tidbit of S*&t to blast into even smaller tidbits of S*&t!
-
So you refuse to answer?
Again you lie. I've answered you many times, and not once did my answers penetrate the gulag of your stunted mind.
What country does it better? (What country better represents your beliefs on this subject?)
Why have you not sought refuge there?
One of us is proceeding from the premise that all human interaction must be voluntary, and one of us presumes that at least some violent force is required for human interaction.
Take one guess which of those is you.
Drop dead.
-
Again you lie. I've answered you many times, and not once did my answers penetrate the gulag of your stunted mind.
One of us is proceeding from the premise that all human interaction must be voluntary, and one of us presumes that at least some violent force is required for human interaction.
Take one guess which of those is you.
Drop dead.
Your "drop dead" proved his point of who is promoting violent force and thuggery.
-
Your "drop dead" proved his point of who is promoting violent force and thuggery.
Open your eyes. It's a wish, not a threat. You ought to pay better attention: not once has jbs claimed that I'm promoting violence and thuggery.
His "point", that is, the premise upon which he bases his actions, is that might makes right. You can see that, can't you?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TZ_9-rbslo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TZ_9-rbslo)
-
Open your eyes. It's a wish, not a threat. You ought to pay better attention: not once has jbs claimed that I'm promoting violence and thuggery.
His "point", that is, the premise upon which he bases his actions, is that might makes right. You can see that, can't you?
Matt I really don't see why you are going off on me. I was not attacking you. Might makes right seems to come from your side more than his. But, if you want to believe it the other way I don't care. I have no stake in your convo. Just thought you would want an outside opinion. Sionara.
-
Matt I really don't see why you are going off on me. I was not attacking you.
"Going off"? You really ought to develop much thicker skin if you're going to agree with a liar and an advocate of theft.
Might makes right seems to come from your side more than his.
Go back and re-read this thread. Look deep. Deeper than you've ever looked. Think about who owns you. Look past the litmus test of harsh words. I've distilled it, as best I can. All you really need to examine is this: "There should be a damn toll booth at the end of your driveway" and that I'm not the one who made that claim.
Sionara.
It's "sayonara." Or, if you're anticipating engaging me again, it would be "mata ashita", "again, tomorrow."
I've been to Japan a couple times, at enormous expense to other things I'd like to do in my life. You should go if you can. You won't regret it.
Ganbatte! (http://karatejutsu.blogspot.com/2006/05/guest-post-ganbaru.html)
-
Again you lie. I've answered you many times, and not once did my answers penetrate the gulag of your stunted mind.
I'll make you a deal, make this very simple for you so that you can prove I am a liar. I am going to post the questions below in bold print. All you have to do is come along and copy and paste in the quotes from this thread where you answered the question. Real simple just show me your answers to my very specific questions then you can call me a liar. When your response to a question is a diatribe about how the question is presumptive you have not answered the question. If it makes you feel more comfortable I am going to provide some canned answers which you can scratch and replace with your own if you finally decide to answer.
Here goes:
Q:Why do you feel as a US citizen you should be exempt from the results of our election process, citing only that you refuse to participate?
A: Because I don't like the way government represents my opinions, so I feel since I don't like the decisions I shouldn't have to pay taxes or be subject to those decisions, even though I participate in activities or use services daily that would not be available to me had those decisions not been made or funded by taxes collected for the purpose. In other words I want to play but not pay.
Q:What country does it better?
A: None, but by admitting that I would have no leg for my argument to stand on. I'll continue to evade this question by saying it is filled with presumption.
Q:Why have you not sought refuge there?
A:Since the answer to the last question is none, but I cannot admit it, I also have to fight more embedded presumption here and evade this question as well. So... I will say that you are practicing love it or leave it even though I hate it and would love nothing more than for a anarchian society to pop up which reflects my personal utopia.
Bonus question:
Q: How do you feel right now?
A: A little winded and my feet are sore, let me get these tap dancing shoes off and slip into some sneakers.
One of us is proceeding from the premise that all human interaction must be voluntary, and one of us presumes that at least some violent force is required for human interaction.
Take one guess which of those is you.
Drop dead.
.
Your "drop dead" proved his point of who is promoting violent force and thuggery.
Open your eyes. It's a wish, not a threat. You ought to pay better attention: not once has jbs claimed that I'm promoting violence and thuggery.
His "point", that is, the premise upon which he bases his actions, is that might makes right. You can see that, can't you?
Geez duck, open your eyes man!
ML simply proves the hypocrisy of his position with that statement. ML would love it if I dropped dead, he even said it was a wish, but to keep with his "philosophy" he of course would never come and do it himself. On the other hand if someone were to take his matters into their own hands he would be perfectly OK with it, you see his vote is for me to drop dead, but since he would never physically participate in that process, he gets to rest easy knowing he was not personally responsible for any bad act that would happen to me. The reality is that he cannot hide the evil intent of his heart, that is something that I or you cannot help him with. Wishing someone would drop dead shows a complete disregard for decency. ML I would never wish you to drop dead, why would you do that to me? Thinking you can take a moral high ground because of a refusal to participate in something, even though you would like to see it happen, does not make you any less immoral. PS Karma is a *****!
Matt I really don't see why you are going off on me. I was not attacking you. Might makes right seems to come from your side more than his. But, if you want to believe it the other way I don't care.
Great insight duck.
What ML is after is for no one to have the right to regulate his life through the creation of laws passed by elected officials (anarchy). What he fails to see is that without those laws in place the entire world would be run on a might makes right basis. The strongest thugs would become the rulers then we would all live in a situation where we would have no say in how we are governed. For whatever reason, ML seems to think that if anarchy were to prevail everyone would sit around the campfire singing CUMBYA (sp who cares). What he fails to see, but already demonstrated by his wish for me to drop dead, is the human nature of man to be greedy and violent, and the inability of his philosophy to control it.
Of course ML also believes that the simple act of saying good morning to someone who does not want to hear it is a violent interaction because one person uses force to make the other hear the words. In a nutshell his philosophy is whack!
-
"Going off"? You really ought to develop much thicker skin if you're going to agree with a liar and an advocate of theft.
Go back and re-read this thread. Look deep. Deeper than you've ever looked. Think about who owns you. Look past the litmus test of harsh words. I've distilled it, as best I can. All you really need to examine is this: "There should be a damn toll booth at the end of your driveway" and that I'm not the one who made that claim.
It's "sayonara." Or, if you're anticipating engaging me again, it would be "mata ashita", "again, tomorrow."
I've been to Japan a couple times, at enormous expense to other things I'd like to do in my life. You should go if you can. You won't regret it.
Ganbatte! ([url]http://karatejutsu.blogspot.com/2006/05/guest-post-ganbaru.html[/url])
It is interesting, and completely expected that you would want someone reading this thread to start at that point. The meat of this and the context of it gets ramped up in post #33 and #34, yet you point the reader to post #48 in order to avoid the context and spin the direction of the reader. You say dig seeper, but then steer them to 48, deeper would be 33 and 34, then they can understand the context behind 48.
PS I am not backing off that statement nor the context behind it. It is you trying to bury the context so that you can spin the statement, just like you cut up a bunch of other posts and tried to tie them together to create spin. In the absence of truth you instead try to spin the thread.
-
What ML is after...
Don't ever presume to speak for me.
You presume to speak for me every time you waddle your presumptuous *** into a government voting booth. Don't do it here.
...is for no one to have the right to regulate his life...
Again, you reveal your violent nature: you would regulate (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+regulate&btnG=Google+Search) (<--- click that link) my life without my consent.
What he fails to see is that without those laws in place the entire world would be run on a might makes right basis.
Look, retard, the city of Chicago (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=us+murder+capital&btnG=Google+Search) (<--- another clicky link) is awash in law and order, and regulation, yet remains the murder capital of the US.
What do you think is going on right now?
Representation, or else. There's no way to opt out of your protection scam.
Everyone "regulates" their life by making voluntary arrangements with other people. There is no other way that does not require violence.
Of course ML also believes...
Again rabbit, don't ever speak for me.
-
You say dig seeper [sic], but then steer them to 48, deeper would be 33 and 34, then they can understand the context behind 48.
"Deeper" there means introspection and examination of the premises, not earlier in the record of posts.
It's no surprise that you deliberately mis-represented that.
My challenge stands: come try to build your toll booth at the end of my driveway.
-
Don't ever presume to speak for me.I think you are ticked because I can put your philosophy into words better than you can.
You presume to speak for me every time you waddle your presumptuous *** into a government voting booth. Don't do it here.No I exercise my right to choose my representation when I waddle my presumptuous *** into the booth. Your whole rallying point in this thread is that we should not be able to tell you what to do. Then at the end of your statement you turn around and tell me to do something. Hypocrite!
Again, you reveal your violent nature: you would regulate ([url]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+regulate&btnG=Google+Search[/url]) (<--- click that link) my life without my consent. Where is the violence I advocate? Where did I ever tell you to drop dead? When did I ever dress one of my statements with undertones of violence? "Come build your tollbooth I DARE YOU"
Look, retard, the city of Chicago ([url]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=us+murder+capital&btnG=Google+Search[/url]) (<--- another clicky link) is awash in law and order, and regulation, yet remains the murder capital of the US.Your opinion is that there is murder in Chicago because the people are goverend? There is murder in Chicago because street thugs are taking what they want when they want it. There are people in Chicago, and all over the world that kill and steal in violation of the law because they are morally vacant and have no respect for human decency. In other words these people just want others to "drop dead". Oh and more nice name calling how old are you? 9?
What do you think is going on right now?
Representation, or else. There's no way to opt out of your protection scam.
But this is where you fail to see you are wrong, and where your philosophy hits the dead end. You can opt out. You call this love it or leave it, but if you don't love it why would you stay?
Everyone "regulates" their life by making voluntary arrangements with other people. There is no other way that does not require violence.We actually agree somewhat here. Life is a series of voluntary choices. I choose to vote, you choose not to vote, neither decision is any more or less moral than the other. Violence is also a voluntrary decision. Mankind is greedy and violent by nature, yet one has to choose to act on it. In the absence of consequences via laws, Chicago would look like a preschool playground compared to what would happen under your philosophy.
Again ****er, don't ever speak for me.When someone hold a philosophy as wide swinging as yours, I have to vote TO SPEAK FOR ME! You don't want any of us to speak for ourselves so that when the time comes and your philosophy is in place you can do to any of us as you choose. You may not be violent and wish us no harm, but what about those that are violent but think the same as you otherwise? I don't like what your philosophy represents so I vote to speak for myself and keep your philosophy away from me.
Oh and just for shits and giggles:
I'll make you a deal, make this very simple for you so that you can prove I am a liar. I am going to post the questions below in bold print. All you have to do is come along and copy and paste in the quotes from this thread where you answered the question. Real simple just show me your answers to my very specific questions then you can call me a liar. When your response to a question is a diatribe about how the question is presumptive you have not answered the question. If it makes you feel more comfortable I am going to provide some canned answers which you can scratch and replace with your own if you finally decide to answer.
Here goes:
Q:Why do you feel as a US citizen you should be exempt from the results of our election process, citing only that you refuse to participate?
A?: Because I don't like the way government represents my opinions, so I feel since I don't like the decisions I shouldn't have to pay taxes or be subject to those decisions, even though I participate in activities or use services daily that would not be available to me had those decisions not been made or funded by taxes collected for the purpose. In other words I want to play but not pay.
Q:What country does it better?
A?: None, but by admitting that I would have no leg for my argument to stand on. I'll continue to evade this question by saying it is filled with presumption.
Q:Why have you not sought refuge there?
A?:Since the answer to the last question is none, but I cannot admit it, I also have to fight more embedded presumption here and evade this question as well. So... I will say that you are practicing love it or leave it even though I hate it and would love nothing more than for a anarchian society to pop up which reflects my personal utopia.
Bonus question:
Q: How do you feel right now?
A?: A little winded and my feet are sore, let me get these tap dancing shoes off and slip into some sneakers.
IF "MY" YOUR ANSWERS ARE INCORRECT PLEASE FEEL FREE TO FINALLY ANSWER WITH "YOUR" YOUR ANSWERS. You won't! You can't!
These question don't stop until you answer them or stop posting in the thread!
