RE: A Lively Moment at CPAC: Slavery = Food + Shelter (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Real0ne -> RE: A Lively Moment at CPAC: Slavery = Food + Shelter (3/19/2013 5:27:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

there is no such thing as a sovereign citizen, you didnt get that trash from me!

You haven't used the term but you preach their bullshit philosophy.



[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/blacks/usfederalcorporation010A-2.jpg[/image]

Bullshit?

difference between philosophy and history

seems to me the biggest problem in america is koolaid.

koolaid should be banned dont you think?

anyway be my guest and separate that if you think can.

Oh and I put up court cases be sure to do the same in rebuttal if you can come up with one.








tazzygirl -> RE: A Lively Moment at CPAC: Slavery = Food + Shelter (3/19/2013 6:08:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

I'd be so tempted to believe you but that's the whole gig with libertarians... They believe in economic warfare but no other kind. So "let the market decide" is their chosen field of contest. They KNOW such a thing is foolish at best and immoral at worst... and this is one of the smaller ways that'd be true.

Before he was elected, Rand Paul was on with Rachel Maddow. He stated his beef with the public accommodations portion of the Civil Rights Act. He felt that a pub owner should be able to choose who to serve, or not. So for Rand propeerty is more important than people. Not a far step from the plantation massa who considered people property.


But, a pub owner can decide who to serve or not serve already.

Not if it is protect by law. A pub owner can ban people under 21, he can refuse to serve someone alcohol if they are too drunk, he can refuse service for no shoes, no shirt, etc....but he can't deny a white person access to a bar owned by blacks, a dyke bar cannot refuse entry to a man, a redneck biker bar cannot refuse service to blacks. Businesses that are public conveyances, like bars and restaurants, cannot deny service for reasons not related to the operation of the business, the right of association does not apply to businesses that serve the general public. A private club, on the other hand, can so discriminate.


Which is what an owner would have to become.. private club. So, yes, it can be done. Basically, you show up at the door, pay a "membership fee" and you go in.




tazzygirl -> RE: A Lively Moment at CPAC: Slavery = Food + Shelter (3/19/2013 6:15:25 PM)

quote:

there is no such thing as a sovereign citizen, you didnt get that trash from me!


Why is there no such thing as a sovereign citizen?

http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sovereign-citizen/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jjmacnab/2012/02/13/what-is-a-sovereign-citizen/

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/april/sovereigncitizens_041310






Real0ne -> RE: A Lively Moment at CPAC: Slavery = Food + Shelter (3/20/2013 7:54:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

there is no such thing as a sovereign citizen, you didnt get that trash from me!


Why is there no such thing as a sovereign citizen?

http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/sovereign-citizen/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jjmacnab/2012/02/13/what-is-a-sovereign-citizen/

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/april/sovereigncitizens_041310






do you realize how incredibly fucking backwards ass ignorant this is? -and how many mistakes are in there?
quote:


Sovereign citizen is a term used to refer to a political movement which grew out of a belief in government abuses of power. Members often refuse to hold social security cards or driver's licenses and avoid using zip codes. Sovereign citizens believe that U.S. citizens are either "Fourteenth Amendment citizens" (who are subject to the federal and state laws and taxes) or "sovereign citizens", who are subject only to common law or "constitutional law" (or both), but are not bound to obey statutory law. No court has ever upheld these claims. Sovereign citizens may also be referred to as "freemen" or "common law citizens".



Both sides are completely full of shit.

Rather than simply make a statement regarding it, if you are really interested in what this means, what they think trying to say, and failing to do so because they only understand they are getting fucked but like most people do not have the time to become a first rate lawyer, lets start here;

with the basics,

what gives any person or group of persons the "legitimate" authority to rule or effect the actions of another?









tazzygirl -> RE: A Lively Moment at CPAC: Slavery = Food + Shelter (3/20/2013 9:15:32 AM)

You made the claim there was no such thing. And yet you cant back it up?




JeffBC -> RE: A Lively Moment at CPAC: Slavery = Food + Shelter (3/20/2013 9:31:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
what gives any person or group of persons the "legitimate" authority to rule or effect the actions of another?

