Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Lawful Rebellion / Non Compliance / Sovereignty

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 20-12-2012, 11:06 PM   #61
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

profit...
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-12-2012, 05:53 PM   #62
matthius
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 37
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

A scam is making someone pay out for something that is not of inherent value.

Ie private scams: shelling out for a car that breaks own after , after 10 mile when the seller knows it is defective.

Government scams Shelling out for a 100,000 pound education, on the promise of a good job, and ending up in Mc Donalds for minimum wage.


A Ponzi yeah. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. All Bug business are effectively ponzi schemes as they by nature have to exponentially grow and always collapse in on themselves.

A lot of these scams are in similar elk. You end up paying more than once for the same “product” An obvious example is the foreclose scam, Taking peoples home more than once. You lose what ever equity you paid on the house, the bank takes it. The banks take out none payment insurance ( from one of the chums, everything is interconnected) so they get the cost of the mortgage back. They send goons in to force you out your house and then sell your house on again.

Obviously I don’t know the in and outs but my moneys on your paying many times over for the cost of your insurance, as their scams confuddle people. I think it’s the way we've been indoctrinated at school that allow these scams to run so smoothly without question. We’re taught to objectify evidence that has been presented intentionally. We know something’s wrong, we feel something’s wrong but can never quite put our finger on it. Like a magic trick. Statistically with the volume of traffic on the road you have a 0.0057 chance of injuring someone in a car crash. Basically it’s very very highly improbable you will ever have a car accident. Accidents do happen of course.

A lot of these scams are about control. Lets take it a step back who gives you the money to pay for your car insurance. Using the teacher example and a story I hear on the radio the other day I’ll high light an other issue with this scam. Imagine a school teacher who’s been driving for 20 years, always paid her car insurance. Like in the news story he’ wants to be transgender and becomes a she over the Christmas holiday period. Obviously they can’t sack her, but they do manage to squeeze her out the job using underhand methods. Unable to find other work and with no money to pay the insurance dose that suddenly make her a menace to society, because she’s different and no longer on some spiv’s list of desirables that she should have her right to travel and move freely revoked?

It’s the old hook and bait, a car is usually the second most expensive item you own, lose you job or whatever because of government cut backs, corporate downsizing or capsizing, can’t make the insurance premium, goons steal you car, if it’s a flashy one they’ll sell it to the Chinese for a tidy little profit, drive a piece of shit, they’ll scrap it and sell the metal to the Chinese for a tasty profit. It’s just a scam to steal your stuff under the guise of public protection and other twisted rationales.

I remember them trying to run this scam on gypsies, stealing and impounding their horses. Needless to say they broke in at midnight and took them back.lol You can’t hustle a hustler
matthius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-12-2012, 09:51 PM   #63
georggearless
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 392
Likes: 6 (6 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
No.
I am saying people should insure their cars against accidents..if they want.
Especially if they are driving an expensive car that most people couldnt afford to repair.
I'm not talking about optional insurance. I'm talking about compulsory insurance.

By asking me to take out a policy on damages that you cause, you are effectively asking me to pay for your damages. Why do you find it fair that I should do that? Would it not be fairer that you pay for it? I mean, it is afterall you who is causing my loss. Not me.
__________________
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own concience.
georggearless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2012, 11:52 AM   #64
matthius
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 37
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Actually you do pay for other peoples accidents, that's why premiums go up and not down in relative terms. For the 15 million pay out BBC story, everyone's premiums go up to pay for his accident.

If a driver runs into to the back of you (its not your fault) you'll find your own premiums rising as well regardless.

Most accidents are minor. A neighbour damaged the door of my car. She wanted to keep the insurance companies out, because her premiums would sky rocket and she'd end up paying for the door many many times over up unto the point where I doubt she could afford it. We reached an agreement.

Its like a game of musical chairs, remember when you where at kids parties. When it first starts out its all hunky dory, but as the dance goes on more and more people found themselves "squeezed out".

No doubt in future you many find your self "squeezed out" through no fault of your own. If you are the "pragmatist" like you say you are then driving without insurance offers the best risk/ benefit and reward ratio.

