Is Having A Lawful a Government A Civil Right?

Not much can be done to explain it to someone who does not want to know and does not want others to know.

 

No error regarding your evasion and selectivity and its relation to cognitive infiltration.

 

Nothing you say in your response smacks of anything but a preconceived belief system tailored to justify your anarchist agenda. Your tunnel-vision produces no pearl of wisdom and completely evades discussion of what is said in the Code of Hammurabi. Is that the extent of what you say? Wait - you're a professional "punk". That's very amusing. Are you the type that does something illegal that you think is right, stands there and wait for the cops to arrive, and then creates further disturbance resisting arrest, all the while nonetheless expecting to reap all the benefits enjoyed by a citizen who respects the laws of this country? Excellent. I thought such clowns were only in movie like "Animal House" and at colleges like UC Berkeley. Anyway, you say nothing about the Code of Hammurabi, really, you're too stuck on your high horse and can't see outside of your own little box. This is too good. Let's move on to your other whines of faux oppression...

Ibid previous response. The forefathers looked to the Magna Carta for guidance when constructing the Bill of Rights, not least so with the influence on the Fifth Amendment: "Nor shall any persons be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law". But what the (*)(*)(*)(*) ever, say you. The irony is palpable wherein you scoff at a law that protects you from the tyranny you think you profess to oppose.

The anarchist agenda eventually consumes itself, being the mindset of a spoiled brat who was allowed by his parents to reach at least temporal maturity espousing curiosity over being well-mannered; to the rest of us, that's a euphemism for what was once the kid at Cracker Barrel who screamed and ran around and threw his food on the floor while his moonbat parents silently pretended to ignore the degree to which he was pissing off other families.

Yeah, commanding, really... such stuff as "Don't kill", "Don't steal", "Don't try to (*)(*)(*)(*) other peoples' wives" - orders that would save you jail time or a vicious pummeling at least. But, please violate these orders, if just for the sake of your speculative curiosity. See what happens and write back about it when you're a "guest of the County" and finally get some Internet privileges.

I would ask you if you studied under Bill Ayers, but I don't want to scare you away, because you're the most hilariously narrow-minded, narcissistic, selfish, unfoundedly self-assured bloviating dingbat that has ever scraped up the balls to answer me on this board. Here's hoping you don't have kids, but please feel free to answer me at any time. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Great stuff.

 

P.S. I I responded that way to test a theory. Let's see if I'm right. Here's a hint: if you're an advocate of "absolute freedom of the individual", then you should believe I should be able to say whatever I want without restriction.

 

you mean like warrantless wiretaps .... I think they should follow the law

.

 

Yes, the 4th amendment needs to be upheld. The false flag of 9/11 was done to justify many usurpations and that is one of them.

As you can see in the running history of one loosely knit group of people working for Article V, the congress and court required to uphold our rights doesn't exist.

 

This letter to the clerk of congress started the whole thing.

This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt congress has no intention of following the constitution,

http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmark...al-convention/

Can you accept that such a fact justifies that all delegates be elected in the states by the people of those states?

Because of that letter, the house finally adopts rule to count states applications for Article V.

http://www.examiner.com/article/u-s-...n-applications

However, congress refused to start counting applications occuring before the letter. The speakers were sued.

http://www.foavc.org/reference/doc4.pdf

That suit, of course was denied. Government is deeply unlawful. These three .pdf's by Bill Walker explain the developing status.

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file67.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file70.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file71.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file73.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file74.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file75.pdf

National Archives and Records Administration Effectively Terminates Article V Convention

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file77.pdf

http://www.foavc.org/reference/file78.pdf

 

That statement is exactly why it should not be done and is wrought with logical fallacies. First, "indispensable necessity of government", why? Normally this is based on fear, the fear that one will become the slave of another that is so strong they need to appoint one to become the master, great logic.

Second, why would any logical being want to concede their natural rights so that someone can have some power over them? Are they so unstable that only when another rules them they can live their lives? Well that is not living, that is but survival by cowering to the will of others.

 

It seems more likely at this point that you have no explanation to offer so you pick snippets and try to use logical fallacies as attempts to mask the total lack of any comprehension of that which you are purporting to have knowledge.

 

Yep, still no ability to respond to the matter at hand so just more attempts at trying to deflect that lack of knowledge by a shallow attempt at blaming another.

I have not seen anywhere within this thread that you have offered anything concrete to support your rhetoric.

 

Men are not Angels. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."

" the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers."

there must be Order,

to form a more perfect Union.

 

So is it that you have never read the "Code of Hammurabi" or just that you only read the parts that are convenient to your ill-conceived theories of that work?