-
Oh and just for shits and giggles:
I'll make you a deal, make this very simple for you so that you can prove I am a liar. I am going to post the questions below in bold print. All you have to do is come along and copy and paste in the quotes from this thread where you answered the question. Real simple just show me your answers to my very specific questions then you can call me a liar. When your response to a question is a diatribe about how the question is presumptive you have not answered the question. If it makes you feel more comfortable I am going to provide some canned answers which you can scratch and replace with your own if you finally decide to answer.
Here goes:
Q:Why do you feel as a US citizen you should be exempt from the results of our election process, citing only that you refuse to participate?
A?: Because I don't like the way government represents my opinions, so I feel since I don't like the decisions I shouldn't have to pay taxes or be subject to those decisions, even though I participate in activities or use services daily that would not be available to me had those decisions not been made or funded by taxes collected for the purpose. In other words I want to play but not pay.
Q:What country does it better?
A?: None, but by admitting that I would have no leg for my argument to stand on. I'll continue to evade this question by saying it is filled with presumption.
Q:Why have you not sought refuge there?
A?:Since the answer to the last question is none, but I cannot admit it, I also have to fight more embedded presumption here and evade this question as well. So... I will say that you are practicing love it or leave it even though I hate it and would love nothing more than for a anarchian society to pop up which reflects my personal utopia.
Bonus question:
Q: How do you feel right now?
A?: A little winded and my feet are sore, let me get these tap dancing shoes off and slip into some sneakers.
IF "MY" YOUR ANSWERS ARE INCORRECT PLEASE FEEL FREE TO FINALLY ANSWER WITH "YOUR" YOUR ANSWERS. You won't! You can't!
These question don't stop until you answer them or stop posting in the thread!
JBS, I learned to stop arguing with him a long time ago. The guy is an anarchist and that's that. I just like to watch and laugh as he spouts his nonsense. Oh and I'm sure this post will piss him off. He'll come back with saying I'm violent because I participate and blah blah blah. Yet he still pays his taxes. I don't get it personally. If you're going to be such a revolutionary why not fight the system you hate so much instead of bitching about it and doing nothing. He's an armchair QB at best and doesn't have the testicular fortitude to go out and make a difference.
-
Well I enjoy ML’s food for thought posts.
Many times I’ll be doing something and out of the blue I’ll recall something he has posted.
It’s something to chew on to keep the mind active…..unlike the stale repetitive thoughts gathering dust in the atrophied brain of a Conservative.
It’s use it or lose it and while the GOP has most certainly lost it……the rest of us may have fight to keep an open mind.
-
JBS, I learned to stop arguing with him a long time ago. The guy is an anarchist and that's that. I just like to watch and laugh as he spouts his nonsense. Oh and I'm sure this post will piss him off. He'll come back with saying I'm violent because I participate and blah blah blah. Yet he still pays his taxes. I don't get it personally. If you're going to be such a revolutionary why not fight the system you hate so much instead of bitching about it and doing nothing. He's an armchair QB at best and doesn't have the testicular fortitude to go out and make a difference.
Shaggy,
I certainly know that I am not going to change his mind. There are three reasons that I keep posting in this thread though.
1. He has called me a thief, a rabbit, a bastard, a retard and I am sure many more. So simply stated there is zero let up on this end, I am not trying to convince him of anything I am going to pound him at every turn though because he has earned it.
2. The hypoocricy. He says he's non-violent, but violence is a state of mind. You can be a violent person and not act on it ever in your lifetime. Non-violent people do not wish others to drop dead, or putting violent undertones in his statements. To save face he cannot say he would ever do anything violent, but if you read his posts there is obviously violence in his heart.
3. I enjoy the circus that is Matt's dance! I simply ask the same questions over and over again so that I can either have something else of his to blow to smitherienes, or just let him talk long enough until the hate and hypocricy comes out. I overly enjoy when people copy and paste things I have said either out of completely different posts, or out of two different thoughts in the same post, then put them together to make it look like I said something completely different. ML really should get a job with Fox News he's a spinmeister.
I have not known ML, even as a poster, for too long, but his posts seem to be that of a former Republican who just went off the deep end when the party turned into a spending machine. It really hurts him that there is not a party that represents him, he is alone in the wilderness and since we all still vote we have somehow become evil because he does not like what we vote for. He complains about having his belongings stolen from him by the government. He is upset that he has to pay taxes yet has no trouble driving on the roads, or using other public services. You know someone is a hypoctite when they say buying gasoline for the car they voluntarily drive is complience by force!?!?!
-
Shaggy,
I certainly know that I am not going to change his mind. There are three reasons that I keep posting in this thread though.
1. He has called me a thief, a ****er, a bastard, a retard and I am sure many more. So simply stated there is zero let up on this end, I am not trying to convince him of anything I am going to pound him at every turn though because he has earned it.
2. The hypoocricy. He says he's non-violent, but violence is a state of mind. You can be a violent person and not act on it ever in your lifetime. Non-violent people do not wish others to drop dead, or putting violent undertones in his statements. To save face he cannot say he would ever do anything violent, but if you read his posts there is obviously violence in his heart.
3. I enjoy the circus that is Matt's dance! I simply ask the same questions over and over again so that I can either have something else of his to blow to smitherienes, or just let him talk long enough until the hate and hypocricy comes out. I overly enjoy when people copy and paste things I have said either out of completely different posts, or out of two different thoughts in the same post, then put them together to make it look like I said something completely different. ML really should get a job with Fox News he's a spinmeister.
I have not known ML, even as a poster, for too long, but his posts seem to be that of a former Republican who just went off the deep end when the party turned into a spending machine. It really hurts him that there is not a party that represents him, he is alone in the wilderness and since we all still vote we have somehow become evil because he does not like what we vote for. He complains about having his belongings stolen from him by the government. He is upset that he has to pay taxes yet has no trouble driving on the roads, or using other public services. You know someone is a hypoctite when they say buying gasoline for the car they voluntarily drive is complience by force!?!?!
I stopped paying attention to him (ML) quite a while ago after he claimed that he had a problem with drunk driving laws and their infringement on his "freedom."
Selfish, ignorant people don't deserve my time.
-
Shaggy,
I certainly know that I am not going to change his mind. There are three reasons that I keep posting in this thread though.
1. He has called me a thief, a ****er, a bastard, a retard and I am sure many more. So simply stated there is zero let up on this end, I am not trying to convince him of anything I am going to pound him at every turn though because he has earned it.
2. The hypoocricy. He says he's non-violent, but violence is a state of mind. You can be a violent person and not act on it ever in your lifetime. Non-violent people do not wish others to drop dead, or putting violent undertones in his statements. To save face he cannot say he would ever do anything violent, but if you read his posts there is obviously violence in his heart.
3. I enjoy the circus that is Matt's dance! I simply ask the same questions over and over again so that I can either have something else of his to blow to smitherienes, or just let him talk long enough until the hate and hypocricy comes out. I overly enjoy when people copy and paste things I have said either out of completely different posts, or out of two different thoughts in the same post, then put them together to make it look like I said something completely different. ML really should get a job with Fox News he's a spinmeister.
I have not known ML, even as a poster, for too long, but his posts seem to be that of a former Republican who just went off the deep end when the party turned into a spending machine. It really hurts him that there is not a party that represents him, he is alone in the wilderness and since we all still vote we have somehow become evil because he does not like what we vote for. He complains about having his belongings stolen from him by the government. He is upset that he has to pay taxes yet has no trouble driving on the roads, or using other public services. You know someone is a hypoctite when they say buying gasoline for the car they voluntarily drive is complience by force!?!?!
I completely agree with you and I did the same thing for a while. Keep up the good(entertaining) work. I'll be watching and laughing as he ducks and dodges questions.
-
I think you are ticked because I can put your philosophy into words better than you can.
You really ought to learn how to propagate quotes in these forums.
Now's your chance. What's my philosophy? Huh? You couldn't find your premises with both hands. State my philosophy, genius.
When did I ever dress [sic] one of my statements with undertones of violence? "Come build your tollbooth I DARE YOU"
You managed to quote your very own self, advocating violence. The thing here is, you think advocating theft isn't violence, but dares are. I'll break it into easy pieces for you. Advocating that a toll booth be built at the end of my driveway is a confession that you want to take things from me, that is, you want to steal something from me. That is: violence. I dared you to do so. My dare is defiance against your theft. My dare only becomes violent when you act on your wish to steal my stuff. That is: I'll respond to your violent theft with the only thing you understand: violence.
Your opinion is that there is murder in Chicago because the people are goverend?
Opinion? bull****. There is murder in Chicago, despite an avalanche of government.
...if you don't love it why would you stay?
Is a mugging victim obligated to surrender his money without a fight? Is a rape victim obligated to lie still and be savaged? I'm under no obligation to leave if you decide you're going delegate a thug to take my things on your behalf.
When your response to a question is a diatribe about how the question is presumptive...
You still want me to adopt your flawed premises. How long have you been fornicating with belt-driven power tools? See?
Here goes:...
And still you presume to speak for me when you can't possibly ever.
These question[sic] don't stop until you answer them or stop posting in the thread!
Yeah, yeah. Blah, blah. Thread... yawn.
Come take what you think I owe you. Really. Private message me. I'll give you my address. You can come and try to build your toll booth, or simply try to take what you imagine I owe you.
You know you won't. You prefer to let others do your dirty work, including your deficient thinking.
-
Yet he still pays his taxes.
You'd pay or say anything if an inquisitor were cracking your small bones, hypocrite.
...why not fight the system you hate so much instead of bitching about it and doing nothing. He's an armchair QB at best and doesn't have the testicular fortitude to go out and make a difference.
Doing nothing? Again, what do you think I'm doing, right here? If you had a brain in your head, you'd realize people capable of rational thought may be reading here.
And again, you have no idea what I may doing outside of here.
-
Many times I’ll be doing something and out of the blue I’ll recall something he has posted.
Thanks.
-
You really ought to learn how to propagate quotes in these forums.
Now's your chance. What's my philosophy? Huh? You couldn't find your premises with both hands. State my philosophy, genius.
I am a pissed off individual that hates having to participate in the benefit of society. I think that every penny I earn I should be able to keep regardless of the tax codes. I do not think I should have to pay for the public funding of things I disagree with, so I disagree with everything. I love using the roads but don't you dare ask me to pay property taxes to fund them. I have great disdain for our election process since no one will run for office with the "ML doesn't have to pay taxes" platform. I refuse to vote until someone runs with such a platform, and will accuse everyone else of violence for exercising their right to vote until my wishes are met. (ML)
You managed to quote your very own self, advocating violence. The thing here is, you think advocating theft isn't violence, but dares are. I'll break it into easy pieces for you. Advocating that a toll booth be built at the end of my driveway is a confession that you want to take things from me, that is, you want to steal something from me. That is: violence. I dared you to do so. My dare is defiance against your theft. My dare only becomes violent when you act on your wish to steal my stuff. That is: I'll respond to your violent theft with the only thing you understand: violence.
First of all again you leave out the fact that the premise for the tollbooth. You do not want to pay taxes, but you want to use the roads. My point is/was that if you were to have it yourway and you got to not pay taxes, then yes I think it would be perfectly acceptable to place a tollbooth at the end of your driveway so that you would have to pay for the services you choose to use. It may not have been spoken word for word that way, but the premise was very obvious. It is you that twist the phrase to attempt to make the onlooker believe that I think that someone should just throw one up there current time. Of course they shouldn't.......you pay property taxes (I assume)!
Opinion? bull****. There is murder in Chicago, despite an avalanche of government.
Again another great twisting effort. If Chicago had no government or means of law enforcement how high do you think the murder rate would be then? Why did you leave that part of my response out of your copy and paste routine? Why don't you include the entire text of a point with your reply? Because your replies would make no sense!
Is a mugging victim obligated to surrender his money without a fight? Is a rape victim obligated to lie still and be savaged? I'm under no obligation to leave if you decide you're going delegate a thug to take my things on your behalf.
No! See now that is WHY WE VOTE, so that we don't surrender our wallet without a fight. You are the one not fighting. You asked earlier if I would participate in my own execution and of course I wouldn't. I would fight tooth and nail and redress the judge until I was heard (contacting your elected representatives). If that judge failed me I would try another (voting in new representatives) and another and another. Your failure to participate in the redress of your current and election of your future representatives means simply you choose not to fight. IT IS YOU THAT IS COMPLICIT IN YOUR OWN EXECUTION!
