[quote author=cerberil link=topic=4846.msg51303#msg51303 date=1301092221]
mackler,
just saying that something is bs does not make it so
show me point by point what is bs
I am man enough to admit when I am wrong
but you have to do better than just saying bs
otherwise you are the one full of bs
[/quote]
Just saying that something is so does not make it so.
It's not my job to prove a negative. It's your job to provide one single shred of evidence that any of your ridiculous claims are anything but pure crackpottery.
You make a bunch of fantastic legal claims and you support them with not one single source of legal authority.
You can believe whatever silly fantasies you want. Your beliefs have zero connection with reality anywhere in the real world outside one of your conspiracy-cult meetings.
mackler,
you are the one crying bs, so it is your job to tell me which points are bs and why
but fine what points do you wish me to provide evidence of?
[quote author=cerberil link=topic=4846.msg51306#msg51306 date=1301103727]
mackler,
you are the one crying bs, so it is your job to tell me which points are bs and why
[/quote]
Okay, let me try out your logic. Unicorns exist. I'm sure you know that, don't you Cerberil? Now please admit to everyone reading this that you believe unicorns exist. If you don't, then you'll be the one crying bs, and it will your job to prove that unicorns do not exist.
Did I get your pattern of reasoning correct?
[quote author=cerberil link=topic=4846.msg51306#msg51306 date=1301103727]
but fine what points do you wish me to provide evidence of?
[/quote]
The one I've been claiming is BS. You have no evidence that something happened in 1871 that fundamentally altered the constitution of the nation-state that occupies north america between Canada and Mexico.
I challenged you once, and all you could come up with is a legislative order incorporating the municipality of Washington, DC. You apparently don't know what Washington D.C. is. Washington DC is a city on the east coast near Maryland and Virginia. It's a popular tourist destination and seat of the national government. If you say otherwise then you are either (1) an ignorant fool with no knowledge of basic geography, (2) a liar, or (3) a brainwashed true-believer of a conspiracy cult.
Everything you wrote in post 295–other than that the city of Washington incorporated a municipal city government in 1871–is pure falsehood. Do you want a point by point list? Fine. Break your post into separate sentences, and add the words "Your claim that" in front of each sentence, and add the words "is false, it's laughable on its face, and you haven't got any evidence to support it" at the end of each sentence, and that will be my point by point list calling out all your BS crackpottery.
the UNITED STATES and the united states of America are not one and the same
28USC 1746-1
Whoever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, or proved by sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subcribed by him as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:
(1) If executed without the United States: "I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
(2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possesions, or commonwealths: "I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct.
as to the alteration of the constitution
the title was in fact altered and I will argue that the slightest change to a legal document can change its' meaning and we will not get into the 13th amendment originally barring titles of nobility
the real change happened to be the restricted access to the constitution for US citizens
"The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States," US vs Valentine 288F. Supp. 957
"The privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates the Bill of Rights, nor protects all rights of individual citizens. Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship." Jones v. Temmer, 89 F. Supp 1226
You are insane. The text you've quoted bears no relationship to your delusional theories. You would make more sense if you were quoting random pages from the yellow pages.
a letter from a secretary of state, if there was a way to post an actual copy, I would do so
what follows is the important wording coming from the secretary of state
"There is no function within this office to a receive a document such as yours, therefore, I am returning it to you.
If I may guess that you are attempting to renounce citizenship in the United States and any of its subjurisdictions such as the state of xxxxx, the appropriate way to do that is to appear at the United States Embassy anywhere in the world of your choosing (outside theUnited States) and fill out the appropriate paperwork. Any Embassy will be happy to assist you in that activity."
emphasis mine
mackler,
I let the other forum members decide if I'm insane
you however are full of shit
you asked for evidence of my statements
now they are irrelevant?
Is this Dick Marple?
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51245#msg51245 date=1300928979]
[quote author=cyberdoo78 link=topic=4846.msg51227#msg51227 date=1300897333]
The question isn't why would I support a felon with a stolen gun, but why did the felon have to resort to a stolen gun in the first place? Why couldn't the felon own a gun, if he was no longer 'serving time', assuming his 'debt to society' was paid of course.
