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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 17-08-2010, 11:29 AM   #541
h2pogo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 11,650
Likes: 1,189 (670 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
If they show FULL context, why were they not presented instead of the bubbles one? DO you have some that show the full context? ANd if it's just a testimony ("Some cop beat me last week") that's not evidence of anything or than a complaint was made.
See post 490


Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
Are cops not members of the public? What about a murderer if there is no witness but the officer? Does that need a plaintiff?
if a police man sees some one being hurt in any way of course they dont need a witness to report the crime..

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
Made on behalf of people. Let's look at drunk driving laws. That doesn't benefit corporations at all. More drunk drivers means more accidents which means more cars can be sold and insurance can justify charging more. It also means more alcohol would be sold. So to benefit the corporations we would need looser drunk driving laws...but they're actually getting stricter. Sounds like doing what's best for the public to me. Doesn't fit in your narrow world-view though, so I'm anxious to see how you dismiss it.
Corporations/courts make loads out of drunk driving..insurance claims are void and premiums are extortionate and the justice system cleans up in fines and costs..
not saying i recommend driving drunk but a responsible person can.


Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
Can you name a "statute" that does this? You said a plaintiff is needed. How do seatbelt laws harm the public? For that matter, how does enforcing speeding laws harm the public?
your stealing money by force..you take the right of travel away from some who subsequently loose their jobs..

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
And that court would enforce his C3PO and regulate their corruption better than our current courts do? Give your head a shake, the C3PO will be a group like any other, with problem childs like any other, and will get defensive when attacked like any other. It doesn't solve the problem, it simply adds an extra layer. A rather biased layer that only does the cushy part of the job but wants to enjoy all the benefits. Sounds familiar to me.
I cant really comment as i dont know how the freeman courts are going to be regulated..I think there will be a jury.


Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
By violating the statutes, they sure did.
When you pull some one over you are only doing so on suspicion..innocent until proven guilty?
I remember being pulled in a dangerous place.the sort of place only an idiot would park his car..In fact parking his car on that busy road on a bend like that was way way more dangerous than doing 100 on a three lane motorway..It was his choice to stop there not mine.. and guess what I was totally legal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
So...follow them down the road even if they're doing something dangerous until they get off the highway? What if they follow the highway right out of the jurisdiction? What if they decide to pull over anyways? Tell me...why is it so hard for the Freemen to just drive 20 or 30 km/hr slower instead and pay the menial fee for registration?
I dont know..every one who is free is theoretical different..
Speaking for my self traffic violations shouldn't be what the freeman movement is about.


[QUOTE=daxo;1059156221]
Even if the rules are just are fair?
[/QOUTE]

I will follow rules that cause no harm or loss or disrespect..My intent is non co-operation with evil and their evil rules.


Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
Sure have. Nevertheless, war was declared on us, we aren't occupiers, it's legal. YOu were the one that said it was illegal. Can you cite a single reason why?
War was declared on us by who?
the taliban offered to hand him over war could of been averted..surley war should be avoided at all costs all the time..


Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
You don't think it's also partly respected due to it's law and order? You should look up the Phoenix Foundation (not the made-up MacGuyver one, but the real one) and see how their plan to create a Freeman Valley has worked.
Never heard of it..got a link?


Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
Even if it endangers people?
Of course not..I was being sarcastic


Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
Apparently...like making claims and then not backing them up because you have things to do.
I am a really slow typer..I have a lot to say on the subject which i dont have the time neither do i today..Its a subject that is worthy of its own thread..
Besides at least i responded and not avoid the question like you did when asked about certain drug laws..

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
I see democratic process. You could always run for office! If the people don't want corporations to be involved that much, you would easily win by making that you're only platform.
may be its different in canada but in the uk we have handed sovereignty away unlawfully to the eu which was founded by corporate interests..
google builderberg canada see if that sphere of influence has affected your own government.



Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
As I said, they represent me just fine. It's only those that want to be exempt from the last that are no longer represented.
Keep servicing the debts and follow the rules and watching the news and i am sure you will be happy then
h2pogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2010, 11:57 AM   #542
daxo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 382
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
See post 490
How about you read what you quoted? I'll post it again here: And if it's just a testimony ("Some cop beat me last week") that's not evidence of anything or than a complaint was made.

So...I ask the question again...WHERE is the EVIDENCE of a SYSTEMATIC problem?

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
if a police man sees some one being hurt in any way of course they dont need a witness to report the crime..
Good. And what if he sees someone doing something careless that could hurt themselves or another? Playing with a gun beside a park or dancing in the middle of a highway? Does there need to be a complaint then?

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
Corporations/courts make loads out of drunk driving..insurance claims are void and premiums are extortionate and the justice system cleans up in fines and costs..
not saying i recommend driving drunk but a responsible person can.
A responsible person cannot. I'm not saying they can't have a beer and drive, but driving drunk is not safe. Might as well be playing russian roullette.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
your stealing money by force..you take the right of travel away from some who subsequently loose their jobs..
No, they still have the right to travel. They can buy a bus ticket and travel across the country, or hop on a plane. The right to travel doesn't mean right to drive. It means the right to go wherever they want in the country, or even leave and re-enter the country. Is a plane ticket free? Nope. Why should a car be? You have every RIGHT to travel...but you have to to pay to be able to drive a registered vehicle or use the roads. If they required their vehicle for work, then by your own logic it was needed for commerce and he was subject to the commerce.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I cant really comment as i dont know how the freeman courts are going to be regulated..I think there will be a jury.
And that jury, of angry, bitter, anti-police freemen, are going to be impartial where the State police are involved?