You still want me to adopt your flawed premises. How long have you been fornicating with belt-driven power tools? See?
I have not asked you any "loaded questions". The first asks you to explain yourself, the second is a simple one word answer, the third is a follow up. Just because you struggle with the questions intellectually does not make them "loaded". It just means you cannot or refuse to answer them.
And still you presume to speak for me when you can't possibly ever.
Yeah, yeah. Blah, blah. Thread... yawn.
Come take what you think I owe you. Really. Private message me. I'll give you my address. You can come and try to build your toll booth, or simply try to take what you imagine I owe you.
What do you think, that I think I you owe me. WHO IS PRESUMING TO SPEAK FOR WHO HERE? Maybe this is a question you can handle. Obviously you think I have intentions on your property. Spell it out, what do you think I think you owe me. Can you follow that one it moves pretty quick.
And when you get done answering that question.......................
(YOU MAY WANT TO PUT THOSE TAP DANCING SHOES ON AT THIS POINT!)
Why do you feel as a US citizen you should be exempt from the results of our election process, citing only that you refuse to participate?
What country does it better? (What country better represents your beliefs on this subject?)
Why have you not sought refuge there?
-
1. He has called me a thief, a ****er, a bastard, a retard and I am sure many more.
Name those "many more". I've called you what you are.
Surely, you're aware that exaggeration is a form of lying.
2. The hypoocricy.[sic] He says he's non-violent, but violence is a state of mind. You can be a violent person and not act on it ever in your lifetime. Non-violent people do not wish others to drop dead, or putting violent undertones in his statements. To save face he cannot say he would ever do anything violent, but if you read his posts there is obviously violence in his heart.
Not once have I said I'm non-violent, liar. Non-violent people don't wish to collect tolls at the end of others' driveways. Non-violent people also don't sit idly by while others take things they don't own.
I simply ask the same questions over and over again...
The same questions, over and over again, with no introspection. No evidence of self-calibration. No recognition of the possibility that you may be wrong. No inkling that process is no substitute for individual thought.
I have not known ML, even as a poster...
Or as anything else.
...for too long, but his posts seem to be that of a former Republican who just went off the deep end when the party turned into a spending machine. It really hurts him that there is not a party that represents him, he is alone in the wilderness and since we all still vote we have somehow become evil because he does not like what we vote for. He complains about having his belongings stolen from him by the government. He is upset that he has to pay taxes yet has no trouble driving on the roads, or using other public services. You know someone is a hypoctite when they say buying gasoline for the car they voluntarily drive is complience by force!?!?!
Your labeling betrays your slothful intellect. Your reliance on the voting herd betrays your cowardice. Your reliance on others to take what is mine and distribute it to you and your gape-mouthed brethren betrays your cannibalism.
-
I stopped paying attention to him (ML) quite a while ago after he claimed that he had a problem with drunk driving laws and their infringement on his "freedom."
Selfish, ignorant people don't deserve my time.
There are many laws, past and present, that aren't right.
-
Come take what you think I owe you. Really. Private message me. I'll give you my address. You can come and try to build your toll booth, or simply try to take what you imagine I owe you.
What do you think, that I think I you owe me.
Yeah, that's what I thought you'd say. Gibberish.
Obviously you think I have intentions on your property
Your words speak for themselves: "There should be a damn tollbooth at the end of your driveway." (http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11926.msg306887#msg306887)
My offer stands: come see me in person.
-
jbs49238:
What do you think, that I think I you owe me.
Yeah, that's what I thought you'd say. Gibberish.
My offer stands: come see me in person.
Hah! You didn't even bother ducking! You flopped flat on the floor and let that one just sail by. A perfect example of you INABILITY to answer even the simplest of questions.
-
Hah! You didn't even bother ducking! You flopped flat on the floor and let that one just sail by. A perfect example of you INABILITY to answer even the simplest of questions.
Your screed wasn't even close to a statement of philosophy.
Come see me in person.
-
Name those "many more". I've called you what you are.
Surely, you're aware that exaggeration is a form of lying.
Let's see...... Post 65 "idiot". Post 68 "cannibal". Post 83 "delusional". Post 83 "liar". Post 83 (again, too much caffiene maybe?) "lazy and pathetic". Post 92 "Coward". Post 101 a "chimp".
Not once have I said I'm non-violent, liar. (Lordfly)"I can't wait for Matt to start planting road-side bombs on I-75 to prove his points."
(ML)"Not gonna happen.
Indiscriminate violence is your calling card, not mine." 12-14-2008Non-violent people don't wish to collect tolls at the end of others' driveways. Non-violent people also don't sit idly by while others take things they don't own.
The same questions, over and over again, with no introspection. No evidence of self-calibration. No recognition of the possibility that you may be wrong. No inkling that process is no substitute for individual thought.Questions that only seek an attempt at an answer. The questions are cold and lonely, please let them in and give them answers to accompany themselves with and get cozy!
Or as anything else.
Your labeling betrays your slothful intellect. Your reliance on the voting herd betrays your cowardice. Your reliance on others to take what is mine and distribute it to you and your gape-mouthed brethren betrays your cannibalism.Lousy poetry
Your screed wasn't even close to a statement of philosophy.
Come see me in person.
-
Your screed wasn't even close to a statement of philosophy.
Come see me in person.
I asked you what it is that you think I think you owe me.
You punted on first down. As usual!
-
I asked you what it is that you think I think you owe me.
You're the one advocating theft.
**** off.
-
Good morning all, I will be playing the part of the red type while ML's comments will be noted by the black text.
Q:"What do you think, that I think you owe me?" WHO IS PRESUMING TO SPEAK FOR WHO HERE? Maybe this is a question you can handle. Obviously you think I have intentions on your property. Spell it out, what do you think I think you owe me? Can you follow that one it moves pretty quick?
A:"Yeah, that's what I thought you'd say. Gibberish."
Reply: "Hah! You didn't even bother ducking! You flopped flat on the floor and let that one just sail by. A perfect example of you INABILITY to answer even the simplest of questions."
Q:"What do you think, that I think I you owe me?"
A:"Your screed wasn't even close to a statement of philosophy."
Reply: "I asked you what it is that you think I think you owe me.
You punted on first down. As usual!"
Q: "I asked you what it is that you think I think you owe me."
A: "You're the one advocating theft.
**** off."
(OUT LIKE A LIGHT!)
And for me, this is how this thread ends.
-
And for me, this is how this thread ends.
Yup, with you, not even once denying that you're advocating theft, and not even once attempting to define my philosophy, even though you pretend to know what it is, and mock what you don't, and can't, and won't understand.
-
Yup, with you, not even once denying that you're advocating theft, and not even once attempting to define my philosophy, even though you pretend to know what it is, and mock what you don't, and can't, and won't understand.
Hey I drilled your philosophy right here:
"I am a pissed off individual that hates having to participate in the benefit of society. I think that every penny I earn I should be able to keep regardless of the tax codes. I do not think I should have to pay for the public funding of things I disagree with, so I disagree with everything. I love using the roads but don't you dare ask me to pay property taxes to fund them. I have great disdain for our election process since no one will run for office with the "ML doesn't have to pay taxes" platform. I refuse to vote until someone runs with such a platform, and will accuse everyone else of violence for exercising their right to vote until my wishes are met. (ML)"
You need the post number? You didn't defy it or correct me in any way.
Every place you have come at me I have put you in your corner with a pacifier. Just because you and I don't agree on YOUR definition of theft, doesn't make me a thief.
You are the one wanting to duck your taxes through the reasoning of nonparticipating.
I notice that you didn't address the parts of my reply that involved me using your own words in quotes to dismantle those statements you made in the post where you informed me that I exaggerated, and that you never claimed you were nonviolent. Keep tapping and running.
(SARCASM ON)
Would you like a red gate or yellow gate on the booth? Just kidding, don't be mad!
(SARCASM OFF)
-
Hey I drilled your philosophy right here:
"I am a pissed off individual that hates having to participate in the benefit of society. I think that every penny I earn I should be able to keep regardless of the tax codes. I do not think I should have to pay for the public funding of things I disagree with, so I disagree with everything. I love using the roads but don't you dare ask me to pay property taxes to fund them. I have great disdain for our election process since no one will run for office with the "ML doesn't have to pay taxes" platform. I refuse to vote until someone runs with such a platform, and will accuse everyone else of violence for exercising their right to vote until my wishes are met. (ML)"
You need the post number? You didn't defy it or correct me in any way.
I didn't bother to address that horseshit because it's not a statement of philosophy. Try again.
Just because you and I don't agree on YOUR definition of theft, doesn't make me a thief.
Just as the victim of an "honor killing" isn't murdered.
It all comes back to this: I'd never take what's yours, yet you'd take what's mine, via a proxy, but never in person.
-
I didn't bother to address that horseshit because it's not a statement of philosophy. Try again.
Just as the victim of an "honor killing" isn't murdered.
It all comes back to this: I'd never take what's yours, yet you'd take what's mine, via a proxy, but never in person.
Except using your own thought process, as an American citizen you already take what is mine, every time you take to the roads, drink city water or call the FD or police. I pay taxes for these thing too.
So as I said before, your desire not to pay for these things actually makes you the one that TRULY wants to be the thief.
-
Except using your own thought process, as an American citizen you already take what is mine, every time you take to the roads, drink city water or call the FD or police. I pay taxes for these thing too
This statement is a load of crap...You do not "own" these things, they are public services available for everyone...
How am I taking "your" water if I turn on "my" faucet...?
-
This statement is a load of crap...You do not "own" these things, they are public services available for everyone...
How am I taking "your" water if I turn on "my" faucet...?
Zard,
Nice to talk to you again.
Please read the premise of this comment as it develops throughout the thread.
Of course no individual can claim sole ownership to any of these things, which is exactly my point. We all collectively benefit from these services. ML does not feel he should have to pay taxes since he doesn't vote, yet he still uses all the services that the rest of us do. He says having to paying taxes to pay for these things is a violent theft of his belongings, and because you and I participate in that evil ritual of voting and representing ourselves we are the thieves.
The point of my statement was this...... If he doesn't want to pay for these services but still use them, who is desiring to be the real thief?
-
Except using your own thought process, as an American citizen you already take what is mine, every time you take to the roads, drink city water or call the FD or police. I pay taxes for these thing too.
So as I said before, your desire not to pay for these things actually makes you the one that TRULY wants to be the thief.
Still no clue how to make the quotey thing work.
You don't know what thought is. And you certainly don't know what my "thought process" is. Don't pretend to know how to use it.
I'll gladly pay for everything I use, but I object to being compelled to pay, under threat of violence, for things I neither want nor use. I've never called the fire department. I'd chew my own arm off before I call the police. I don't use city water. And I pay for roads via fuel and property taxes, just like you.
Don't ever forget: compliance under duress is not agreement.
You long ago stated your desire to steal things from me (http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11926.msg306887#msg306887). Don't try to drag me into your cabal.
I authorize no one to take things from you on my behalf. Why do you think I don't vote? I refuse to impose my preferences upon you. At least have the courtesy to do the same for me.
-
LMAO........
-
I authorize no one to take things from you on my behalf. Why do you think I don't vote? I refuse to impose my preferences upon you. At least have the courtesy to do the same for me.
So in other words you'll only be happy if I forego my right to choose the representation I want in government? Give up my rights so that you can have what you want? I would never ask you to give up your rights, why would you do that to me?
-
Still no clue how to quote. Here, I fixed it for you:
So in other words you'll only be happy if I forego my right to choose the representation I want in government? Give up my rights so that you can have what you want? I would never ask you to give up your rights, why would you do that to me?
Again, you resort to the infantile "I know you are but what am I" schtick. And you've made yourself a liar. If you've voted, you've violated my rights.
I'd never ask you to give up your rights, but you don't, and won't ever, understand rights and their implications, so you'll just keep on voting, even if the question of whether or not murder ought to be legalized were on a ballot, when such a question is not subject to popular opinion.
Voting in government-sponsored popularity contests is not a right. Government is force. There is no way around that. You have no right to choose who will bring force upon me.