Actually they didn't but then again this seems to be another area to where your comprehension stops at what you want to believe that will support your ill-conceived notions. Many of the founders where either lawyers or versed in law thus a constitution of only approximately 4500 words. A constitution that was conceived to be vague and somewhat ambiguous.

The real founders were the ones that produced the Articles of Confederation in a vain attempt to prevent the infighting and constant wars that were the plague of Europe. After all there were thirteen little fiefdoms when this country declared independence. The founders were divided into two camps, the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist. It was only due to the persistence of the Anti-Federalist that there is a "Bill of Rights".

As to the anarchist comments, another area in which your degree of knowledge is severely lacking and I'm not going to waste my time trying to instill some even rudimentary degree of knowledge your way. You want education, pay for it!!!

Only neanderthals that somehow believe they need some master to keep from running amuck and violating others need some commandments to be civilized. Now if you had a better understanding of the world around you, you would realize that "Don't kill", "Don't steal" are but varying degrees of the same thing, don't steal or as I prefer, don't trespass.

As to the wife thing, if another can have his way with what is supposedly your wife, then she really is not yours except for some weird piece of paper meant to imprison. As to the rest of your tirade, perhaps it is yourself that needs to be locked away like a rabid animal. Seems as if self control is not within your nature.

So you also have no concept of education either, why would anyone want to study under an idiot with such a narrow view of life so as to endorse a concept of slavery. But then the rest of this tirade explains it perfectly. I look forward to interrupting your lack of thinking on this forum at every opportunity.

 

Actually you do have the freedom to say whatever you want without restriction but then on the other hand you are probably too big a coward to actually take responsibility for any injury caused. If called out by another, you would probably whine and cry all the way about your "right" to say whatever you want without responsibility.

And the only "absolutes" in this world comes at the expense of having to atone when you impede upon another.

- - - Updated - - -

"They", just whom is "they"? Are you trying to instill that fictional being, government that is incapable of doing anything?

 

Did you get past the "prologue", Unibomber? Or did you just sit there and ruminate about the "slave" parts? There are many other things said that help formulate modern laws. Maybe you just fixate on the "slave" portion of everything because that reminds you of your bad school days when the kids used to tape you to lockers. Now here you are saying to yourself, "Dammit, that will never happen again", and missing out on actual knowledge because you microfilter everything and apply it to your own negative experiences.

It's one that works for everyone but you and, for instance, the MS-13 gangs. I wonder why that is?

Then eight years later, there was the Constitution. Do you have a (*)(*)(*)(*)in' point? No. Of course not.

If you were educated, you wouldn't sit around whacking off your own ego proclaiming yourself an "anarchist". You'd have the integrity to possess some thoughtful insight about historical documents and their applicability to modern society instead of pacing in circles like a little pussbag saying "I won't be a slave". If you can't get over yourself, go pout in a corner. Your input is categorically useless.

Said the "waah, don't make me a slave, I won't let bullies make me lick dog turds again" anarchist.

Listen, kid. The cops will tell you to stop and provide identification if you act shifty. You will do it. And I want to be there to record it when they do. Ha ha ha.

Self-control is fine with me. I'm not the whiny phag anarchist who can't handle discussion of the influence of ancient documents' relevance to modern law because of my "slave complex".

See? There's your "slave complex" again. I was suggesting you were the one who studied under Bill Ayers. Your narcissism that I pointed out earlier and that has you in absolute thrall forced you to make another circuitous and nebulous response.

Now proceed with another pusillanimous and futile answer, underling. Amuse me further with your insipidly dull shortsightedness. Ha ha ha.

 

Your world view is utterly disposable. Continue to interact with me and I will teach you why.

 

So does the use of ad hominem attacks somehow make you feel like the big man on the block in comparison to reality or is it that one either agree with your ill-construed view of things under threat of violence? Now I can understand why you would want to believe this psychopath Hammurabi, he would be your type of guy. No doubt you would have enjoyed being one of his enforcers.

Now to the actual subject at hand, as I'm not sure you have the mental capacity to follow, please excuse me if I ignore you and post replies to the subject for my own benefit as I care less about yours.

Now if one did have the mental capacity to follow, please show just where in the whole tirade of Hammurabi which proclaimed to be anointed by the gods to be king is there anything not related to slavery? Such were and still are the rantings of the sociopathic psychopaths throughout history. Psychopaths that claim a divine right to control the lives of others wherein the masses do as they are told or they have the right to kill in support of their insane desire to dominate.