The basis of your argument seems to be about accidents, should everyone have their right to freely travel removed just to appease a tiny tiny minority of reckless people?
matthius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2012, 02:46 PM   #65
wiseguy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,161
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matthius View Post
Actually you do pay for other peoples accidents, that's why premiums go up and not down in relative terms. For the 15 million pay out BBC story, everyone's premiums go up to pay for his accident.

If a driver runs into to the back of you (its not your fault) you'll find your own premiums rising as well regardless.

Most accidents are minor. A neighbour damaged the door of my car. She wanted to keep the insurance companies out, because her premiums would sky rocket and she'd end up paying for the door many many times over up unto the point where I doubt she could afford it. We reached an agreement.

Its like a game of musical chairs, remember when you where at kids parties. When it first starts out its all hunky dory, but as the dance goes on more and more people found themselves "squeezed out".

No doubt in future you many find your self "squeezed out" through no fault of your own. If you are the "pragmatist" like you say you are then driving without insurance offers the best risk/ benefit and reward ratio.

The basis of your argument seems to be about accidents, should everyone have their right to freely travel removed just to appease a tiny tiny minority of reckless people?
For us yes but not for the corporate cabal, which of course is why we're indoctrinated into believing we must insure against 'this' and 'that' because it's the 'responsible' thing to do. No, the responsible thing to do is be responsible and you don't need an insurance company for that.

Incidentally, I just happened upon this article by 'chance'...

Quote:
To pay ridiculous amounts of money to insure against “what if” attracts exactly that. It changes a mindset from “I will not lose; I will not get sick, I will only walk in light and abundance” to “it’s OK if I get sick and lose things, break things. I pay insurers to cover that. As long as I pay my premiums, have my annual check-ups, I am covered.”

And with that mentality, we move exactly those things to us and at great cost. We are surprised when insurers point us to the clause written in fine print that absolves them of the need to pay.

I refuse to fall into the same pit. To insure against “what if?” beckons it.
http://www.zengardner.com/what-if-in...of-attraction/
__________________
Illuminati Agenda - Illuminati News, Occult Reviews & Secret Society Scandal.
wiseguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2012, 04:38 PM   #66
lesactive
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 1,576
Likes: 75 (46 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy View Post
For us yes but not for the corporate cabal, which of course is why we're indoctrinated into believing we must insure against 'this' and 'that' because it's the 'responsible' thing to do. No, the responsible thing to do is be responsible and you don't need an insurance company for that.

Incidentally, I just happened upon this article by 'chance'...



http://www.zengardner.com/what-if-in...of-attraction/
I had a 'what if' moment just yesterday. My mom was tired from driving so I took over for her and drove for over 200 km without license or insurance. My 'what if' regarded whether or not she was capable of making it the rest of the way. She knows full well about what I'm up to and has every confidence in my capabilities on the road. Her confidence rang true when we arrived safely at her house in her van. Had she driven the 'what if's' would be more along the lines of: would she lane drift, misjudge speed, keep an eye on road conditions, pay attention to the other drivers? I, being wide awake and fully capable of the task, weighed the balance of possibilities and chose the more logical and safe option. Is that irresponsible? I don't think so.

I doubt even a cop would deny the correctness of the choice. For safety. The license issued to me expired over 5 years ago so the very fact that I had passed all tests and absent any history of mishaps makes the notion of "unlicensed = unsafe" patently ridiculous. A cautious driver does not need personal insurance, imo.
__________________
It's very simple. You posit spirits, I posit nothing, as in neutral, as in no position on the matter; not a vested interest in the outcome, couldn't care less either way even if it was really really real. I don't have to prove nothing, nor can I and nor do I care. Who in this situation has the burden of proof?
If demons control this realm and you want help in defeating them then you'd better be able to convince non-believers that they exist.
lesactive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-12-2012, 07:18 PM   #67
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

interest is a scam...profit is a scam. i want it now, i dont care how....a society of veruca salts. shouldn't take too much longer...lol.
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:42 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.