I'll be happy when you stop imposing your preferences upon me via the democracy charade. In other words: every time you vote, you exert force upon me. Every time you vote, you violate my rights.
I don't vote because that would violate your rights. Do you undertand? Please demonstrate the same courtesy.
-
Still no clue how to quote. Here, I fixed it for you:
Again, you resort to the infantile "I know you are but what am I" schtick. And you've made yourself a liar. If you've voted, you've violated my rights.That is just a flat out false statement! You have a very delusional view of the world. When you can find me a majority that thinks like you and passes a law that states my voting violates your rights then I'll stop!
I'd never ask you to give up your rights,
What are you doing in this thread? Right in this post. You want me to give up my right to choose my representation because you are offended by it! You desire for me to give up my rights as an American citizen so that you (one person) can be happy. I have no idea what your peanut sized brain thinks "rights" are, but as far as the Law of this Land goes I have the right to vote. YOU ARE IN FACT ASKING ME TO GIVE UP MY RIGHTS! And you have admitted it YET AGAIN!
but you don't, and won't ever, understand rights and their implications, so you'll just keep on voting, even if the question of whether or not murder ought to be legalized were on a ballot, when such a question is not subject to popular opinion.
Voting in government-sponsored popularity contests is not a right. Government is force.
Again sadly you are wrong! This all simply reverts back to your own selfish greed of not wanting to pay your share of taxes for the things that are shared by the citizenry. You and I don't have to agree with the items and how they are shared but when I get pissed about something I vote out the bum that supported it. You sit on the sidelines and kick and screem like a 3 year old and tell me I'm evil. Lets ask the clas who has a better handle on reality.
There is no way around that. You have no right to choose who will bring force upon me.
If you are going to stick with your definitions of force and rights then you again are wrong. It is sad really! If you think that voting is me applying force to you then yes I have the right to do it! So do you, you choose not to exercise it, and that fine you want to be the white knight on the golden horse! The problem is you are covered in powder and the horse has been peed on by the rest of us. We all see through your disguise!
I'll be happy when you stop imposing your preferences upon me via the democracy charade. In other words: every time you vote, you exert force upon me. Every time you vote, you violate my rights.
And to sum up the whole post..................... You admit that you will only be happy when I give up my rights. Again its selfishness and greed from you. GIVE ME, GIVE ME, GIVE ME. Someday I hope that you have the gumption to look in the mirror and see past yourself. Someday you may realize taht the world is not all about YOU!
I don't vote because that would violate your rights. Do you undertand? Please demonstrate the same courtesy.
I disagree! In fact you are just flat wrong! I think that your question demonstrates your rudeness to the maximum extent. Asking someone to forego their rights so you can be happy is again nothing but selfish greed. You are just selfish and greedy!
Seriously?
It took you 2 weeks to come up with that post, and you affirmed my point? Thanks?
BTW I know how the quoty thing works, I do it that way because you have a nice habit of cutting and editing so I let readers see the quote and the response so there is no confusion. I realize this makes it more difficult for you to dance............... that's why I do it!
-
That is just a flat out false statement!
Prove it.
You're the one voting on constraints on my life without my consent.
You want me to give up my right to choose my representation because you are offended by it! You desire for me to give up my rights as an American citizen so that you (one person) can be happy. I have no idea what your peanut sized brain thinks "rights" are, but as far as the Law of this Land goes I have the right to vote.
I want you to give up the destructive delusion that a majority is the same as what is right. "Representation" in a coercion is a shoddy disguise for delegated force.
You still don't see, and you never will because you have no capacity for introspection. Look: legal isn't the same as right. Think about that. Really think about it. Why do you think I reference Jim Crow laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws) so often? Barely longer ago than I've been alive, it used to be legal to treat black people like ****, even murder them with impunity, yet it was never right even though it was the will of the majority, determined by, guess what: representation.
Do you know what rights are? It's murderously apparent from your ramblings that you don't. Please, educate my peanut. What, precisely, are rights? I'm begging ya over here.
It took you 2 weeks to come up with that post, and you affirmed my point?
These forums, and you, are quite low on my list of priorities. I don't have the time to spoon feed you. You have no valid point here.
Take my things on your own if you're in the right. Come on. You know you're right, don't you? Come take my things.
BTW I know how the quoty thing works, I do it that way because you have a nice habit of cutting and editing so I let readers see the quote and the response so there is no confusion. I realize this makes it more difficult for you to dance............... that's why I do it!
I cut to the point. Anyone can go back and read everything both of us have written.
You have no right to choose someone to prevent me from using a particular water fountain because I'm a white guy. You have no right to go to my employer and demand a portion of my pay. You have no right to choose anyone to take my things, even if it's legal.
If it were right, you'd do it yourself. You'd try to prevent a murder in progress, because that would be the right thing to do, right? Come take my things. Morality is on your side, isn't it? Come take my things, because that would be the right thing to do, wouldn't it?
Really: if you are truly certain that the morality of "representation" is on your side, private message me and I'll give you my address so you can take from me what you imagine I ought to give you.
You know you won't because you know you're wrong. You're a coward who prefers to let "representatives" do your dirty work on your behalf.
You make me sick.
-
Prove it.
You're the one voting on constraints on my life without my consent.
I want you to give up the destructive delusion that a majority is the same as what is right. "Representation" in a coercion is a shoddy disguise for delegated force.
You still don't see, and you never will because you have no capacity for introspection. Look: legal isn't the same as right. Think about that. Really think about it. Why do you think I reference Jim Crow laws ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws[/url]) so often? Barely longer ago than I've been alive, it used to be legal to treat black people like ****, even murder them with impunity, yet it was never right even though it was the will of the majority, determined by, guess what: representation.
Do you know what rights are? It's murderously apparent from your ramblings that you don't. Please, educate my peanut. What, precisely, are rights? I'm begging ya over here.
These forums, and you, are quite low on my list of priorities. I don't have the time to spoon feed you. You have no valid point here.
Take my things on your own if you're in the right. Come on. You know you're right, don't you? Come take my things.
I cut to the point. Anyone can go back and read everything both of us have written.
You have no right to choose someone to prevent me from using a particular water fountain because I'm a white guy. You have no right to go to my employer and demand a portion of my pay. You have no right to choose anyone to take my things, even if it's legal.
If it were right, you'd do it yourself. You'd try to prevent a murder in progress, because that would be the right thing to do, right? Come take my things. Morality is on your side, isn't it? Come take my things, because that would be the right thing to do, wouldn't it?
Really: if you are truly certain that the morality of "representation" is on your side, private message me and I'll give you my address so you can take from me what you imagine I ought to give you.
You know you won't because you know you're wrong. You're a coward who prefers to let "representatives" do your dirty work on your behalf.
You make me sick.
You and I are obviously never going to agree.
You have your thoughts about this which are delusional!
I have my thoughts which are grounded in Constitutional Rights.
Since you have nothing more to say that offers any hope of continued meaningful debate I will let you be and just count the number of times you cite the same quotes and make the same arguments word for word in other threads.
Get back to me when you discontinue your one man crusade to make yourself the most important person in the world. Also, keep in mind you are most likely not going to win too many people over by asking them to give up their rights so that you can be happy.
Peace and love to you, I am sure your delusional thinking will draw me into another thread, but I am not going to spend any more effort on you. You obviously do not understand the difference between God given "rights" and Constitutionally guaranteed "rights". I understand and take full advantage of both.
PS: If I am such the coward why do I have to PM for your address, why wouldn't you have already sent it to see if I'd show up? No please do not send it, I won't read it. Oh and BTW about your "cutting straight to the point"..... I have never, NEVER been involved in a thread with anyone who tap dances with such effort as you. As I recall there are still 3-4 questions hanging out there that you still refuse to answer but who cares! I could not care one single ounce left about your pathetic delusional existence at this point.
-
You and I are obviously never going to agree.
Of course. There can be no compromise in matters of right and wrong. You're wrong. Please have the decency to admit it.
You have your thoughts about this which are delusional!
That's an amazing reflex you have. You'll never let go of the ol' "I know you are but what am I?" You wouldn't even recognize the word "delusional" if I hadn't written it in response to your myopathy.
I have my thoughts which are grounded in Constitutional Rights.
You've blanked out yet again.
The "Constitution" is a man-made law, and as likely to be wrong as any other so-called law, such as Jim Crow. You'd know that, if you possessed even a shred of introspection.
Laws can be, and often are, wrong. Only a don't you? Witness Jim Crow, which I've referenced many times as an example of the fact that legal is not the same as right.
I've demonstrated many times the fact that legal is not the same as right.
You're a poser. You have no idea what rights are. Prove me wrong.
You obviously do not understand the difference between God given "rights" and Constitutionally guaranteed "rights". I understand and take full advantage of both.
What is the difference? Again, please educate me. I'm listening. What, precisely, is the difference? You don't know what the **** you're saying. Prove me wrong.
Peace and love to you
**** you. You're the mugger who consoles his victim by lying that he wouldn't have to resort to violence if someone just gave him a break. You're still a mugger, and you always will be.
If I am such the coward why do I have to PM for your address?
If you had any conviction in your murderous beliefs, you'd take me up on my offer. The thing is, you're a ******* coward. My offer stands: private message me, and I'll give you my address. You can come try to take from me what you imagine I owe you. Come take my things. I ******* dare you.
You know you won't you gutless ******* cannibal. You prefer to let others do your dirty work because you like to insulate yourself from reality.
Come on. I ******* dare you.
Cowards don't take things into their own hands. Private message me. You know you won't.
-
Of course. There can be no compromise in matters of right and wrong. You're wrong. Please have the decency to admit it.
That's an amazing reflex you have. You'll never let go of the ol' "I know you are but what am I?" You wouldn't even recognize the word "delusional" if I hadn't written it in response to your myopathy.
You've blanked out yet again.
The "Constitution" is a man-made law, and as likely to be wrong as any other so-called law, such as Jim Crow. You'd know that, if you possessed even a shred of introspection.
Laws can be, and often are, wrong. Only a don't you? Witness Jim Crow, which I've referenced many times as an example of the fact that legal is not the same as right.
I've demonstrated many times the fact that legal is not the same as right.
You're a poser. You have no idea what rights are. Prove me wrong.
What is the difference? Again, please educate me. I'm listening. What, precisely, is the difference? You don't know what the **** you're saying. Prove me wrong.
**** you. You're the mugger who consoles his victim by lying that he wouldn't have to resort to violence if someone just gave him a break. You're still a mugger, and you always will be.
If you had any conviction in your murderous beliefs, you'd take me up on my offer. The thing is, you're a ****ing coward. My offer stands: private message me, and I'll give you my address. You can come try to take from me what you imagine I owe you. Come take my things. I ****ing dare you.
You know you won't you gutless ****ing cannibal. You prefer to let others do your dirty work because you like to insulate yourself from reality.
Come on. I ****ing dare you.
Cowards don't take things into their own hands. Private message me. You know you won't.
Lulz
-
never[/i] ask you to give up your rights, but you don't, and won't ever, understand rights and their implications, so you'll just keep on voting, even if the question of whether or not murder ought to be legalized were on a ballot, when such a question is not subject to popular opinion.
Voting in government-sponsored popularity contests is not a right. Government is force. There is no way around that. You have no right to choose who will bring force upon me.
I'll be happy when you stop imposing your preferences upon me via the democracy charade. In other words: every time you vote, you exert force upon me. Every time you vote, you violate my rights.
I don't vote because that would violate your rights. Do you undertand? Please demonstrate the same courtesy.
Asking me not to vote is a violation of my rights.
-
Of course. There can be no compromise in matters of right and wrong. You're wrong. Please have the decency to admit it.
Take your own advice.
-
Asking me not to vote is a violation of my rights.
You don't understand the meaning or the implication of what you're saying.
-
Take your own advice.
**** off.
-
You don't understand the meaning or the implication of what you're saying.
I understand perfectly well. You disagree with a law, and because of that want everyone in America to not vote. Then when you can't argue that point, you retort to cursing. Grow up.
-
Shift Change:
jbs49238 punches out.
Collegekid punches in.
-
I understand perfectly well. You disagree with a law, and because of that want everyone in America to not vote. Then when you can't argue that point, you retort to cursing. Grow up.
You clearly don't understand what you're doing when you vote.