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
When you pull some one over you are only doing so on suspicion..innocent until proven guilty?
That's for a court. The police aren't finding you guilty of anything. They're handing you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I remember being pulled in a dangerous place.the sort of place only an idiot would park his car..In fact parking his car on that busy road on a bend like that was way way more dangerous than doing 100 on a three lane motorway..It was his choice to stop there not mine.. and guess what I was totally legal.
No, he put on his lights...you decided where to stop. You could've driven 10 more seconds to get around the corner, or take the next exit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I dont know..every one who is free is theoretical different..
Speaking for my self traffic violations shouldn't be what the freeman movement is about.
And yet here you are vehemently defending them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I will follow rules that cause no harm or loss or disrespect..My intent is non co-operation with evil and their evil rules.
Define "evil".

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
War was declared on us by who?
Osama Bin Laden on behalf of Al Qaeda.
Quote:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God.
Sounds like a declaration of war to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
the taliban offered to hand him over war could of been averted..surley war should be avoided at all costs all the time..
No, they didn't. They said they would hand if over if the US could provide proof Bin Laden was involved. I guess his taking responsibility on international TV wasn't enough for them, and would only sit and talk about it IF the US ceased their bombing. It was a little late at that point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
Never heard of it..got a link?
Wow. Freemen are always preaching about how they do their own research...and you couldn't even try google or wikipedia before asking me for a link?


Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
Of course not..I was being sarcastic

I am a really slow typer..I have a lot to say on the subject which i dont have the time neither do i today..Its a subject that is worthy of its own thread..
Besides at least i responded and not avoid the question like you did when asked about certain drug laws..
What questions? I don't dodge questions, if I missed one it was an honest mistake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
may be its different in canada but in the uk we have handed sovereignty away unlawfully to the eu which was founded by corporate interests..
google builderberg canada see if that sphere of influence has affected your own government.
Both of these are tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. The UK still has sovereignty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
Keep servicing the debts and follow the rules and watching the news and i am sure you will be happy then
Ha! Happy is not a word anyone who knows me would use to describe me.
__________________
No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. -Theodore Roosevelt
Law, by definition, cannot obey the same rules as nature. -Albert Camus
The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom. -John Locke
Obedience of the law is demanded; not asked as a favor. -Theodore Roosevelt
daxo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2010, 12:06 PM   #543
rumpelstilzchen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: the End of The Forest where the fox and the hare bid each other goodnight
Posts: 6,221
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

h2pogo wrote:

Quote:
Corporations/courts make loads out of drunk driving..
Post up the figures you have to back up the claim that they "make loads".
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2010, 09:13 PM   #544
h2pogo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 11,650
Likes: 1,189 (670 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
h2pogo wrote:



Post up the figures you have to back up the claim that they "make loads".
I didn't want to get in to a debate about drunk driving..I think the point i originally raised was about cannabis and how it caused no harm..which was ignored ..and went onto statutes are law and must be obeyed then some how onto drunk driving..
besides you would have to define loads or i would be wasting my time..to me what a judge earns in an hour is loads as is court costs for a simple possession charge for a harmless herb which is heard in half an hour..I know fines for drunk driving are loads so i dont see why i have to prove any thing as i know..a trusted friend told me
h2pogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2010, 09:38 PM   #545
ipso facto
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,746
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
Keep servicing the debts and follow the rules and watching the news and i am sure you will be happy then:D
Why make the assumption he's not happy. It would appear that if your view isn't supported, those people aren't happy. That's a bit much.
__________________
In the 60's, people took acid to make the world weird. Now the world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.

Freeman code: You can live with no curtailment or infringement of your freedom PROVIDING you do not cause harm or loss to others. This is the law. Any transgression will be judged by your peers and dealt with accordingly. You are free but you are not free to do what you like but rest assured you won't be judged by anyone.
ipso facto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2010, 09:38 PM   #546
yozhik
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Privately
Posts: 11,410
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Talking ah ... NOW it makes sense ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
Osama Bin Laden on behalf of Al Qaeda.


ROFLMAO !!



... oh dear ... NOW it all becomes clear ...
Enough said.
__________________
Anarchism stands for liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from shackles and restraint of government. It stands for social order based on the free grouping of individuals.
It [...] maintains that God, the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through man's subordination.


- Emma Goldman
yozhik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2010, 10:19 PM   #547
h2pogo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 11,650
Likes: 1,189 (670 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
How about you read what you quoted? I'll post it again here: And if it's just a testimony ("Some cop beat me last week") that's not evidence of anything or than a complaint was made.

So...I ask the question again...WHERE is the EVIDENCE of a SYSTEMATIC problem?
I have to ask my self why am i bothering with this discussion?
And I just realised its probably the first time i ever had chance to debate with a policeman that isn't going to nick me for disagreeing with him so on we go..

How many testimonies did i post of peaceful protesters that were violently abused?
half a dozen may be?there are dozens more..Isnt that evidence enough of a systematic problem?
Over in the UK protesters have had terror legislation thrown at them for attempting to peacefully protest..Isn't that evidence of a blatant loss of liberty's..

I urge you to watch this..Taking liberty's.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5215846218544#

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post

Good. And what if he sees someone doing something careless that could hurt themselves or another? Playing with a gun beside a park or dancing in the middle of a highway? Does there need to be a complaint then?
of course not
I think it would be great if the police could just use their common-sense on things like that..like any one of us can

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post

A responsible person cannot. I'm not saying they can't have a beer and drive, but driving drunk is not safe. Might as well be playing russian roullette.
I really dont want to debate rights and wrongs about drunk driving..how drunk?how experienced a driver?how busy the roads?how much of an alcoholic was the driver?
the debate could go on forever..
But i agree if the driver of a car can not drive in a straight line with a cop car behind him he shouldn't be driving and your doing a grand job of keeping drivers like that off the roads.


Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
No, they still have the right to travel. They can buy a bus ticket and travel across the country, or hop on a plane. The right to travel doesn't mean right to drive. It means the right to go wherever they want in the country, or even leave and re-enter the country. Is a plane ticket free? Nope. Why should a car be? You have every RIGHT to travel...but you have to to pay to be able to drive a registered vehicle or use the roads. If they required their vehicle for work, then by your own logic it was needed for commerce and he was subject to the commerce.
OK i said travel i meant drive..problem where i live there is no public transport.
I know a guy who was drove for a living he already had three points..really responsible upstanding member of the community, his job involved lots driving so very safe experienced driver..one morning new cameras had been installed on a section of road then bam in one day he was banned..I can not for the life of me see how he was endangering any one.

Is getting to the place of work commerce though?Its only commerce once you are there surely?

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
And that jury, of angry, bitter, anti-police freemen, are going to be impartial where the State police are involved?
I imagine it would be intimidating..I've been there mate..judges dont like hippies like freemen dont like police..
but at least there is a jury..and i think freemen would be more sympathetic than most judges..but i cant speak for all

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
That's for a court. The police aren't finding you guilty of anything. They're handing you.
As long as there is just cause for the police to stop me in the first place.


Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
No, he put on his lights...you decided where to stop. You could've driven 10 more seconds to get around the corner, or take the next exit.
The twat nearly knocked me off my bike..i was turning right and he blocked my way forcing me to stop where i did..If i had carried on some where safer I think he would of knocked me off..

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
And yet here you are vehemently defending them.
To me its not about deifying traffic regulations for the sake of getting off with fines and saving money its more about non compliance with evil..

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post

Define "evil".
causing harm with intent..I am sure i would agree with what the dictionary says it is..

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
Osama Bin Laden on behalf of Al Qaeda.

Sounds like a declaration of war to me.
But we went to war with no investigation into who he is..no inquiry nothing..if we had we would of known there was some thing extremely fishy going on

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post

No, they didn't. They said they would hand if over if the US could provide proof Bin Laden was involved. I guess his taking responsibility on international TV wasn't enough for them, and would only sit and talk about it IF the US ceased their bombing. It was a little late at that point.
other than the guy with the beard saying he was osama the world is still waiting for the evidence...


Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
Wow. Freemen are always preaching about how they do their own research...and you couldn't even try google or wikipedia before asking me for a link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Foundation
thanks i read what you said on another thread..I will have a look..

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post

What questions? I don't dodge questions, if I missed one it was an honest mistake.
I asked if stoners caused much trouble..
dont you think police time would be better spent on other things other than molesting people that choose to smoke grow weed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
Both of these are tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. The UK still has sovereignty.
I have worked and lived in much of western Europe and am concerned..to me and a multitude of others it looks, smells and feels like a police state..by the day.
Time will tell..Problem is in the uk without a referendum its treason..the last time i was arrested the policeman that interviewed me even agreed..

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
Ha! Happy is not a word anyone who knows me would use to describe me.
My advice would be think positive and dont let the bastards grind yer down..
h2pogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-08-2010, 10:23 PM   #548
h2pogo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 11,650
Likes: 1,189 (670 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ipso facto View Post
Why make the assumption he's not happy. It would appear that if your view isn't supported, those people aren't happy. That's a bit much.
what you on about?
I assumed he was happy the way things are
h2pogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-08-2010, 05:58 AM   #549
daxo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 382
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I didn't want to get in to a debate about drunk driving..I think the point i originally raised was about cannabis and how it caused no harm..which was ignored ..and went onto statutes are law and must be obeyed then some how onto drunk driving..
besides you would have to define loads or i would be wasting my time..to me what a judge earns in an hour is loads as is court costs for a simple possession charge for a harmless herb which is heard in half an hour..I know fines for drunk driving are loads so i dont see why i have to prove any thing as i know..a trusted friend told me
There is nothing on this planet which causes "no harm." I have seen lives ruined by marijuana. It may not be physically addictive, but it can be psychologically addictive. If someone can't do a week without having a puff, it's done harm. If people would rather spend money on weed than food, it's done harm.

Just because you haven't seen it hurt people doesn't mean it never does. Am I against more relaxes marijuana laws? Not personally, no. I don't touch the stuff, but I don't really care if other people do. I do think it's rather silly to say something is universally "not harmful" or universally "bad." Almost everything in this world is a combination of both.
__________________
No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. -Theodore Roosevelt
Law, by definition, cannot obey the same rules as nature. -Albert Camus
The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom. -John Locke
Obedience of the law is demanded; not asked as a favor. -Theodore Roosevelt
daxo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-08-2010, 05:58 AM   #550
daxo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 382
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yozhik View Post


ROFLMAO !!



... oh dear ... NOW it all becomes clear ...
Enough said.
I don't believe enough has been said, since i have no idea what you're on about.
__________________
No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. -Theodore Roosevelt
Law, by definition, cannot obey the same rules as nature. -Albert Camus
The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom. -John Locke
Obedience of the law is demanded; not asked as a favor. -Theodore Roosevelt
daxo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-08-2010, 06:35 AM   #551
daxo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 382
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I have to ask my self why am i bothering with this discussion?
And I just realised its probably the first time i ever had chance to debate with a policeman that isn't going to nick me for disagreeing with him so on we go..
I'm not a policeman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
How many testimonies did i post of peaceful protesters that were violently abused?
half a dozen may be?there are dozens more..Isnt that evidence enough of a systematic problem?
Oh I suppose a pragmatists would say so. Either their complaints are well-founded and there is a systematic problem with police, or their complaints are not well-founded and there is a systematic problem with people spreading lies about police. You still miss my point though, which is that 81% of the complaints I received were COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED and I was able to prove that to be the case. 81%!!!! That tells me that 81% of people that complain about the police are lieing to try and make police look bad. I have no reason to believe your youtube videos are more of the same.