Not really, it only works for those that do not know better. As to all else, you are being delusional and haven't a clue about what you are attempting to portray.

Was there? Don't think so. Point, to yourself, of course not. For there to be a point one would need to be able to comprehend the subject matter and apply critical thinking.

More proclamations of which you seem unqualified to even attempt to comprehend.

Historical documents, yep they exist. Their applicability, another area in which one would need a mental capacity outside indoctrination as a "good little citizen" to even start to comprehend. Society, the social contract purported to be applicable to all by those without the capacity to understand what they are spouting.

Wrong again, only those slaves that believe they are somehow free need to even contemplate "I won't be a slave".

In your case I would emphatically agree 110%.

Blah, blah, blah, blah. Did you day something?

Really, self control? Perhaps you should look that up.

Blah, blah, blah, blah. Did you day something?

- - - Updated - - -

In order to teach you first must understand. But then there is your world.

 

I was thinking thermodynamics myself, but gravity works too.

 

Typical flaccid response, underscoring the narcissistic attention-whoring politics that you espouse. Get over yourself, and people might have a shred of respect for you.

Your infirm thinking is so obstructed with your own preoccupations about "slavery" that you can't deviate from your own confines of perceiving any discussion of the influence of ancient documents as espousing some precepts that attempt to enslave you.

For example, you already forgot that, in response to my statement that modern law is based on the Code of Hammurabi, the Magna Carta, and the Ten Commandments, you first disgorged a useless dissertation about your fear of being a "slave" and wasted bandwidth about your self-absorbed world view that ancient documents are trying to make you their (*)(*)(*)(*)(*), all the while providing not one useful statement.

Despite the fact that your delusion of intelligence is disturbing, let's hear you try to slither around some more in a futile attempt to be relevant.

There is, just for starts, the accountability of the accused as well as the accusers, and even of the judges who attempt to alter sealed verdicts. How about you take off the gimp mask and read it yourself? Then maybe you wouldn't look like such a self-important idiot with a delusion of persecution.

Print out these posts and show them to your therapist. He needs to up your meds.

You didn't even know what you were talking about any longer until I reminded you four responses ago. I managed to easily run you around in circles until you were no longer aware of the subject matter at hand, and it took no effort. You still haven't said anything relevant.

Once again, fastball: I made a statement, you made a nebulous, meandering and useless response, I challenged it, and then metaphorically continued to dunk your head in a toilet until you had no idea what you were responding to and were subconsciously hoping I'd clue you in, and there you are.

We're all still waiting for something useful, Socrates. When you're ready to extract your head from your rectum, you can proceed with attempting to do so, but we're not holding our breath for any gems from you.

Hey, wait... maybe you're on to something...

Meh, (*)(*)(*)(*) it. Never mind. He slipped right back into his own little fugue. Nothing to see here, folks.

Kid, in order to participate in rational discussion, you need to leave your bizarre preoccupations at home. You can try until the end of time to suggest others aren't in your intellectual echelon, but all everyone hears is some self-important egomaniac dink who is unable to provide any insightful input regarding "lawful government being a civil right" because he refuses to be a "slave".

You're done. Hit the showers.

 

Blah, blah, blah.

- - - Updated - - -

Thinking?

 

you may think the government is incapable of warrantless wiretaps, but Bush actually admitted it was true after he could no longer lie about it

.

 

Actually you would be absolutely correct as I do believe the government is incapable of anything. Government is but a fiction, a piece of paper capable only of burning should it's flash point be reached. Now Bush and numerous bureaucrats that call themselves "Government" are capable of many more things much more sinister than wiretaps, warranted, warrantless, or otherwise.

And why would you be so surprised by that buffoon Bush, he was just an idiot puppet that follow the directions of his sponsors. Imagine just how big a grip they have on the "gonads" of this nation when they don't even need to pretend their puppet has some sense of intelligence.

 

Now that I have a couple of minutes, let me fully address this ill-conceived bit of conjecture with a favorite little video of mine:

[video=youtube;NwztaQgv3-Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwztaQgv3-Y[/video]

 

He's paid to not care. I've been exposing him for years and he has zero credibility.

 

Still delusional I see, all those little government people chasing you around, but hey they are just looking for a good laugh.

Years, get delusional much, of course you do, I haven't been on this forum for years. As for exposure, I would suggest you look in he mirror and see just who keeps posting the same crap over and over, that same crap that was thrown out of federal court due to be fraud upon the court.

But hey, I guess the delusion is what keeps you going.

 

I can show you posting over a year ago denying constitutional rights and intent. Can you show "crap that was thrown out of federal court due to be fraud upon the court."?