Asking me not to vote is a violation of my rights.
Asking you not to vote is no more a violation of your rights than asking you to vote for a particular candidate.
When you vote in government elections, you are sanctioning delegated violence. You are authorizing someone else to exert force upon your neighbors. There is no way around that fact.
-
Shift Change:
jbs49238 punches out.
Collegekid punches in.
"If you had any conviction in your murderous beliefs, you'd take me up on my offer. The thing is, you're a ****ing coward. My offer stands: private message me, and I'll give you my address. You can come try to take from me what you imagine I owe you. Come take my things. I ****ing dare you."
(http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11926.msg320445#msg320445)
I note for the record that you have yet to ask me for my address.
You prefer to let others do your stealing and killing for you.
-
You clearly don't understand what you're doing when you vote.
Way to argue, when you can't say anything more to disprove a point you just claim the other doesn't understand and attempt to dismiss them.
When you vote in government elections, you are sanctioning delegated violence. You are authorizing someone else to exert force upon your neighbors. There is no way around that fact.
I am not at all. I am exercising my constitutional rights, given to me by our founding fathers. This is how our country was founded, if you do not like those laws, there are plenty of other countries, many that do not have elections, that would gladly allow you to live there.
You prefer to let others do your stealing and killing for you.
The government has not stolen from, nor killed you. They have made you pay taxes, which are part of the contract that you, as an American, agree to when you decide to live here.
-
"If you had any conviction in your murderous beliefs, you'd take me up on my offer. The thing is, you're a ****ing coward. My offer stands: private message me, and I'll give you my address. You can come try to take from me what you imagine I owe you. Come take my things. I ****ing dare you."
([url]http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11926.msg320445#msg320445[/url])
I note for the record that you have yet to ask me for my address.
You prefer to let others do your stealing and killing for you.
I reply for the record I have no interest in your address, you own nothing that I want. That is simply a presumption on your part and like your presumption that my act of voting is me violently pushing my beliefs on you............. it's wrong!
Now stop talking to me. The economy is tight and my boss doesn't pay overtime.
-
The government has not stolen from, nor killed you. They have made you pay taxes, which are part of the contract that you, as an American, agree to when you decide to live here.
Are we to presume you're an expert on Contract Law, kid? You don't seem to be, judging from that ignorant statement; but one never knows...
-
The government has not stolen from, nor killed you. They have made you pay taxes, which are part of the contract that you, as an American, agree to when you decide to live here.
that's sort of a weird statement, there, but if you look into the federal reserve bank, you'd probably be a little slower to that rush to defense of government.
-
Are we to presume you're an expert on Contract Law, kid? You don't seem to be, judging from that ignorant statement; but one never knows...
an expert no, but I know enough to get by.
that's sort of a weird statement, there, but if you look into the federal reserve bank, you'd probably be a little slower to that rush to defense of government.
How so? They don't take more than the law states from him, hence they have not stolen from him. I'm not defending the government, just my own right to vote, which he feels I do not have.
-
an expert no, but I know enough to get by.
Rather, I'd say you know only enough to flaunt your ignorance. To be a valid contract there are general principles and specific qualifications that must be met or it is null and void. This "contract...you agree to when you decide to live here" is not only null but entirely nonexistent.
1) There must be a freely articulated, knowing agreement with consent.
2) There must be a valuable, mutual exchange - quid pro quo.
3) There must be no threat, duress, or coercion present.
4) There must be no fraud, must be in good faith.
5) "certain age restrictions may apply"
6) The most important contracts (but not all of them) must be written and legally signed by the agreeing, consenting parties.
7) etc., etc., etc.
This "contract" you speak of is a fallacy for natural born Americans who are certainly free to not contract away their inalienable individual rights, and where their unalienable ones are untouchable, unapproachable and inviolable.
-
How so? They don't take more than the law states from him, hence they have not stolen from him. I'm not defending the government, just my own right to vote, which he feels I do not have.
this is where it gets tricky, and i start to sound like a streetcorner preacher. the federal income tax is, from my (not entirely legal) understanding, not explicitly stated in law. it just sort of happened.
former irs special agent talking about it on cnbc: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZl6202HJGQ
but if there's an argument if an american shouldn't be allowed to vote, i'm curious. but i'd probably have to chase down multiple threads that you seem to be prodding at some of the conservative-type folks.
-
v=JZl6202HJGQ
but if there's an argument if an american shouldn't be allowed to vote, i'm curious. but i'd probably have to chase down multiple threads that you seem to be prodding at some of the conservative-type folks.
No I think it's all in this thread here, it's just 11 pages.
-
I am exercising my constitutional rights, given to me by our founding fathers.
Ah yes, even more ignorance of our American Republic from a publicly-schooled past-and-present kid, surprise surprise...
No man, be he a founding father or otherwise, can ever, in any way, shape or form, bequeath a "right" to another man or men. Rights exist despite the fallibility of us and our neighbors, God help 'em. The constitutional responsibility or ability to vote on public matters, had you bothered to read the document, sir, was specifically addressed to one particular group of individuals in this country, to whit: free, landholding men. The subsequent amendations granting women, the formerly-bondaged, non-landowners, and ignorant 18 year old child's minds the ability to add their two-cents worth to ballot questions fails the original, "founding fathers'" opinions and intents on the topic of voting, and mine as well.
-
Ah yes, even more ignorance of our American Republic from a publicly-schooled past-and-present kid, surprise surprise...
No man, be he a founding father or otherwise, can ever, in any way, shape or form, bequeath a "right" to another man or men. Rights exist despite the fallibility of us and our neighbors, God help 'em. The constitutional responsibility or ability to vote on public matters, had you bothered to read the document, sir, was specifically addressed to one particular group of individuals in this country, to whit: free, landholding men. The subsequent amendations granting women, the formerly-bondaged, non-landowners, and ignorant 18 year old child's minds the ability to add their two-cents worth to ballot questions fails the original, "founding fathers'" opinions and intents on the topic of voting, and mine as well.
OK fine, given was a poor word choice, guaranteed would have been better.
-
OK fine, given was a poor word choice, guaranteed would have been better.
"Guaranteed" would be a far, far worse adjective choice when the noun it modified is the so-called "right to vote." Nobody can give rights, nobody can guarantee rights, one either acknowledges and affirms them, or not. Allowing additional people to voice their opinions (i.e. "voting") and "right" are mutually exclusive terms; use them carefully, if you can.
-
I am exercising my constitutional rights, given to me by our founding fathers.
See that? Right there. You've got your head all ****** up.
No one gives you your rights boy.
Rights are yours because you exist.
Who owns you?
You?
Or someone other than you?
It's that simple.
All else follows.
-
...you own nothing that I want.
Then why do you vote?
-
Way too many among us feel incredibly "free" being told what to do, when to do it, how to do it, exactly as instructed, Matt - they're mental slaves, which takes care of the physical part all by itself with no whips, lashes or jailhouse bars required. The public schools have quite a bit to do with that, seriously undermining our traditional American values and replacing them with a statist devotion unparalleled by that in any church in this world of ours...
-
Then why do you vote?
Apparently to piss you off?
-
See that? Right there. You've got your head all ****ed up.
No one gives you your rights boy.
Rights are yours because you exist.
Who owns you?
You?
Or someone other than you?
It's that simple.
All else follows.
See ya only have it half right, and your inability to grasp the other half accounts for the stupidity you pour out in this thread.
There are God given rights, and there are Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
You don't understand the latter so obviously you cannot make the distinction between the two. BTW Pax, Erich, Tax Evader, I went to a private school so I guess that shoots your theory all to ****.
So you understand your God given rights, bravo! Unfortunatly for you there is no where on earth that you can be happy being a human because someone else is going to exercise their political rights. I guess you would have been better off being born a tree!
-
There are God given rights, and there are Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
BTW Pax, Erich, Tax Evader, I went to a private school so I guess that shoots your theory all to ****.
The American constitution enumerated the God-given unalienable rights and established the American republican government to safe-guard them - if we could keep it, and no guarantees included.
Evader? It's only evasion if taxes are owed and not paid, not when they're not owed and not paid; obviously I know my situation better than you, sir.
If by "theory" you're referring to the statement that public schools "educate" or "graduate" an inordinate amount of statist-slaves I made no claim that they had an exclusive hold on that insufferable title - if that "private school" you attended was one of the local, so-called "catholic" ones they crank out more whacked-in-the-head-global-citizens than their public counterparts do; and Lord-only knows what the rest are guilty, or not, of.
-
The American constitution enumerated the God-given unalienable rights and established the American republican government to safe-guard them - if we could keep it, and no guarantees included.
Evader? It's only evasion if taxes are owed and not paid, not when they're not owed and not paid; obviously I know my situation better than you, sir. If by "theory" you're referring to the statement that public schools "educate" or "graduate" an inordinate amount of statist-slaves I made no claim that they had an exclusive hold on that insufferable title - if that "private school" you attended was one of the local, so-called "catholic" ones they crank out more good-global-citizens than their public counterparts do; and Lord-only knows what the rest are guilty, or not, of.
You were the one that posted that you were not subject to Federal taxes because you don't use your ZIP code on anything right?
I could post the link if it please everyone else.
-
The American constitution enumerated the God-given unalienable rights and established the American republican government to safe-guard them - if we could keep it, and no guarantees included.
Evader? It's only evasion if taxes are owed and not paid, not when they're not owed and not paid; obviously I know my situation better than you, sir.
If by "theory" you're referring to the statement that public schools "educate" or "graduate" an inordinate amount of statist-slaves I made no claim that they had an exclusive hold on that insufferable title - if that "private school" you attended was one of the local, so-called "catholic" ones they crank out more whacked-in-the-head-global-citizens than their public counterparts do; and Lord-only knows what the rest are guilty, or not, of.
Might not agree with your all of your ideas but I do admire your command of the english language.
-
The American constitution enumerated the God-given unalienable rights and established the American republican government to safe-guard them - if we could keep it, and no guarantees included.
Evader? It's only evasion if taxes are owed and not paid, not when they're not owed and not paid; obviously I know my situation better than you, sir.
If by "theory" you're referring to the statement that public schools "educate" or "graduate" an inordinate amount of statist-slaves I made no claim that they had an exclusive hold on that insufferable title - if that "private school" you attended was one of the local, so-called "catholic" ones they crank out more whacked-in-the-head-global-citizens than their public counterparts do; and Lord-only knows what the rest are guilty, or not, of.
You were the one that posted that you were not subject to Federal taxes because you don't use your ZIP code on anything right?
I could post the link if it please everyone else.
Better yet, I'll just put it up there for all to see:
Re; Taxes (#39)
On a related note, when one writes a home address such as:
123 Main St.
Monroe, Michigan
that in no way implies or accedes to US citizenship, and rather affirms to knowing individuals that you're on to their semantic game, and are always properly referred to as John Kew Publik.
But, if the address is written like:
123 Main St.
Monroe, MI 48161
that says to anyone reading it that you have been incorporated (whether intentionally or unwittingly makes no difference) and reside in a Federal zone also known as the corporations of City of Monroe and State of Michigan and agree to whatever rules apply to the residents and citizens of such areas, and such mini-corporations are always known as JOHN KEW PUBLIK on official documents.
The "laws" and the various "codes" are written by "lawyers" and lawyers can get really creative; usually at your and my expense...
Re; Taxes (#46)
When it comes to law jurisdiction is everything - and that includes the usage or nonusage of a federal ZIP code. Those of you who pay slavish homage (and taxes) to the federal government like the good serfs and peasants you are is not my concern - but please don't presume that I should follow your lead or example. Yes, misery-loves-company, but I'm all for that Freedom of Association thing and won't be joining your party...
Re; Taxes (#48)
I have no idea how you came to such an inane conclusion: the only "strategy" mentioned is denying federal jurisdiction over ones' property and existence. The task is incredibly complicated, but includes several seemingly unrelated minutae. Allowing or accepting US Government jurisdiction over ones life is to enslave oneself.
I'm nobody's slave. Are you?
Re: Taxes -
« Reply #69 on: March 08, 2009, 09:58:26 AM »
• Quote
Quote from: jbs49238 on March 07, 2009, 02:58:10 PM
Actually if you have ever received a piece of mail and opened it, you have accepted the Federal Governments jurisdiction.