Without videos that show the full context of the evidence, I say you lack "PROOF" of a systematic problem. And if it's fair we find you you "not guilty" without proof, I think it's also fair we find police "not guilty" without proof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
Over in the UK protesters have had terror legislation thrown at them for attempting to peacefully protest..Isn't that evidence of a blatant loss of liberty's..
Are you saying protests never turn violent? Are you saying terrorists don't use protests as cover to engage in certain actions? You're making a VERY general statement. In some cases, sure perhaps liberty is being curtailed. In other cases, the safety of public and property is being maintained. Each case would need to be examined individually to determine which it was and then a conclusion drawn. I doubt you have done so. I'm certainly not about to research that deeply into UK protests in the past since I'm not living there. But I think there isn't enough evidence or research to justify a general, international, blanket-statement that police in the Western world are curtailing liberty. Besides...are the charges being upheld? Where the police ordered to enforce them in specific cases? Perhaps your beef shouldn't be with the police at all but with politicians and judges.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I urge you to watch this..Taking liberty's.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...5215846218544#
Maybe later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
of course not
I think it would be great if the police could just use their common-sense on things like that..like any one of us can
And then suddenly one person it's saying unfair because police let one guy go and it was EXACTLY the same. Now what? Does the judge have to now hear the full details of the other case and call their witnesses? What if there was 200 other cases this person is talking about? What if the officer was different and has a different point of view? These are the reasons why laws are less grey than you're saying they should be. They still aren't 100% black and white, but they aren't the entire spectrum of greyscale and are not up to individual interpretation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I really dont want to debate rights and wrongs about drunk driving..how drunk?how experienced a driver?how busy the roads?how much of an alcoholic was the driver?
the debate could go on forever..
Who determines experience? Is a 99 year old man safer because of his experience? Statistics show us differently. Experience can also make people overconfident. There's also the issue of "bad experience." Someone who always does things in a way that isn't very smart isn't gaining valuable experience. So experience has become too subjective, so we need to remove it. What are we left with? HOw drunk? Exactly. And a line in the sand had to be drawn. Most places drew it between 0.05 and 0.10 BAC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
But i agree if the driver of a car can not drive in a straight line with a cop car behind him he shouldn't be driving and your doing a grand job of keeping drivers like that off the roads.
I am not saying that at 0.08BAC that people can't drive a straight line. Quite the opposite, that level of loss of mechanical control comes much later. But reaction times at 0.08BAC are significantly reduced. That's why 0.08BAC was chosen. Beyond that you start to get into mechanical impairment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
OK i said travel i meant drive..problem where i live there is no public transport.
I know a guy who was drove for a living he already had three points..really responsible upstanding member of the community, his job involved lots driving so very safe experienced driver..one morning new cameras had been installed on a section of road then bam in one day he was banned..I can not for the life of me see how he was endangering any one.
Again, you're trying to blur the line. If there are no cars on the road is it ok to drive 300km/hr? What if a kid or a deer or a dog comes out of nowhere and the car swerves and hits someone on the sidewalk? We have hard and fast rules because that's the only way to be fair. Everyone is subject to the same regulations regardless of their "interpretations" of their surroundings. As soon as you open it up to interpretations, you get into the problem of "fairness." It's not "justice" if one person gets away with something someone else doesn't under identical conditions, and that's exactly what happens when things start coming down to interpretation. Eventually someone has to put their foot down and say, "Fine. If you do this, regardless of how you see things, you've broken the rules. NOw it's fair!" And that's what we have now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
Is getting to the place of work commerce though?Its only commerce once you are there surely?
Could you do the commerce without being there? If not, then I would say the driving is part of it. If you cannot do your job without being able to drive, then driving is part of the job. Not that it matters, I was pointing out how your own Freeman logic has gaping holes in it. I don't think it matters if they are involved in commerce or not. The law applies to everyone equally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I imagine it would be intimidating..I've been there mate..judges dont like hippies like freemen dont like police..
but at least there is a jury..and i think freemen would be more sympathetic than most judges..but i cant speak for all
More sympathetic to the police officer? I doubt it. You do realize much of the public dislike police now. Freemen seem to absolutely despise them. It's hard enough for a cop to get a fair jury trial now let alone in a "de jure" court filled with cop-haters who think everyone who's ever carried a badge should be drawn and quartered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
As long as there is just cause for the police to stop me in the first place.
If he's handing you a ticket, then there is: the thing he witnessed you doing that he's handing you a ticket for. But he's not finding you guilty of anything, just being a witness and handing you a "summons".

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
The twat nearly knocked me off my bike..i was turning right and he blocked my way forcing me to stop where i did..If i had carried on some where safer I think he would of knocked me off..
Couldn't have been that busy a highway if you were riding a bike there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
To me its not about deifying traffic regulations for the sake of getting off with fines and saving money its more about non compliance with evil..
Ok, what "evil" is it to require people to obey a law that exists because it saves lives?

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
causing harm with intent..I am sure i would agree with what the dictionary says it is..
That's a rather dumb definition. I don't like that at all. If the harm is justified, it's still evil? I MEANT to kill the guy I shot. I caused harm with intent. If someone starts touching your wife inappropraitely at a bar and you punch him in the face because he won't stop, you caused harm and you meant to. I don't think either of those is "evil."