A felon who has 'served his time' and paid his 'debt to society' ought to have all of his rights restored, including the right to own and possess a firearm. I know, sounds like crazy talk to you, because gods forbid a man who needs a firearm to protect himself shouldn't be allowed to protect himself because of some crime he was convicted of, 'served his time', 'paid his debt to society', because of the off chance that he'd use the firearm to commit another crime. Personally, I'd love to see him try to use a firearm to commit a crime, then he'd be put where violent people need to be put, not in a cage, stealing from people everyday he is there by way of government extortion, but in the ground where the Bible says he ought to be. 'Those who live by the [gun], die by the [gun].' [/quote]
Uh, no. Do you research ANY of what you post? The rearrest rate for violent US offenders was 61.7% in 1994. Then you put on your Rambo voice and quote a ridiculous text claiming death for all offenders. Cute…
[/quote]
I try to do a little research before I make a claim. However, as it has been said in the past, show me one study and I bet I can find 5 others that argue against it. You claim that the rearrest rate for violent US offenders was 61.7% in 1994, what were the causes of these 'rearrests'? Also, were any of those arrests from violations of previous release terms, or were they from those who had completed their sentences and were 'free men' and committed new crimes? I'm sure that the study you cite didn't take into account any of my claims as reasons for 'rearrests'.
As for your suggestion that I actually said 'death for all offenders', I didn't make that claim, you only think that I said that. I actually said was that those who choose violence to solve their problems will choose to die.
[quote][quote]
Of course this whole 'game' perpetrated on people who lack the very 'services' that they 'pay' for, work to defend themselves against people who are actually violent, and then are made to be the criminal. Every cop who's been shot, has been so because of the previous encounters that that individual faced with his relations to law enforcement. It is assumed, rightly so, that if in the past a LEO has been violent toward them, that is actually initiated force against him/her, that every other LEO will continue to do the same. It is the initiation of force by LEO's that puts them in to harms way, every single time. [/quote]
Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously? That is a bold statement from some pissant that never worked a day on the street, nor has any clue about society in general. I guess all people are angels until they run into the police- then they turn into some sociopath that wants to gun all the cops down? Are you fucking insane?
[/quote]
So because I don't go around kidnapping, murdering, and extorting people, my opinion is without any value? Such classic over generalization of what I said. No, not everyone is an angel until they meet a cop. There is always going to be people with overly violent tendencies. However, it is true that absent the use of force that cops wield, less then all of those who are violent may not act so violently.
Generally speaking, I do know a bit about society. I used to be someone like you who believed it was okay to do immoral things like kidnapping, murdering, and extorting money from people so long as it was done in the name of the "State". However, I now know things I didn't know before, like the nature of the human being. I also know why 'governments' are doomed to all fail. So, knowing now what I know, I can no longer endorse those things as I did before. That doesn't make me a better person, but it does make me a more understanding one.
As to your question, am I insane, the answer that your own 'state' people have decreed is that I am not. Can you say the same for yourself?
[quote][quote]I'd rather see LEO's trained to use psychology to 'disarm' a suspect, rather then resort to violence. That is of course hard to do when the very people that the various LEA's seeks are those who have, in relation to their job description, a very low education in the first place. Seems to me that if you want LAW ENFORCERS, they ought to know a little bit about law, at least half as much as a lawyer knows. So they can better understand what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. For example, knowing the difference between a real crime and 'legal crime', and along with the understanding that attempting to enforce a 'legal crime' is itself a real crime. Knowing the difference between Law and 'statutory law', and that enforcing the latter is a crime and not enforcing the former is also a crime. [/quote]
MORE inane nonsense. So the guy that just got done stabbing his wife is REALLY going to consider reason? You want me to 'talk the guy down?' Jesus, how fucking old are you, and what shit are you smoking- because I need some of it. Maybe in your fantasy land cops can talk people off the ledge 100% of the time, but in reality shit happens in milliseconds and there's often no time to talk. I especially love the idea of talking when some guy wants to blow your goddamn head off, and you want to know about how his inner child is feeling at that moment.