If you own a gun, your possession of it is illegal if you failed to put your zip code on your registration application.
If you have a Social Security Number that you have used for any type of documentation since you reached the age or reason (any employer that has hired you by law has to visually inspect your SS card) you have accepted the Federal Governments jurisdiction.
Aha! Finally! Somebody else sees the difficulties inherent in trying to de-contract with the federales! We've been so programmed to just sign here and everybody and their brother insists on a SSN to do any sort of business that to refuse to supply the "required" information gets one shunned. I'm totally ok with that. As for "living off the radar" I've been trying to do just that for several years and it's an ongoing, convoluted process. Just when I think I've got some things worked out it seems the rules get changed.
As for firearms ownership: I don't own one but, obviously, I don't give a rat's a** about blatantly unamerican "rules" like "registration," either.
I'm not sure about the mail thing, but will keep that under advisement: I refuse to utilize 2-letter state abbreviations or supply a ZIP code, never supply a phone number, and haven't signed a government document in ages - including my "Driver's License." Refused written in garbled script rarely gets noticed...
-
You'd have done one better had you answered the original poser on that thread and copied/pasted the law that says Americans are obligated to pay taxes on their wages in lieu of mere portions of the thread itself, jbs. If you feel free to pay "income taxes" to the usurpatory US Government by all means do as you will, keeping in mind that nobody is ever "free" enough to vote away another man's or his own unalienable rights; which happens to be the topic of this thread.
-
You'd have done one better had you answered the original poser on that thread and copied/pasted the law that says Americans are obligated to pay taxes on their wages in lieu of mere portions of the thread itself, jbs. If you feel free to pay "income taxes" to the usurpatory US Government by all means do as you will, keeping in mind that nobody is ever "free" enough to vote away another man's or his own unalienable rights; which happens to be the topic of this thread.
I wasn't really trying to rehash the entire thread, only pointing out that you said what you are now obviously trying to avoid being pinned down to. Thats a good tactic though when someone has you pegged, try to point them in the other direction.
-
See that? Right there. You've got your head all ****ed up.
No one gives you your rights boy.
Rights are yours because you exist.
Who owns you?
You?
Or someone other than you?
It's that simple.
All else follows.
Did you not bother to read where I admitted that they guaranteed me the rights, rather than gave them. I didn't realize this was a discussion on semantics though.
-
Then why do you vote?
Apparently to piss you off?
Once again, out like a light.
-
Once again, out like a light.
Well at least it only took you 4 days to try to start the carousel spinning around again. If this thread gets you off that much, copy it into Microsoft Word and just read it over and over again. You have nothing new to offer, I whooped your a-- once already, I am done here. Find someone else who wants to hear you say the same s--t over and over again. Like I said I cannot wait for you to take stuff from this thread and start copy and pasting it into other threads like you just came up with some original new thought. You act is worn out bulls--t.
Why don't you, Pax, and LessGvt go out for dinner and figure out who the GOP nominee for 2012 is going to be?
-
See ya only have it half right, and your inability to grasp the other half accounts for the stupidity you pour out in this thread.
There are God given rights, and there are Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
And you're still operating with a stunted concept, on both counts.
No god gives anyone rights. And the US Constitution presumed to appropriate all rights the moment it was signed.
-
Well at least it only took you 4 days to try to start the carousel spinning around again. If this thread gets you off that much, copy it into Microsoft Word and just read it over and over again. You have nothing new to offer, I whooped your a-- once already, I am done here. Find someone else who wants to hear you say the same s--t over and over again. Like I said I cannot wait for you to take stuff from this thread and start copy and pasting it into other threads like you just came up with some original new thought. You act is worn out bulls--t.
You're a cerebral impotent.
The only thing you've whooped is any illusion that you can do anything other than regurgitate, "I know you are but what am I?"
You have no capacity for introspection or abstraction.
You've threatened to abandon this thread once before (http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11926.msg313497#msg313497): "This is the last time I'll answer your posts unless you can skip the rehashed diatribe."
I suspect you've got a gnawing compulsion to have the last word.
Why do you vote? (http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11926.msg322918#msg322918)
No god gives you your rights.
The US Constitution was, is, and always will be, an assault on your rights.
That question and those two facts all mesh together, but you don't see how, and you never will unless you start using that 3-pound mass sloshing around in your flat little skull.
-
14 8,11 9,4,28,3 5,14,409,2 18,4,602 18,4,602 1,409,602,7,14,9 34,602,6,94!!!!
How's that for abstract.
-
"You've threatened to abandon this thread once before: "This is the last time I'll answer your posts unless you can skip the rehashed diatribe."
I suspect you've got a gnawing compulsion to have the last word."
I had been giving you the benfit of the doubt that you might try to think something through and not just rehash the same s--t.
I gave you way too much credit. What color is that soc........... never mind.
Floors your I'm gone.
-
Why don't you, Pax, and LessGvt go out for dinner and figure out who the GOP nominee for 2012 is going to be?
Re: Republicrat and Democan "candidates" in '12 I'd put my money on any psychotic, trotskyite-neocon-AIPAC-approved-power-mad pawn. There are so many to choose from...and nary a patriotic American to be found among them.
-
How's that for abstract.
Completely off target, as usual, and with bonus points for punctuational slop.
And still you ignore the critical concepts, and prefer to blank out (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/evasion.html). <-- Click that link.
And, as always the unanswered question: why do you delegate others to take my stuff? Why do you vote?
Do you have the balls to come take what's mine on your own conviction?
You know you don't. Prove me wrong, you ****ing coward. Come to my house. Private message me. I'll give you my address, so you can attempt to compel me face-to-face.
You know you're too big a coward to take me up on my offer (http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11926.msg322660#msg322660). <-- Another link to click.
Cowards don't contact me in person.
I had been giving you the benfit [sic] of the doubt that you might try to think something through and not just rehash the same s--t.
Again you resort to your impotent go-to: "I know you are but what am I?"
You couldn't think your way through an open door.
I gave you way too much credit. What color is that soc........... never mind.
Floors your I'm gone.
More "I know you are but what am I?", and empty threats. You're the b**** of last words. You're so transparent, I know you better than you know yourself. You're a *****. Come to my house. You know you won't, you ****ing coward. (http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11926.msg322660#msg322660)
You can run and hide from me here on these forums, but you cannot ever run from or hide from reality. Reality will have its way with you, me, everyone. Good luck, nanocephalic.
-
Matt - they're mental slaves...
They choose to be.
-
Matt- if you do not like the rules and governance's of this country feel free to leave.
-
Matt- if you do not like the rules and governance's of this country feel free to leave.
Why is it that the liberal/leftie/commie elements who so whole-heartedly wish to "remake" this country into something it's not have only one, consistently restated opinion for those of us who wish it to revert to what it's actually supposed to be: "feel free to leave" ? Why can't the whackjobs who wish it to be socialistic move to someplace where they've had lots of practice with such a governmental arrangement?? Huh, huh? If Canada, or the UK, or Sweden are such socialistic perfection why don't the lefties move there and write us back with how wonderful it is, from there ?? WTF?
-
Matt- if you do not like the rules and governance's of this country feel free to leave.
I love that. Can we tell everybody who has a civil rights issue that when they complain?....
What? You were discriminated because you were black? Well if you don't like it feel free to leave this country.
What? Your freedom of speech was violated? Well if you don't like it feel free to leave this country.
Sorry, but that's a non-starter.
-
Matt- if you do not like the rules and governance's of this country feel free to leave.
You're another mobster wanna-be, touting the same tired old "love it or leave it" bull****.
You're the thug demanding protection money from the neighborhood shopkeep, with one difference: you lack the balls to demand that money in person. That shopkeep has no obligation to leave, and neither do I.
-
Sorry, but that's a non-starter.
It is when you (not specifically you, of course) disagree with any concept of society. When you cannot agree on any conceivable society for people to live in (one that doesn't end at the end of your property line), perhaps the best solution is to move out into the middle of the woods and eat bear for the rest of your life. Maybe write some manifestos. Perhaps mail them back to people "In that violent society" that have slighted you with pipebombs attached to them.
-
Completely off target, as usual, and with bonus points for punctuational slop.
And still you ignore the critical concepts, and prefer to blank out ([url]http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/evasion.html[/url]). <-- Click that link.
And, as always the unanswered question: why do you delegate others to take my stuff? Why do you vote?
<snip>
Yes, I cut out the threats and useless attempts at intimidation, and I'll cut right to the point.
Let's say you get what you want, and nobody votes.
Please tell me what happens next?
-
You're another mobster wanna-be, touting the same tired old "love it or leave it" bull****.
You're the thug demanding protection money from the neighborhood shopkeep, with one difference: you lack the balls to demand that money in person. That shopkeep has no obligation to leave, and neither do I.
(http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd146/lordflydigeridoo/stolenmoney.jpg)
-
It is when you (not specifically you, of course) disagree with any concept of society. When you cannot agree on any conceivable society for people to live in (one that doesn't end at the end of your property line), perhaps the best solution is to move out into the middle of the woods and eat bear for the rest of your life. Maybe write some manifestos. Perhaps mail them back to people "In that violent society" that have slighted you with pipebombs attached to them.
For every Unabomber, I'm sure I could find at least 3 Henry David Thoreaus.
And that is why I believe in limited government. Government should be limited so that people like MattML can live with as little interference as they want. And then other people who want more can form communes that provide universal services for its members.
-
Here's a 6-min. plus video by an American Indian, spelling out in those couple of minutes just how "free" all of us in America are - his conclusion? Not very, if at all.
You Are a Slave to the Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHxvVuIxJ9A&feature=player_embedded) <- link
-
Just because BigBrother government tells us we're free doesn't make it so:
Americans no longer know what freedom is. Historically, the definition of a free person is one who owns his own labor. Serfs and slaves were not free, because they do not own all of their own labor.
An income tax is inconsistent with the historical definition of freedom. Today in America government has a claim on every person’s labor, just as feudal lords, the government of that time, had claims on the labor of serfs and nineteenth century plantation owners had on slaves.
Understanding that an income tax was serfdom, our Founding Fathers wrote the US Constitution in a way that prevented an income tax. This was altered in 1913 with a constitutional amendment that ... was not properly carried out.
The Tax Foundation has calculated that tax freedom day arrives on May 29 this year if the federal government’s budget deficit is included, as it should be, in the tax burden. That means that Americans work 42 percent of the year for the government, a higher tax rate than was endured by medieval serfs and one approaching that of a nineteenth century slave.
emphasis mine; informative (if not obvious) article continues
How Freedom Was Lost (http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22363.htm) <-link
-
Just because BigBrother government tells us we're free doesn't make it so:
How Freedom Was Lost ([url]http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22363.htm[/url]) <-link
Found in the comment section of your link:
You usually make good sense, but sometimes you make no sense at all. The purpose of a progressive income tax is to redistribute wealth. Wealth needs to be distributed because the market is not fair or efficient in distributing it. Having wealth is the best insurance to becoming even wealthier. People who are wealthy live in a dreamworld just like poor people do, but in their dreamworld they tell themselves that they are self made men. That's crap. Without the efforts of all and the infrastructure of society as a whole, few people who are today wealthy would ever be wealthy. I forget now who made the point, though it is a good one, that if you put a man on an island where there is no real social, political, and economic culture, there's very little chance that such a person could become a self made millionaire.
Workers make it possible for entrepreneurs to get rich. And when they do get rich, they replace the workers who got them there with new technologies that make them richer and the people who made it all possible end up with very little. At least a lot less than the contribution they made. There's not the space here to argue how much nonesense is embodied in this article. But you should think it through. It is the key to an important weakness in your economic philosphy. In today's world, wealth buys political favors... the poor get screwed. Our whole culture is organized around wealthy people who keep poor people poor, uneducated, and powerless. It is not so much the envy of the poor but the greed of the rich that makes life on earth such a slog for so many. Greed or envy... either way it is tragic....
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/tf2777/article22363_htm/
-
Yes, FF, even marxists are allowed to comment on online topics where free speech exists. Like yourself, for instance...
-
Yes, FF, even marxists are allowed to comment on online topics where free speech exists. Like yourself, for instance...
Your assertion is incorrect but I wonder what descriptive term would be used if you had to pigeonhole your political views
-
It is when you (not specifically you, of course) disagree with any concept of society.