I actually think there is an interesting question in that. I'd be a lot more comfortable if it was easy for an individual to pick and choose their government. I'd also like there to be some remote island somewhere that the anarchists can all go to and kill each other peacefully. As it sits right now though the entire planet is claimed by one sovereign or another and citizens cannot easily "shop" for a benign government.

To answer your question: For most of my life I felt that the US government was a legitimate government FOR ME. I liked some of what it did. I disliked other parts. But overall I felt that in exchange for the sacrifice of some of my freedoms I got a reasonable return. So what made it legitimate was I felt it was. Now, I no longer feel that way. I was able to move to another country. Not everyone is so capable/lucky/whatever.




mnottertail -> RE: A Lively Moment at CPAC: Slavery = Food + Shelter (3/20/2013 9:33:39 AM)

quote:


what gives any person or group of persons the "legitimate" authority to rule or effect the actions of another?

 
Acquiescense.  Agreement.  Might makes right.  Which one you want?




Zonie63 -> RE: A Lively Moment at CPAC: Slavery = Food + Shelter (3/20/2013 11:40:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
what gives any person or group of persons the "legitimate" authority to rule or effect the actions of another?

I actually think there is an interesting question in that. I'd be a lot more comfortable if it was easy for an individual to pick and choose their government. I'd also like there to be some remote island somewhere that the anarchists can all go to and kill each other peacefully. As it sits right now though the entire planet is claimed by one sovereign or another and citizens cannot easily "shop" for a benign government.

To answer your question: For most of my life I felt that the US government was a legitimate government FOR ME. I liked some of what it did. I disliked other parts. But overall I felt that in exchange for the sacrifice of some of my freedoms I got a reasonable return. So what made it legitimate was I felt it was. Now, I no longer feel that way. I was able to move to another country. Not everyone is so capable/lucky/whatever.


My answer is probably similar to yours. The thing is, I was born in this country, and my parents, grandparents, aunts/uncles, siblings, cousins were all born here and all accepted that this is the country of our birth and the society in which we live. I have one cousin who's lived abroad for over 20 years, in a place which has a stricter government than the U.S. (he's in Singapore).

That's the main problem in shopping for other governments, because most of the governments in the world are worse than the U.S. government. I suppose if it was back in the old days, people could just move out to the frontier or become a mountain man if they didn't want to have to deal with governmental authority, but that's really not much of an option anymore. I've heard that some people go up to Alaska thinking that they're going to live off the land and off the grid, but I don't know how well they fare.

I'm not sure about this "sovereign citizen" business, though. The first time I ever heard of the concept was when I was in my late 20s, introduced to me by a fire-and-brimstone preacher and self-proclaimed "Messiah." One of the most interesting characters I ever met in my entire life. He managed to piss off the local government, the cops, and nearly every mainline Christian denomination in town. His main reason for promoting sovereign citizenship was because he believed that anyone who paid taxes or supported the government would be held responsible by God for anything and everything our government has ever done. So, if the U.S. government has ever committed murder during the time of its existence (from 1776 to the present), then all U.S. taxpayers would be condemned by God as murderers, according to this person's belief. He had some pretty hardcore beliefs.




Real0ne -> RE: A Lively Moment at CPAC: Slavery = Food + Shelter (3/20/2013 12:42:12 PM)

thats why I laugh my ass of everytime vince posts that shit.

It is the same order as if I were to represent the democratic party using jocelyn elders or reps by alberto gonzales, of whom both partys would prefer never existed.

a citizen is a franchise contract made with a sovereign. see the little problem we have here LMAO




Real0ne -> RE: A Lively Moment at CPAC: Slavery = Food + Shelter (3/20/2013 12:44:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


what gives any person or group of persons the "legitimate" authority to rule or effect the actions of another?