[/quote]
The question isn't 'will the guy who just got stabbing his wife listen to reason', but rather will THIS guy listen to reason? Are all guys who stab their wife going to listen to reason? No, not every single guy who stabs his wife will listen to reason. Are all guys who stab their wife going to NOT listen to reason? Again, no, not every single guy who stabs his wife won't listen to reason. So the then are you going to assume that every man who stabs his wife won't listen to reason and not try to talk him down and instead instigate a situation where by you are forced to shoot the man dead because you failed to try to talk him down? You may think it is inane or insane, but statistically someone will listen to reason, and isn't that worth trying first before you assume he won't?
I don't do drugs, any drugs. Okay, the occasional aspirin for a head or body ache, but to continue to treat me as some pot smoker is just you being a mean spirited individual.
I'm not asking anyone to be able to do something 100 percent of the time. I in fact believe it is impossible to 'talk everyone down' all the time, but what I am asking is that rather to using threats and actual violence to get compliance that you try using words. Tone yourselves down a bit with the violence and perhaps, more people will be less violent to you. I'm also not talking about his silly inner child, but asking for more understanding. Of course you will reject this because you come from a point of view that because something has happened one time one way, it will happen the same time every time.
[quote][quote]
Having the ability to use logic and reason is a must. Assuming that because one is taught that this 'government' is 'of the people, for the people, by the people' that it must be true when the reality of the situation is that this 'government' is nothing more then a master/slave relationship, with the slaves having no real power. Sure, people are taught, 'if you don't like the system, change the system' however these are mindless automatons who lack any real ability to think for themselves and actually sit down and mathematically work the problem. You can't change the system if you can't get elected, that is become a master. Even if you can get elected, you need to draft a bill, get 50 percent plus 1 of the committee to move the bill toward a vote. Voting on the bill isn't enough either because, usually, you need the support of 50 percent plus 1 of the other masters to create change. Even if you get the bill voted and approved, you still need the signature of the Chief Executive, who can decide not to support it and then veto it. If he does that then now you have to get upwards of 3/4's of the other masters in congress to approve the bill and override his veto, then it becomes 'law'. [/quote]
You're some kind of activist right? CHANGE it.
[/quote]
Back to the 'change it' rhetoric. As I just got explaining to you, its not possible to 'change' anything unless you have the support of the majority. You can't get the majority of people behind a lot of things because some are profiting from immoral acts, such as yourself. In the same way you won't stop being a police officer so long as your pay exceeds what your job is worth. It doesn't bother you one bit that you are accepting stolen property. It is in fact you justify accepting the stolen money you receive by viewing it instead as 'legally obtained money', since a majority of people believe it is morally okay to threaten people 'for the greater good' to provide 'services' to 'protect' 'society', regardless if everyone actually wants you to provide the 'service'. So long as the majority of people believe you are 'doing a good job' they will continue to force the others who would rather pay a private protection agency and actually get service they want at a price that is better then paying you.
[quote][quote]
As proof that such a system is, at the very least ineffective, look to the issue of slavery. By every reasonable man today, slavery is immoral, unlawful, and illegal. By the US Constitution, as written, every one had the same rights, slave and master alike. Granted that for districting purposes a black man was 4/5's a white man, for a time. It wasn't enough that the US Constitution wasn't being applied to blacks and women as written, an amendment, purported to end slavery when in actuality it now made everyone a slave, to 'free the slaves' was passed. That still wasn't enough, because it took another 100 years before a black man could see anything near equality to a white man. Why did it take 60 years to 'end slavery', and another 100 years for blacks to achieve 'equality'? Yep, its that very system that people so highly hold as the 'best system in the world', never you mind that its immoral at its base by subjugating the minority opinion to the majority opinion. Even when the majority opinion is itself immoral and unlawful. [/quote]
Clearly THIS is also the fault of the police. Nice stretch.