Get your head straight.
"Any concept of society" includes every society, even those based on cannibalism, torture, or arbitrary castes.
Define society for us. Please.
-
"I'm sorry..."
"I can't hear you over that money I've violently taken from you."
Snark is no substitute for rational thought.
When you've worked up the stones to come take from me what you imagine I owe you, step up to my door and try by your own force to take what is mine.
That's where your morality inevitably leads, but you lack the courage to take matters into your own hands. You'll never come to my house in person. You'll always evade the brute force you advocate, and delegate your theft and murder to others.
If you have any conviction in your beliefs, you'll take me up on my offer: private message me, and I'll give you my address.
Take action on your conviction: Come to my house. Take from me what you imagine I owe you.
You, and everyone here, knows you won't.
-
Yes, I cut out the threats and useless attempts at intimidation, and I'll cut right to the point.
Let's say you get what you want, and nobody votes.
Please tell me what happens next?
I can't predict the future, and no one else can, either.
Suppose no one votes, and no one is elected.
Ask yourself: what would you do after that? Would you run amok, indiscriminately raping and killing everyone in sight?
I don't know about you, but I'd continue my life as I've always lived: work hard, play hard, and, above all, be honest.
What would you do differently than you're doing now?
-
Pretty much the same as now. That is why there is an electoral college that can make anyone the elected if they wish.
-
Pretty much the same as now. That is why there is an electoral college that can make anyone the elected if they wish.
This is a thought exercise.
The point is to imagine what you'd do tomorrow regarding your neighbors if the government dried up into dust and blew away while you were sleeping tonight.
-
The point is to imagine what you'd do tomorrow regarding your neighbors if the government dried up into dust and blew away while you were sleeping tonight.
Celebrate?
-
Celebrate?
I would. For weeks.
-
If this Treaty gets signed, the following will be the NEW PARENTAL RIGHTS Under INTERNATIONAL LAW.. How long can we count on being free???. Don't believe me Go to PARENTALRIGHTS.ORG and read for yourself..Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC:
* Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.11.
* A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.12.
* Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.13.
* The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.14.
* A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.15.
* According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.16.
page 2.
* Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.17.
* Christian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.18.
* Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.19.
* Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.20.
-
Yes, Susan, a constitutionalist I might be as well, but there's a major flaw in that particular document that must be repaired if we are to retake the many freedoms our government has usurped: treaties become the supreme law of the country without regard to the extra- or obvious un-constitutionality of their contents...
The article below states that they aren't going to be used to catch "people drinking on their boat" but the fact of the matter remains these new security cameras are quite capable of doing just that, and a whole lot more. Peeping Tom never had it so good, but the DHS is spending $30M (borrowed) FedNotes to help "secure" that criminal hotbed of a border we've got here on Lake St. Clair. Illegal immigrants? Drugs? I thought that was what was happening along the southern border (where they aren't doing much to impede the flow of such things) not the northern one...ours.
Officials offer first look at border cameras (http://detnews.com/article/20090428/METRO/904280355/1409/METRO/Officials+offer+first+look+at+border+cameras) <- link
"When cameras were installed in London, it was found that the operators were using them to ogle women and following people based on their race," said Shelli Weisberg, legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan. "We are concerned about the privacy implications and what kinds of safeguards will be in place.
"The ACLU is always concerned with the mounting of cameras, especially because there is so little evidence that this is one of the wiser ways to spend resources."
David Schaden, 36, of Grosse Pointe said he wasn't worried about surveillance of his frequent trips around Lake St. Clair and the St. Clair River. "I guess it'll probably be OK," he said.
And yes, Mr. Schaden, you're one of my least favorite types of people - the sheeple sort: easily led astray and mindless self-subjugation to whoever claims to be a shepherd...
For more on what the Brits have experienced with the onslaught of millions of BigBrother-esque CCTVs there see some of the entries in the Whither Britain Goes the US Soon Follows (http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11927.0) thread; because this is just the beginning, folks..
-
Yes, Susan, a constitutionalist I might be as well, but there's a major flaw in that particular document that must be repaired if we are to retake the many freedoms our government has usurped: treaties become the supreme law of the country without regard to the extra-constitutionality of their contents...
The article below states that they aren't going to be used to catch "people drinking on their boat" but the fact of the matter remains these new security cameras are quite capable of doing just that, and a whole lot more. Peeping Tom never had it so good, but the DHS is spending $30M (borrowed) FedNotes to help "secure" that criminal hotbed of a border we've got here on Lake St. Clair. Illegal immigrants? Drugs? I thought that was what was happening along the southern border (where they aren't doing much to impede the flow of such things) not the northern one...ours.
Officials offer first look at border cameras ([url]http://detnews.com/article/20090428/METRO/904280355/1409/METRO/Officials+offer+first+look+at+border+cameras[/url]) <- link
And yes, Mr. Schaden, you're one of my least favorite types of people - the sheeple sort: easily led astray and mindless self-subjugation to whomever claims to be a shepherd...
For more on what the Brits have experienced with the onslaught of millions of BigBrother-esque CCTVs there see some of the entries in the Whither Britain Goes the US Soon Follows ([url]http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=11927.0[/url]) thread; because this is just the beginning, folks..
The ACLU and Big Brother are doing what they have always done, The are just becoming more brazen. And "WE THE PEOPLE" need to start standing up for OUR RIGHTS. It's strange to me, that the Plymouth Rock gang left that Country to live free. And now so many want to take the back path back to their "freedom".
-
The ACLU and Big Brother are doing what they have always done, The are just becoming more brazen. And "WE THE PEOPLE" need to start standing up for OUR RIGHTS. It's strange to me, that the Plymouth Rock gang left that Country to live free. And now so many want to take the back path back to their "freedom".
"Rights"?
Sorry, you have no "standing".
Your "rights" were checked at the door along with the Constitution in 1933.
-
Did you read what the article said, Susan? The ACLU is against the use of cameras by 'big brother.' How did you conflate the two? They're on opposite sides.
-
What was I thinking? Thank God there is another group of Attorneys out there that fight the ACLU on issues and break their nasty little backs. ACLU not wanting Cameras is the same as Obama not needing to be in front of the cameras every five minutes. Politics make strange bedfellows
-
Wow, I have never heard anything so unabashedly ignorant. You can't compare the ACLU and Obama. No where near in the same league on any topic.
-
Yes I can, Matter of fact I just DID.
-
No actually you didn't. You made yourself seem like a right wing wacko that is trying to blame a man that has been in office for less than 4 months for all the problems in the country.
-
No actually you didn't. You made yourself seem like a right wing wacko that is trying to blame a man that has been in office for less than 4 months for all the problems in the country.
Same thing as you attacking everything I say, and I've only been on a few weeks, I ponder the question? Is this how Obama feels?
-
I don't attack everything you say. I do however contest ideas that I don't agree with.
-
And your name calling is really the sign of immaturity..Wait, You will call it innuendo. See I know you so well already CK.You are just plain mean. You ever tear the wings off baby birds as a child?
-
You don't know me at all. I fail to see where I have called a name. I see where I said that you appeared to be something, but not that you actually were that. Though if it looks like a bulldog...
-
No actually you didn't. You made yourself seem like a right wing wacko that is trying to blame a man that has been in office for less than 4 months for all the problems in the country.
Definition required: wtf is a Right Wing Wacko ? Specifics would be most appreciated, otherwise it's just more hot air emanating from an ignorant, probably ineducable, name-calling kid...
-
Same thing as you attacking everything I say, and I've only been on a few weeks, I ponder the question? Is this how Obama feels?
You don't know me at all. I fail to see where I have called a name. I see where I said that you appeared to be something, but not that you actually were that. Though if it looks like a bulldog...
No No No..It goes, If it walks like a duck, talks Like a duck etc. Bulldog? Nah, I'm more of a mutt..A bit of everything that makes life interesting. But if bite I go for the throat. Is that what you mean. Do you love FREEDOM of speech. 1st amendment stuff. You would'nt be interested. You are waiting for "The fairness act"
-
No No No..It goes, If it walks like a duck, talks Like a duck etc. Bulldog? Nah, I'm more of a mutt..A bit of everything that makes life interesting. But if bite I go for the throat. Is that what you mean. Do you love FREEDOM of speech. 1st amendment stuff. You would'nt be interested. You are waiting for "The fairness act"
1st Amendment?
How about your right to redress of grievances?
Again, YOU have NO STANDING!
Get it, or no?
-
1st Amendment?
How about your right to redress of grievances?
Again, YOU have NO STANDING!
Get it, or no?
I can STAND anywhere I want. On any issue I want. In any forum I want.Because I CAN. How's that for CHANGE?
-
You do realize that it was the fairness doctrine first off, and that it was Bush that tried to get that through. Obama stopped it.
-
You do realize that it was the fairness doctrine first off, and that it was Bush that tried to get that through. Obama stopped it.
Do you know that I did not vote for Bush or Obama. He stopped it For NOW..They are still working out the kinks and it would'nt shut me up anyway. Would it you?
-
You can't be a champion of free speech and then ask me to shut up. It doesn't work that way.
-
You are'nt listening, I said, It would'nt shut me up. Would it you? It was a question. Not a demand
-
[quote authCollegekid link=topic=11926.msg330242#msg330242 date=1240967626]
You do realize that it was the fairness doctrine first off, and that it was Bush that tried to get that through. Obama stopped it.
[/quote]
CK:
Bush was pushing for the Fairness Doctrine and Obama stopped it? Where did you dream up Bush was pushing the Fairness Doctrine?
-
I can STAND anywhere I want. On any issue I want. In any forum I want.Because I CAN. How's that for CHANGE?
OK.
You don't get it.
-
These political charades are swallowed so easily by the unobservant. [It must be the spoon full of sugar.]
Is the ACLU-- Big Brother's little brother, or his bigger brother or are they twins? Come on now, their little family spats are "for show" only! They're using anyone, who will buy their lingo to gain their own ends--power grabbing.
-
I can STAND anywhere I want. On any issue I want. In any forum I want.Because I CAN. How's that for CHANGE?
Susan:
Smash isn't getting on your case, he is being rather cryptic. Here is an example of having "no standing".
Your sister got scammed by someone. You want to testify on the injustice of it all. Yet since you were not directly involved, or personally harmed, you have no standing (or relevance) in your sister's case one way or the other.
Assuming my take on "standing" is correct, we both await Smash to provide us with the crux of his argument as it relates to actions taken by FDR in 1933 which have removed our right to redress of grievences. This should be good.
-
CK:
Bush was pushing for the Fairness Doctrine and Obama stopped it? Where did you dream up Bush was pushing the Fairness Doctrine?
I was going to ask the same question, but you beat me to it. Although I was going to go a step further and ask him to provide me the bill number that the President introduced. Last I checked Presidents don't make it a policy to introduce legislation, maybe he wanted a fairness doctrine when he was Gov of TX? Maybe CK is just far more enlightened than any of us know. Either way the answer to the question should be an interesting one, though I think it will be more of a deflect, dodge, dismiss, rinse repeat.
-
Susan:
Smash isn't getting on your case, he is being rather cryptic. Here is an example of having "no standing".
Your sister got scammed by someone. You want to testify on the injustice of it all. Yet since you were not directly involved, or personally harmed, you have no standing (or relevance) in your sister's case one way or the other.
Assuming my take on "standing" is correct, we both await Smash to provide us with the crux of his argument as it relates to actions taken by FDR in 1933 which have removed our right to redress of grievences. This should be good.
Sure I can. I can say it was me and not my sister. To quote Janis Joplin(Kris Kristofferson wrote it) FREEDOM is just another word,for nothin' left to lose. I get it. Here in the real world I would bite the bullet. But thanks for the tip.
-
Maybe CK is just far more enlightened than any of us know.
jbs:
I've yet to see any evidence to cause us worry on that count.
-
Susan:
Smash isn't getting on your case, he is being rather cryptic. Here is an example of having "no standing".
Your sister got scammed by someone. You want to testify on the injustice of it all. Yet since you were not directly involved, or personally harmed, you have no standing (or relevance) in your sister's case one way or the other.
Assuming my take on "standing" is correct, we both await Smash to provide us with the crux of his argument as it relates to actions taken by FDR in 1933 which have removed our right to redress of grievences. This should be good.