 
Acquiescense.  Agreement.  Might makes right.  Which one you want?



now if you understood how those 3 words were used in practice I might be forced to have some respect for your opinion, however your post shows you do not. Saved once again! LOL




Real0ne -> RE: A Lively Moment at CPAC: Slavery = Food + Shelter (3/20/2013 12:51:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
what gives any person or group of persons the "legitimate" authority to rule or effect the actions of another?

I actually think there is an interesting question in that. I'd be a lot more comfortable if it was easy for an individual to pick and choose their government. I'd also like there to be some remote island somewhere that the anarchists can all go to and kill each other peacefully. As it sits right now though the entire planet is claimed by one sovereign or another and citizens cannot easily "shop" for a benign government.

To answer your question: For most of my life I felt that the US government was a legitimate government FOR ME. I liked some of what it did. I disliked other parts. But overall I felt that in exchange for the sacrifice of some of my freedoms I got a reasonable return. So what made it legitimate was I felt it was. Now, I no longer feel that way. I was able to move to another country. Not everyone is so capable/lucky/whatever.



well that has expanded and now we have the whole world moving in concert. No place to go. (for them either) This shit meess the aristocracies created wil have to be dealt with sooner or later. The harder they push the harder people are pushing back. the internet opened the floodgates and people catch on quick to what has been perpetrated upon us by our trustees! Its gotten so bad people even call the "leaders" and vote for leaders and turn around and tell their palls its government of the people! LMAO

Its now become statism v individualism, anarcism is the word, that which statists fear most as can be seen by past propaganda in pretense that anary is lawlessness when in fact it has all the laws and judicial in place and is governmentless.

With 18% of our population now working for or attached to the government you can imagine the fear.




mnottertail -> RE: A Lively Moment at CPAC: Slavery = Food + Shelter (3/20/2013 1:05:15 PM)

quote:


now if you understood how those 3 words were used in practice I might be forced to have some respect for your opinion, however your post shows you do not. Saved once again! LOL


I understand how they are practiced.  Nevertheless I see no reason for a codswallower such as yourself to have respect for any opinion that has a basis in reality.

You can rest assured, there is no opinion you have that I respect.  Or most of this board for that matter, nor the 50 United States, and several foreign countries, come to that. 




Real0ne -> RE: A Lively Moment at CPAC: Slavery = Food + Shelter (3/20/2013 3:53:14 PM)

yes the light can be very painful


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/blacks/usfederalcorporation010A-2.jpg[/image]





Real0ne -> RE: A Lively Moment at CPAC: Slavery = Food + Shelter (3/20/2013 5:55:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


what gives any person or group of persons the "legitimate" authority to rule or effect the actions of another?

 
Acquiescense.  Agreement.  Might makes right.  Which one you want?



now if you understood how those 3 words were used in practice I might be forced to have some respect for your opinion, however your post shows you do not. Saved once again! LOL



ok gotta oops here. should have paid closer attention, yeh "might makes right" with that I painfully have to agree. [:-] Ruined my whole day! LOL

That is why you see so many governments who want nothing to do with the european banking cabal, of course all it takes is some country to threaten war and force them to come crying to the banks for loans to buy weapons and then its all over but the crying.



quote:


The state-making process in the United States is regulated by Article IV, Section 3 of the United States Constitution. It allows for the admission of new states by an act of Congress.

All states are admitted to the Union on an equal footing. [with the 13 colonies] This is not a provision of the Constitution itself, but U.S. Supreme Court rulings have established that Congress cannot discriminate against states when they are admitted.

With the acquisition of new territories by treaty, combined with war, the United States extended its dominion to the Pacific Ocean. These new lands were gradually incorporated into the Union

The issue of secession from the Union is not addressed directly in the constitution. The fundamental constitutional issue of the Civil War was the contention by Southern states that the Union was voluntary and revokable, while Lincoln and the North asserted that once in, there was no way out.


Hmmm.... whats that called again?????????????? Oh yeh "unconscionable" contract.

welcome!




mnottertail -> RE: A Lively Moment at CPAC: Slavery = Food + Shelter (3/21/2013 7:04:37 AM)

So, this is the line of the CPAC?  You a bachmann aide?




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875