[/quote]
No, this was clearly the fault of a small number of people enforcing their ideas by the barrel of a gun. Since, as you probably know, there didn't exist any 'police' at the time and wouldn't for another 30 years or so. This was a continuation of my point that a majority of people will force a minority of people with guns to do their bidding, becoming de facto slaves. So long as the minority aren't willing to resort to force to stop them, they will continue to be slaves. Just because the majority decide to do something immoral doesn't make it moral automatically.
[quote][quote]
Anyone with half a brain can see logically that there exists no 'representative form of government'. Can one man really represent more then one side of any opinion. No, that's crazy, and you are crazy if you believe so. If one man can't represent more then one side of any opinion, how can he really be said to represent more then one person at a time since he can only hold one side of a position of an opinion at a time. If he can only hold one side of an opinion at a time, is he really representing those who hold the other side of that opinion? No, he can't. So to say that there is 'representative government' is a falsehood. In fact, it is more over the opinion of the representative that counts rather then the opinion of those he so-called represents. Case in point, "Obamacare". Polls, even democratic leaning polls showed no majority level of support for it, but those who 'represent' everyone voted for it anyhow. [/quote]
Never said I agreed that representatives actually represent us. What I DID say was that you should get elected or back someone who can in order to have your voice heard.
[/quote]
How is this possible when the majority of people profit from the immorality of the actions that 'government' does on their behalf? It's like saying to a criminal who is robbing you, please don't rob me, its immoral. So long as they continue to profit from their actions, they won't change, nor cause any change to occur. Those in power understand what they are doing, its called class warfare so long as they can pit the have not's against the haves, no one will question wither or not we should do a thing.
@cyberdoo-
You keep making the statement that you would not be able to get a majority of the people to follow your ideals and therefore can not get elected. What does this tell you? It tells me that either your ideals of a lawless society run by bands of private organization where everyone can smoke weed is NOT what people want. Obviously people want something more orderly that applies to persons across the board. So your plan for world domination isn't going to work until you can change the majority to accept anarchy and no rule, right Pinky?
And where do you get the idea that we just into a situation with guns blazing? You probably get that from sensationalized media and like the many sheep before you, base your entire opinion on what you see on TV or read in your biased newspaper or favorite blog site. I think I mentioned already the guy that was waving around a butcher knife and wanted to cut up his wife. I took his knife away without shooting him. I also might have mentioned the EDP that was cutting himself where I did the same thing. When did you read about that in your sensationalist media outlet? Oh yeah, you didn't. So instead you buy into the notion that all cop shoot bad(good) guy because cop no talk to them.
I've drawn my gun dozens of times and thankfully have yet to be forced to shoot someone. Your argument that we need to learn more restraint is pretty stupid considering there are no statistics that keep track of how many times we draw down on someone without shooting them. And before some idiot decides to chime in with the brilliant notion of- "But you pull your gun out when giving a parking ticket so statistically the number of shootings is small, you still shoot people too often" - THIS is what happens when the cop tries talking to someone that won't listen: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=df6_1266257013
I hope his screams resonate in your head for a while.
OhCrapItsTheCops,
I think the problem that you are having is understanding that the original form of government still exists simultaneously with the de facto government
our original form of government has never been formally dissolved, it has fallen into disuse because the population has been brainwashed into federal citizenship
remember, federal citizenship was created for the newly "freed" slaves, for everyone else there was state Citizenship
the feds gained control of the educational system and various other institutions and through constructive fraud trained everyone into the belief that they are federal citizens, were you ever taught the difference between federal citizenship and state Citizenship?
they have been so successful at this that the original states have all but ceased to exist for lack of state Citizens
take a look at my last three posts for citings proving that state Citizenship and federal citizenship are not the same, that the current so called states are subjurisdictions of the district of columbia
when a child born on the land between canada and mexico comes of age, what citizenship is available to him? It would be either state Citizenship or federal citizenship, federal citizenship requires a triggering event, for most it would be applying for a socialist slave number or a drivers' license, both of these require that you swear to being a federal citizen
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51319#msg51319 date=1301147064]I've drawn my gun dozens of times and thankfully have yet to be forced to shoot someone.[/quote]
Odd. I've only drawn my gun once, and it was because someone was clearly intending to murder me. I always train my students that you do not draw your gun, unless you are fully justified in completing the maneuver and actually shooting your attacker.