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
But we went to war with no investigation into who he is..no inquiry nothing..if we had we would of known there was some thing extremely fishy going on
Uhh....the US worked with him in the past. He'd been sending letters and videos filled with hate about he was going to destroy the US and all it's allies for over a decade. He was constantly re-stating his Fatwa against the west whenever he could get a message out to people... The investigation was done. He was already an enemy of the state, they were well aware of what who he was and what he was doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
other than the guy with the beard saying he was osama the world is still waiting for the evidence...
The guy with the beard that claimed responsibility for the attacks was Osama. Not to mention the fact that Al Qaeda has repeatedly claimed it was them. Ayman al-Zawahiri has made the claim personally MANY times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
thanks i read what you said on another thread..I will have a look..

I asked if stoners caused much trouble..
dont you think police time would be better spent on other things other than molesting people that choose to smoke grow weed?
I did answer this question. You had said we should determine the degree of danger associated with the crime with respect to handcuffing people. I answered it. I said we cannot make rules based around a crime, the persons history, or any other factor. That would be discriminatory. As I said earlier, I have seen marijuana ruin lives. Other things ruin lives too, and police go after MOST of those as well. In time, the marijuana laws will relax (at least here in Canada) and with that argument gone, what will be next?

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I have worked and lived in much of western Europe and am concerned..to me and a multitude of others it looks, smells and feels like a police state..by the day.
Time will tell..Problem is in the uk without a referendum its treason..the last time i was arrested the policeman that interviewed me even agreed..
Then you need to go somewhere that has no freedoms. Sierra Leone or Sudan or good places to start. Go see what real slavery is like first hand and then tell me if the position we're in is anywhere similar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
My advice would be think positive and dont let the bastards grind yer down..
That was my squads unofficial motto: Illegitimi non carborundum. We have it on all our t-shirts. But my unhappiness is not due to others, it's all my own damned fault. But then....most Freemen seem to be incapable of accepting responsibility for their own problems. So maybe they won't understand.
__________________
No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. -Theodore Roosevelt
Law, by definition, cannot obey the same rules as nature. -Albert Camus
The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom. -John Locke
Obedience of the law is demanded; not asked as a favor. -Theodore Roosevelt
daxo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-08-2010, 11:56 PM   #552
h2pogo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 11,650
Likes: 1,189 (670 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
I'm not a policeman.



Oh I suppose a pragmatists would say so. Either their complaints are well-founded and there is a systematic problem with police, or their complaints are not well-founded and there is a systematic problem with people spreading lies about police. You still miss my point though, which is that 81% of the complaints I received were COMPLETELY UNFOUNDED and I was able to prove that to be the case. 81%!!!! That tells me that 81% of people that complain about the police are lieing to try and make police look bad. I have no reason to believe your youtube videos are more of the same.

Without videos that show the full context of the evidence, I say you lack "PROOF" of a systematic problem. And if it's fair we find you you "not guilty" without proof, I think it's also fair we find police "not guilty" without proof.
so out of every 10 of those testimonies by your figures there are two legitimate cases..and there are dozens of testimonies..
I see it that when protesters are treated like criminals and terrorists there is a systematic problem..


Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
Are you saying protests never turn violent? Are you saying terrorists don't use protests as cover to engage in certain actions? You're making a VERY general statement. In some cases, sure perhaps liberty is being curtailed. In other cases, the safety of public and property is being maintained. Each case would need to be examined individually to determine which it was and then a conclusion drawn. I doubt you have done so. I'm certainly not about to research that deeply into UK protests in the past since I'm not living there. But I think there isn't enough evidence or research to justify a general, international, blanket-statement that police in the Western world are curtailing liberty. Besides...are the charges being upheld? Where the police ordered to enforce them in specific cases? Perhaps your beef shouldn't be with the police at all but with politicians and judges.
Agreed my beef is more with the politicians and judges..but then its not them enforcing policy in such an aggressive manner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
And then suddenly one person it's saying unfair because police let one guy go and it was EXACTLY the same. Now what? Does the judge have to now hear the full details of the other case and call their witnesses? What if there was 200 other cases this person is talking about? What if the officer was different and has a different point of view? These are the reasons why laws are less grey than you're saying they should be. They still aren't 100% black and white, but they aren't the entire spectrum of greyscale and are not up to individual interpretation.
I have experienced police use their common sense several times..but it seems to becoming a thing of the past.. it seems like its becoming I have to nick you its more than my jobs worth..


Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
Who determines experience? Is a 99 year old man safer because of his experience? Statistics show us differently. Experience can also make people overconfident. There's also the issue of "bad experience." Someone who always does things in a way that isn't very smart isn't gaining valuable experience. So experience has become too subjective, so we need to remove it. What are we left with? HOw drunk? Exactly. And a line in the sand had to be drawn. Most places drew it between 0.05 and 0.10 BAC.



I am not saying that at 0.08BAC that people can't drive a straight line. Quite the opposite, that level of loss of mechanical control comes much later. But reaction times at 0.08BAC are significantly reduced. That's why 0.08BAC was chosen. Beyond that you start to get into mechanical impairment.
I really dont think drunk driving is relevant to the topic..
like to add though i personal drive as safe after a few over the limit than with no caffeine. Down to self responsibility why i dont crash..that often


Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
Again, you're trying to blur the line. If there are no cars on the road is it ok to drive 300km/hr? What if a kid or a deer or a dog comes out of nowhere and the car swerves and hits someone on the sidewalk? We have hard and fast rules because that's the only way to be fair. Everyone is subject to the same regulations regardless of their "interpretations" of their surroundings. As soon as you open it up to interpretations, you get into the problem of "fairness." It's not "justice" if one person gets away with something someone else doesn't under identical conditions, and that's exactly what happens when things start coming down to interpretation. Eventually someone has to put their foot down and say, "Fine. If you do this, regardless of how you see things, you've broken the rules. NOw it's fair!" And that's what we have now.
The problem i see its taking responsibility away from the individual..if you dont give a child responsibility the chances are they are irresponsible..
I know about animals running out..i hit a badger came off my bike last year..I was lucky..the first car to stop said his mate was doing 140 on a bike on the by pass and a badger ran out and it clipped his foot..now if he was going any slower he could be dead now..


Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
Could you do the commerce without being there? If not, then I would say the driving is part of it. If you cannot do your job without being able to drive, then driving is part of the job. Not that it matters, I was pointing out how your own Freeman logic has gaping holes in it. I don't think it matters if they are involved in commerce or not. The law applies to everyone equally.
I am curious why you think commerce has anything to do with the issue?

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post

More sympathetic to the police officer? I doubt it. You do realize much of the public dislike police now. Freemen seem to absolutely despise them. It's hard enough for a cop to get a fair jury trial now let alone in a "de jure" court filled with cop-haters who think everyone who's ever carried a badge should be drawn and quartered.
This is why i think police need to be on the side of the people they supposedly represent

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
If he's handing you a ticket, then there is: the thing he witnessed you doing that he's handing you a ticket for. But he's not finding you guilty of anything, just being a witness and handing you a "summons".
Thats fine if he witnessed me doing some thing wrong..most the time though they are simply looking for trouble..or revenue

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post

Couldn't have been that busy a highway if you were riding a bike there.
why..I have ridden bikes on very busy highways

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
Ok, what "evil" is it to require people to obey a law that exists because it saves lives?
I will drive as i do regardless of freeman standing..but non compliance with paperwork is not endangering lives

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
That's a rather dumb definition. I don't like that at all. If the harm is justified, it's still evil? I MEANT to kill the guy I shot. I caused harm with intent. If someone starts touching your wife inappropraitely at a bar and you punch him in the face because he won't stop, you caused harm and you meant to. I don't think either of those is "evil."
Agreed it was a crap definition of evil..but wars and a police state and economic slavery based on an economic system of fraud that id destroying the planet and its people for the benefit of the few is evil.

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
Uhh....the US worked with him in the past. He'd been sending letters and videos filled with hate about he was going to destroy the US and all it's allies for over a decade. He was constantly re-stating his Fatwa against the west whenever he could get a message out to people... The investigation was done. He was already an enemy of the state, they were well aware of what who he was and what he was doing.



The guy with the beard that claimed responsibility for the attacks was Osama. Not to mention the fact that Al Qaeda has repeatedly claimed it was them. Ayman al-Zawahiri has made the claim personally MANY times.
If he did it they let him and/or helped him..alQaeda are a front..the war in Afghanistan could of been averted..How many dead Afghanis were ever a threat to america uk or canada?

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
I did answer this question. You had said we should determine the degree of danger associated with the crime with respect to handcuffing people. I answered it. I said we cannot make rules based around a crime, the persons history, or any other factor. That would be discriminatory. As I said earlier, I have seen marijuana ruin lives. Other things ruin lives too, and police go after MOST of those as well. In time, the marijuana laws will relax (at least here in Canada) and with that argument gone, what will be next?
Exessive anything can ruin lives..but is handcuffing some one because they smoke weed necessary?And you wonder why police are loosing respect..
cannabis is the most useful plant known to man.A fine example of how government represents corporate interests..
While on the subject of drugs and Afghanistan..Why since coalition forces are in the opium producing areas is opium being refined into heroin in these areas?
It would mean transporting certain previously unobtainable chemicals on the roads controlled by us forces..and why is heroin cheaper than weed in the uk?
heroin the drug of the controller..war on drugs war on terror..what a scam

Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
Then you need to go somewhere that has no freedoms. Sierra Leone or Sudan or good places to start. Go see what real slavery is like first hand and then tell me if the position we're in is anywhere similar.
never been there what's it like..
I am more concerned about the freedoms were loosing here..


Quote:
Originally Posted by daxo View Post
That was my squads unofficial motto: Illegitimi non carborundum. We have it on all our t-shirts. But my unhappiness is not due to others, it's all my own damned fault. But then....most Freemen seem to be incapable of accepting responsibility for their own problems. So maybe they won't understand.
funny.. thats what the hippies used to say in the times of thatcher..

Dont forget though think positive one thing i have learned though in life and lots of brushes with the law(policy enforcers) we are mostly all human and want the same thing.
h2pogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-08-2010, 12:54 AM   #553
daxo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 382
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
so out of every 10 of those testimonies by your figures there are two legitimate cases..and there are dozens of testimonies..
I see it that when protesters are treated like criminals and terrorists there is a systematic problem..
No, I'm saying 81% are blatantly false. Of the remainder, some are valid some are not. I can't pass judgement on the full 19% because a percentage of them lack any evidence. I will conceded that 1 of 10 is likely true. You say that shows a systematic problem with police. I ask why you ignore the 9 out of 10 people who are blatantly telling lies about the police. You don't think that shows a systematic problem with those spreading this propaganda? They have no problems making accusations that are wholly unfounded? It's obvious you have no problem with that. Perhaps the police should do this too, eh? We'll go out and make arrests, shoot people for resisting, and 81% of the time we'll have no evidence. I'm not talking 81% of the time it's for a statute violation, I'm talking 81% of the time it's something we are blatantly lying about. We'll grab a guy on the sidewalk that doesn't even own a car and has never driven in his life and throw him in jail for hit and run. We'll grab a lady at the ice cream shop who's never babysit and has no kids and arrest her for failing to provide the necessities of life for a child. Then we'll just stand in the street and shoot 4 people, say they robbed a bank and were shooting at us...meanwhile there's been no bank robberies in the area for a century and they had no weapons, backpacks/bags or anything else. But 20% of the time we'll make sure we were right. And then say that 20% is "justification" for the other 80% because the 20% shows a "systematic problem". Sound fair?