I'm not being cryptic at all. I'm using the English language and even providing quotation marks to indicate all the important words.
Read Senate Report 93-549.
Look at the decisions that have came down from the Black Robed Menace in the Federal Courts regarding the cases involving Obama's qualification to be the Prez.
You have no "standing" today to question anything your government does.
We currently have a WAR time Government operating in Washington.
Read the War and Emergency Powers statutes that spell out how our government operates during times of war.
Remember, we have been in a perpetual State of War since 1933.
Read FDR's own words. Not mine.
Research it for yourself on the National Archives website.
-
I'm not being cryptic at all. I'm using the English language and even providing quotation marks to indicate all the important words.
Read Senate Report 93-549.
Look at the decisions that have came down from the Black Robed Menace in the Federal Courts regarding the cases involving Obama's qualification to be the Prez.
You have no "standing" today to question anything your government does.
We currently have a WAR time Government operating in Washington.
Read the War and Emergency Powers statutes that spell out how our government operates during times of war.
Remember, we have been in a perpetual State of War since 1933.
Read FDR's own words. Not mine.
Research it for yourself on the National Archives website.
I'm not being cryptic at all. I'm using the English language and even providing quotation marks to indicate all the important words.
Read Senate Report 93-549.
Look at the decisions that have came down from the Black Robed Menace in the Federal Courts regarding the cases involving Obama's qualification to be the Prez.
You have no "standing" today to question anything your government does.
We currently have a WAR time Government operating in Washington.
Read the War and Emergency Powers statutes that spell out how our government operates during times of war.
Remember, we have been in a perpetual State of War since 1933.
Read FDR's own words. Not mine.
Research it for yourself on the National Archives website.
Smash:
So in other words, I and others, need to do the research to understand the point you were making.
Well, on the one hand, there is no question it would do us all good to be aware of the information. On the other,
it seems a little arrogant on your part to point out to Susan T in your original post that she has no standing without providing any illumination as to where you were coming from.
-
Smash:
So in other words, I and others, need to do the research to understand the point you were making.
Well, on the one hand, there is no question it would do us all good to be aware of the information. On the other,
it seems a little arrogant on your part to point out to Susan T in your original post that she has no standing without providing any illumination as to where you were coming from.
No,It's ok I'm always willing to look and see for myself. As long as I'm not ordered into a lock-step and blindly follow. That is what got us in this mess to begin with.I said before I'm a free thinker and my mind is still my own. I will look into it. And make my own decision. I will continue to STAND on my own convictions. I am a person of the U.S.. Not it's property.
-
I love it when I see the righties fighting amongst themselves. ;D
The cohesion is gone....I just hope the defections continue :)
-
I love it when I see the righties fighting amongst themselves. ;D
The cohesion is gone....I just hope the defections continue :)
We are not arguing, we are coming together and educating each other on our views as FREE thinking, free speaking human beings. We can't read each others minds' so we assist each other with our thoughts and feeling, OPENLY. Just an exchange of information. Dems. Take the word of The Mighty ONE blindly. We like the " eyes wide open" approach. But you take it anyway you wish
-
I love it when I see the righties fighting amongst themselves.
"Fighting," FF? I'd call it more "clarification."
The "laws" are written by lawyers, "interpreted" by lawyers, and "prosecuted" by lawyers - if that's not sufficient evidence in and of itself that the "laws" aren't exactly crystal-clear for us LittlePeople I can't imagine what would be. "Standing," in legalese, is akin to the common man's expression "It's none of your friggin' business": we've all been incorrectly assuming that what happens in the government of WeThePeople is, In Fact our business; but that same government says and does otherwise. Very few Americans alive today have ever been "free" to do much of anything except that which the government "allows," "licenses," or hasn't criminalized yet.
"No Standing" means we're supposed to shut up, or face the likely consequences of resisting tyranny.
-
I was going to ask the same question, but you beat me to it. Although I was going to go a step further and ask him to provide me the bill number that the President introduced. Last I checked Presidents don't make it a policy to introduce legislation, maybe he wanted a fairness doctrine when he was Gov of TX? Maybe CK is just far more enlightened than any of us know. Either way the answer to the question should be an interesting one, though I think it will be more of a deflect, dodge, dismiss, rinse repeat.
They don't have to. The have the wonderous device known as the Executive Order which becomes law simply by being entered into the Federal Register.
-
No,It's ok I'm always willing to look and see for myself. As long as I'm not ordered into a lock-step and blindly follow. That is what got us in this mess to begin with.I said before I'm a free thinker and my mind is still my own. I will look into it. And make my own decision. I will continue to STAND on my own convictions. I am a person of the U.S.. Not it's property.
You may want to look into that a little deeper too.
Like it or not you are owned. You and I are nothing more than serfs.
Quote from Thomas Jefferson:
"If the American people ever allow private banks
to control the issue of their money,
first by inflation and then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will
grow up around them (around the banks),
will deprive the people of their property
until their children will wake up homeless
on the continent their fathers conquered."
Quote from Peter Kershaw:
"The Founding Fathers of this great land had no difficulty whatsoever understanding the agenda of bankers, and they frequently referred to them and their kind as, quote, 'friends of paper money.' They hated the Bank of England, in particular, and felt that even were we successful in winning our independence from England and King George, we could never truly be a nation of freemen, unless we had an honest money system. Through ignorance, but moreover, because of apathy, a small, but wealthy, clique of power brokers have robbed us of our Rights and Liberties, and we are being raped of our wealth. We are paying the price for the near-comatose levels of complacency by our parents, and only God knows what might become of our children, should we not work diligently to shake this country from its slumber! Many a nation has lost its freedom at the end of a gun barrel, but here in America, we just decided to hand it over voluntarily. Worse yet, we paid for the tyranny and usurpation out of our own pockets with "voluntary" tax contributions and the use of a debt-laden fiat currency!"
-
They don't have to. The have the wonderous device known as the Executive Order which becomes law simply by being entered into the Federal Register.
I understand that SMASH, I was hoping to elicit a response from CK as to when Bush tried to push though the "fairness doctrine". My point was that he didn't and I hoped that CK would clarify his statement.
Sadly, he read the posts following his drivle, and didn't see it necessary to respond with any type of factual information, just skipped it and moved onto other threads and continued posting away.
I guess I'll remember that when he begs an answer out of me in the future.
-
I understand that SMASH, I was hoping to elicit a response from CK as to when Bush tried to push though the "fairness doctrine". My point was that he didn't and I hoped that CK would clarify his statement.
Sadly, he read the posts following his drivle, and didn't see it necessary to respond with any type of factual information, just skipped it and moved onto other threads and continued posting away.
I guess I'll remember that when he begs an answer out of me in the future.
OK.
-
I understand that SMASH, I was hoping to elicit a response from CK as to when Bush tried to push though the "fairness doctrine". My point was that he didn't and I hoped that CK would clarify his statement.
Sadly, he read the posts following his drivle, and didn't see it necessary to respond with any type of factual information, just skipped it and moved onto other threads and continued posting away.
I guess I'll remember that when he begs an answer out of me in the future.
There was no need to respond. I'm taking a page out of your book. When you make a point, and someone asks for clarification you rarely if ever do it and tell them to 'look it up' so if you want to know follow your own advice.
Otherwise I would flush out the research, and give you the information on the bill that George Bush pushed to have written that included language about the fairness doctrine.
-
Last I checked Presidents don't make it a policy to introduce legislation,
Ok then, yet you all want to claim that the 'bad' stimulus bill in Obama's fault. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim stuff congress did under Bush was autonomous and that the stuff they are now doing under Obama is all his fault.
-
There was no need to respond. I'm taking a page out of your book. When you make a point, and someone asks for clarification you rarely if ever do it and tell them to 'look it up' so if you want to know follow your own advice.
Otherwise I would flush out the research, and give you the information on the bill that George Bush pushed to have written that included language about the fairness doctrine.
Wow I think you have me woefully confused with someone else.
Funny the last time I pinned a someone like you into a corner trying to make them back up what they said they pulled the same strategy........... "I'm taking a page out of your book"! That person was a Rep., so I guess my sword cuts both ways.
"I'm taking a page out of your book"! What a cop out. In other words you cannot backup what you said and are now crying uncle.
BTW its Obamas budget that I don't like, last I looked the stimulus bill after his election was introduced by Nancy Pelosi was it not? BTW if you were to actually go back into my posts I believe you will not find where I have blamed Obama for anything, and have been highly critical of the previous administration. Just because someone calls you out on a post you made, does not mean you get to lump them in with your political enemies.
Back to the original question though................
Can you show me some documentation where Bush introduced the "Fairness Doctrine" as legislation as you claim? I am not going to do your work for you, be a big boy college student and back up your "facts".
Also while you are trying to back up your first claim, maybe you can back up the claim that I have told people "look it up" when someone asks me for clarification. That will be two things you have said that you cannot back up. Care to go for 3?
-
Ok then, yet you all want to claim that the 'bad' stimulus bill in Obama's fault. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim stuff congress did under Bush was autonomous and that the stuff they are now doing under Obama is all his fault.
See my previous post for the included reply to this.
-
'Freedom' in this country has become a direct ratio to your 'Freedom' is gaged by the amount of legal tender you possess. No money, no freedom. Lots of money, lots of freedom.
-
Your "rights" were checked at the door along with the Constitution in 1933.
It's prior to, and worse than that, but precious few can, or are courageous enough, to see it for what it is:
The American Revolution in fact *died* with the ratification of the US Constitution: http://tinyurl.com/c2ktz6 (http://tinyurl.com/c2ktz6)
The American Revolution was based on individual rights. The US Constitution is based on the tyranny of the majority, and by its very nature strangles individual rights.
-
"I'm taking a page out of your book"! What a cop out. In other words you cannot backup what you said and are now crying uncle.
Not a cop out at all, I'm just not doing the research for both sides.
BTW its Obamas budget that I don't like,
Obama does not yet have a budget. Bush's final budget, while passed after Obama took office was still made up by the Bush administration.
last I looked the stimulus bill after his election was introduced by Nancy Pelosi was it not?
Yes it was, but by your logic she did it, not the president because he can't introduce legislation. Again, you can't argue it both ways.
Can you show me some documentation where Bush introduced the "Fairness Doctrine" as legislation as you claim?
As I have already answered you at least once already, I can not specifically since as you say, the president doesn't introduce legislation. However it was first introduced during his administration.
-
Not a cop out at all, I'm just not doing the research for both sides.
I'm not asking you for research from both sides, just the research you did to come up with your facts. You made the statement not anyone else, you own it. Why won't you clue us in on where you got the information?
Obama does not yet have a budget. Bush's final budget, while passed after Obama took office was still made up by the Bush administration.
Huh? Obama doesn't have a budget? Are you kidding?
[url]http://uk.reuters.com/article/motoringAutoNews/idUKTRE53S8ZS20090429[/url] ([url]http://uk.reuters.com/article/motoringAutoNews/idUKTRE53S8ZS20090429[/url])
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/03/us.house.senate.budget.passes/[/url] ([url]http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/03/us.house.senate.budget.passes/[/url])
[url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/[/url] ([url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/[/url])
Yes it was, but by your logic she did it, not the president because he can't introduce legislation. Again, you can't argue it both ways.
That is a nice hack job you did on my post to make it look as if I was double speaking, why not copy and paste the entire statement?
"BTW its Obamas budget that I don't like, last I looked the stimulus bill after his election was introduced by Nancy Pelosi was it not? BTW if you were to actually go back into my posts I believe you will not find where I have blamed Obama for anything, and have been highly critical of the previous administration"
As you can see I did not anywhere in that statement say that Obama presented the bill as legislation as you are trying to make it sound. Nice trick though, but it didn't work.
As I have already answered you at least once already, I can not specifically since as you say, the president doesn't introduce legislation. However it was first introduced during his administration.
So you answered me? Oh but it wasn't a specific answer? You seemed to be very specific about saying it. And exactly which post in this thread is your "unspecific answer" to my specific question about your very specific statement?
If it was introduced then you have to know by who. You said it was Bush, stated it as a fact. Now you are again stating as fact that it was introduced. By who? When? Was there a vote, was it in committee? Is this a golden nugget of wisdom or another turd to be flushed away?