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51319#msg51319 date=1301147064]Your argument that we need to learn more restraint is pretty stupid considering there are no statistics that keep track of how many times we draw down on someone without shooting them.[/quote]
Convenient that you don't keep such statistics on the number of times you engage in what would be a major felony (criminal threatening with a deadly weapon) if anyone else did it, eh?
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51319#msg51319 date=1301147064]And before some idiot decides to chime in with the brilliant notion of- "But you pull your gun out when giving a parking ticket so statistically the number of shootings is small, you still shoot people too often" - THIS is what happens when the cop tries talking to someone that won't listen: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=df6_1266257013
I hope his screams resonate in your head for a while.[/quote]
The moment he put on his lights, he was threatening to murder the guy in the truck.
I bet, if he didn't go around threatening folks, he'd still be alive. If you choose to be a thug, sometimes your intended victim gets the drop on you.
The video conveniently doesn't show up, but based upon the tone of his voice, you can almost certainly pick out where he drew his gun. And he drew first.
His screams don't resonate with me, any more than the screams of any other armed robber who gets shot by his intended victim.
Joe
[quote author=OhCrapItsTheCops link=topic=4846.msg51319#msg51319 date=1301147064]
@cyberdoo-
You keep making the statement that you would not be able to get a majority of the people to follow your ideals and therefore can not get elected. What does this tell you? It tells me that either your ideals of a lawless society run by bands of private organization where everyone can smoke weed is NOT what people want. Obviously people want something more orderly that applies to persons across the board. So your plan for world domination isn't going to work until you can change the majority to accept anarchy and no rule, right Pinky?
[/quote]
In the past slavery was acceptable, does this make it right? In the past, people were ruled by kings who claimed they rule by the power granted to them by God, does that make it right? In the past, people were killed because their God's differed, was this right? No, all of this was wrong. You fail to recognize the problem with your idea here, its not that people don't want freedom and liberty, its because they profit from the immoral actions of others and aren't wiling to give them up. The majority profit from the abuses that they deal upon the minority. Trying to get them to stop what they have been indoctrinated to believe is acceptable is a long and difficult road. The same type of road that slaves walked, that minor religions walked, the same that those who didn't believe the King's power to rule was divine.
You are a moron, since I've told you time and time again, I don't want to smoke weed, I don't smoke weed, and I encourage others not to smoke weed. Unlike you, I'm not willing to kill them to stop them from smoking weed. This denotes to me that you aren't here to listen, to learn, or to understand, but for some other purpose, such as insulting people because your arguments lack any real logic or reason.
And as we have tried now for well over 20 pages our 'society' isn't one without rules/laws, it is a society without 'rulers'. The fact you can't get this single idea through your head only shows how much you aren't willing to listen to us. Man kind has not existed for 8000 years without some type of rule structure. Rules are required to have order, but rather then selecting someone to be the master, we would rather organically develop our rules.
[quote]
And where do you get the idea that we just into a situation with guns blazing? You probably get that from sensationalized media and like the many sheep before you, base your entire opinion on what you see on TV or read in your biased newspaper or favorite blog site. I think I mentioned already the guy that was waving around a butcher knife and wanted to cut up his wife. I took his knife away without shooting him. I also might have mentioned the EDP that was cutting himself where I did the same thing. When did you read about that in your sensationalist media outlet? Oh yeah, you didn't. So instead you buy into the notion that all cop shoot bad(good) guy because cop no talk to them.
[/quote]
Call me disillusioned. I live in California where rarely a week goes by that someone is on the news dead by cop. That someone doesn't complain about the abuses of the police, or that the news never covers police 'talking down people'. I did see that last week when someone did take over a bank and the cops talked him down. These are far and few in between. Perhaps its the same way you link anyone who disagrees with you and isn't willing to kill someone for smoking pot makes them automatically a pot smoker.