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
Agreed my beef is more with the politicians and judges..but then its not them enforcing policy in such an aggressive manner.
Do you know how many police encounters aren't aggressive? Thousands of arrests happen each day. Only a small handful involve force. Tens of thousands of tickets are issued each day....the vast majority go off without any issues. Aggression from police is USUALLY accompanied by aggression from the people they're dealing with. Not always, but usually. So if people didn't break the law (I still refuse to call it policy, Walmart enacts policies and you don't have any say in the matters, governments enact laws and you have representatives you can elect and/or speak to about it) and act aggressively when they're caught, police aggression would be much lower as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I have experienced police use their common sense several times..but it seems to becoming a thing of the past.. it seems like its becoming I have to nick you its more than my jobs worth..
My guys used common sense all the time. Not everyone stopped for speeding got a ticket. If they heard gunfire in a house they waited for backup. If they saw a fire they called the fire department. Unless you want to discuss a specific situation, I can't speak for the individuals application of common sense, and since I wasn't there at the time, I can't speak to it anyways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I really dont think drunk driving is relevant to the topic..
like to add though i personal drive as safe after a few over the limit than with no caffeine. Down to self responsibility why i dont crash..that often
Obviously people are expected not to drive when it isn't safe even in cases not covered by statute. That still exists today. That's why we have some vague traffic laws. Like "Speed unreasonable." Why have "speed unreasonable" if we have speeding? Because sometimes speeding is only half the picture. Driving 20 under the limit can be dangerous under certain conditions, and you're expected to be reasonable. However, statistics have shown that lines can be drawn in the sand. Let's be honest here, one of the features of alcohol is it impairs judgment. You're asking people with impaired judgment to exercise judgment. Does that REALLY make sense to you? Now you may say, "Well my judgment wasn't impaired." How do you know? We don't charge people with "driving with impaired judgment" because there's no real way to tell. But we can tell if you've had sufficient alcohol that statistically your judgment and reaction times have been impaired. So we made that illegal instead. If you can devise a way to tell if someone has impaired judgment or reaction times without needing to know what their judgment was like before they started drinking, I'm sure the doctors, police, and governments would LOVE to hear it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
The problem i see its taking responsibility away from the individual..if you dont give a child responsibility the chances are they are irresponsible..
You can give a child responsibilities and still have rules in place. IN fact, I'd be surprised if you took away the rules. I would argue a child with no rules will be equally irresponsible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I know about animals running out..i hit a badger came off my bike last year..I was lucky..the first car to stop said his mate was doing 140 on a bike on the by pass and a badger ran out and it clipped his foot..now if he was going any slower he could be dead now..
ANd had the badger hit him more solidly he would be dead now anyways. He is alive because of where the badger hit him, which was a factor of where he was at the time, not how fast he was going. His speed may have put him in that position, but one can't say that going 140 will keep badgers from running out earlier. And I've never said speeding will always kill, but it is statistically MUCH safer to drive slower.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I am curious why you think commerce has anything to do with the issue?
I don't. But I know freemen think statutes only apply to people that are engaging in commerce.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
This is why i think police need to be on the side of the people they supposedly represent
Police don't represent people. That's your local representatives job, be the a congressperson, a senator, a member of parliament, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
Thats fine if he witnessed me doing some thing wrong..most the time though they are simply looking for trouble..or revenue
If you're speeding, you've done something wrong. I've never seen a cop walk up to someone for no reason and start looking for something to arrest them for. There are plenty of people out there breaking the law that we don't need to do that. This doesn't mean it never happens, just it's never been something I encountered either when I was on the street or after I became a Sgt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
why..I have ridden bikes on very busy highways
Now...I assumed you meant pedal bikes...are you talking motorbike? I think we can all agree pedal bikes shouldn't be used on busy highways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I will drive as i do regardless of freeman standing..but non compliance with paperwork is not endangering lives
If you speed and smash into someone (or someone smashes into you), you increase the chances that both you and them will die or suffer severe injuries. Sounds like endangerment to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
Agreed it was a crap definition of evil..but wars and a police state and economic slavery based on an economic system of fraud that id destroying the planet and its people for the benefit of the few is evil.
Wars are a necessary reality of life given our current global climate. It'd be great if we could end all war. Do you really think speeding tickets are the cause of war? How do you define police state? Economic slavery I don't even need your definition for, I already know it's false. You're free to do any job you want, even no job, you're free to negotiate a salary, start your own business, etc. You need to re-examine the word "slavery". You use it as openly as you use the word "evil". ANd in both cases it is pure propaganda and does not reflect the reality. It's propaganda, it's designed to create a specific image and bring forth certain emotions. And you aren't going to fool me no matter how much you try to use them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
If he did it they let him and/or helped him..alQaeda are a front..the war in Afghanistan could of been averted..How many dead Afghanis were ever a threat to america uk or canada?
Make up your mind, did they want to hand him over or where they a front? Backpedal harder. Canada didn't go to war with Afghanistan. We went to war IN Afghanistan. We're fighting alongside Afghanis. But if you look at people that try to blow up airports and times square or the Underground...you'll see that the people we are fighting are a threat to American's, UKers (what's the proper term there? Britons would only be England, right?), and Canadians.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
Exessive anything can ruin lives..but is handcuffing some one because they smoke weed necessary?And you wonder why police are loosing respect..
Here in Canada marijuana has been decriminalized. So we aren't really arresting someone for smoking it. BUt growing or selling it illegally, yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
cannabis is the most useful plant known to man.A fine example of how government represents corporate interests..
While on the subject of drugs and Afghanistan..Why since coalition forces are in the opium producing areas is opium being refined into heroin in these areas?
Surely you have proof of these allegations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
It would mean transporting certain previously unobtainable chemicals on the roads controlled by us forces..and why is heroin cheaper than weed in the uk?
heroin the drug of the controller..war on drugs war on terror..what a scam
You'd have to ask your local drug dealer why it's cheaper... The government doesn't set the prices on his wares.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
never been there what's it like..
I am more concerned about the freedoms were loosing here..
Well, when I was in the Sudan, there was a local warlord that controlled the area just across the border. In those regions, children would decide they want to be doctors or firefighters...and then when they were 8 they were sent to either work as slave labour (real slave labour, not the slaves Freemen pretend they are, this is with real whips, but figurative ones, and beatings for not producing enough, and not beatings until they stop resisting, but beatings until they are within an inch of their lives) or they are recruited into the warlords army. THe warlords army usually includes training that results in grotesque scarring as boys are forced to fight each other, sometimes to the death, in order to get food. BOth the people in the field and the boys in the army were often subjected to rape or having various objects used to sexuall assauly them. Once the boy soldiers hit puberty they were forced to rape the girl-slaves that were labouring in the field. But 15 most of the boys in the army had a few kids from these rapes, most had killed at least a half dozen people, and were then going off with the army to other villages to kill the elders who didn't consent to the warlords laws (which in many cases the people didn't even know existed) and drag more slaves away from their families.

Now tell me...how INSULTING is it to them that you toss words like "slavery" around to describe yourself because you have to drive slower and have to register your car? You have no idea what slavery or oppresion is if you can compare the western world to those who are really living in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
funny.. thats what the hippies used to say in the times of thatcher..

Dont forget though think positive one thing i have learned though in life and lots of brushes with the law(policy enforcers) we are mostly all human and want the same thing.
So you're all human and want the same thing....but they're evil and you're a slave. You say nice things about them about of one side of your mouth, and then slag them out of the other. That's not very honourable. I thought that was one of the key principles of Freemanhood: being honourable.
__________________
No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. -Theodore Roosevelt
Law, by definition, cannot obey the same rules as nature. -Albert Camus
The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom. -John Locke
Obedience of the law is demanded; not asked as a favor. -Theodore Roosevelt
daxo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-08-2010, 01:29 AM   #554
h2pogo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 11,650
Likes: 1,189 (670 Posts)
Default

Daxo. were going in circles. i dont have the time.

I am certain we are loosing our freedoms.and the police are getting more aggressive..
I am certain even journalists are been arrested with protesters.
I am certain traffic legislation is about revenue collection rather than road safety.
I am certain government has been hijacked by corporate interests perpetrating fraud that will enslave the planet.
I am certain that there is no excuse for war.
I am certain heroin is been refined in Afghanistan.
I am certain my conscience is the highest law..
I am certain you will disagree
and i will speak my mind to the face of any one..with respect and honour.
I wish you happiness

Last edited by h2pogo; 19-08-2010 at 01:30 AM.
h2pogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-08-2010, 02:39 AM   #555
daxo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 382
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
Daxo. were going in circles. i dont have the time.

I am certain we are loosing our freedoms.and the police are getting more aggressive..
Perhaps you're just more aware of police aggression because you're actively looking for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I am certain even journalists are been arrested with protesters.
I am certain people just walking home have been to. Welcome to the world of protests: where sometimes it's hard to sort out who's who, and in the interest of safety it's better to arrest a few innocent people and let them go in a few hours than allow escalation to occur.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I am certain traffic legislation is about revenue collection rather than road safety.
Then you haven't looked at the statistics. Come work in traffic enforcement and see just how many times you can point out a life that would've been saved had the person been sober, or driving the speed limit. How many lives need to be lost that could've been saved by people slowing down for it to be more about safety?

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I am certain government has been hijacked by corporate interests perpetrating fraud that will enslave the planet.
Then you should make it clear to your representatives that you won't tolerate them caving to corporate interests, or run for office yourself and make it clear you won't stand for it. If people agree with you, they'll vote with you. If they think you've lost a grip on reality, they won't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I am certain that there is no excuse for war.
Talk to some WWII vets.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I am certain heroin is been refined in Afghanistan.
I don't deny it's being refined in Afghanistan. You implied the allied forces there were somehow either involved in it or assisting it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I am certain my conscience is the highest law..
And if your concience says it's ok to do things that are unsafe, like drive drunk, then I saw your "highest law" is flawed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I am certain you will disagree
and i will speak my mind to the face of any one..with respect and honour.
I wish you happiness
And you're one of the FEW respectful and honourable ones. If the vast majority of freemen were like you, I'd laugh about them more than I criticize them. But sadly, they are not.
__________________
No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. -Theodore Roosevelt
Law, by definition, cannot obey the same rules as nature. -Albert Camus
The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom. -John Locke
Obedience of the law is demanded; not asked as a favor. -Theodore Roosevelt
daxo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-08-2010, 08:37 AM   #556
rowan22
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 802
Likes: 11 (8 Posts)
Default

And so in summary "the system works". Unless you are deciding the outcome of a Presidential election using partisan supreme court judges. Then all the "have a nice day" in the world doesn't overturn the fact that Democracy has been co opted by, albeit media savvy Fascists.
rowan22 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 01:28 PM.


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