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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 27-01-2012, 05:15 PM   #41
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
Pot kettle and all that aside..If you feel some people exploit the system you subscribe to why susbscribe?
So you can't address the issue, you're just avoiding it and sticking with the concept that you have created, which rather demonstrates the point.

You, me old mucker, are frustrated. You just want to be calling the shots and not on the end of them. That's not justice, that's hypocrisy.

Boring. Boring. Boring.

Also proof positive of the philosophical bankruptcy of the freeman attitude. Reinventing the wheel, as a rotten plank.

I'll check in later to see if you've had a better stab.
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2012, 05:16 PM   #42
h2pogo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 11,650
Likes: 1,189 (670 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iq_145 View Post
If there is an awakening, and there may be, then it is very important not to get bogged down in 'methods' which do not work. Channel your energy elsewhere, would be my advice.

I looked into the FOTL claims and soon found them to be ****. As has been remarked elsewhere on this sub-forum, a lot of FOTLites seem only interested in, and/or capable of, causing trouble for other, more genuine searchers.
Again i agree to an extent..As i expected from the start there is missinfo and just plain wrong ideas brought into play.
But.
The idea that the courts exist to protect us from criminals still resonates with me..
I have been reading your posts now for a while and can see you are a genuine poster with genuine concerns..So i ask you..Is there an easier more peacefull way to bring the criminals to justice?
Any ideas?
h2pogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2012, 05:19 PM   #43
h2pogo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 11,650
Likes: 1,189 (670 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
So you can't address the issue, you're just avoiding it and sticking with the concept that you have created, which rather demonstrates the point.

You, me old mucker, are frustrated. You just want to be calling the shots and not on the end of them. That's not justice, that's hypocrisy.

Boring. Boring. Boring.

Also proof positive of the philosophical bankruptcy of the freeman attitude. Reinventing the wheel, as a rotten plank.

I'll check in later to see if you've had a better stab.
What issue
How can i respond in a logical way if i dont know what you mean by a freeloader?
Is it the banks? or the man that needs help to pay the banks?
h2pogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2012, 05:26 PM   #44
h2pogo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 11,650
Likes: 1,189 (670 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
Well, the victims do have a choice.
If these natural rights exist as you claim they do, you and your son would be violating the ninety year old's natural right to water. You could of course give the ninety year old all of the water.


You appear to be jumping threads. The stream in question was not part of the accident scenario. The stream just happened to be there and there was no victim. So, I would say if the stream is on private land and the individual is too bone idle to provide himself with water but would rather it be supplied by somebody else, the individual is the freeloader.
Right there you have highlighted the problems facing humanity.

Greed and selfishness
h2pogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2012, 05:34 PM   #45
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
What issue
How can i respond in a logical way if i dont know what you mean by a freeloader?
Is it the banks? or the man that needs help to pay the banks?
Short memory too. Either that or the avoidance dance. Couldn't be the latter surely.

Posts 33 and 38.

Can you, or will you, address the inconsistency in your viewpoint and make you system just?
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2012, 06:09 PM   #46
h2pogo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 11,650
Likes: 1,189 (670 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
Short memory too. Either that or the avoidance dance. Couldn't be the latter surely.

Posts 33 and 38.

Can you, or will you, address the inconsistency in your viewpoint and make you system just?
I dont see any inconstitcienceis..Just you ignoring questions and deviating from the issue..As normal.
Edit
I take it you are a lawer?

Last edited by h2pogo; 27-01-2012 at 07:54 PM.
h2pogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2012, 06:46 PM   #47
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstworldproblems View Post
so? i think we all know what simplistic means. having some experience with teaching music,diving and swimming and have worked with the metally and physically disabled i can assure you that simplicity works. and those who want things complicated, are those who want to decieve, in other words dont want people to know a simple truth. and the truth usually is quite simple.
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2012, 07:30 PM   #48
firstworldproblems
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 929
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
i think we all know what simplistic means
No, clearly not. Simplistic is not the same as simplicity.

sim·plis·tic   [sim-plis-tik]
adjective
characterized by extreme simplism; oversimplified: a simplistic notion of good and bad.
__________________
What? I need to carry a piece a paper? Slavery!
firstworldproblems is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2012, 07:57 PM   #49
reverendjim
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: canada
Posts: 8,306
Likes: 1,348 (822 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstworldproblems View Post
No, clearly not. Simplistic is not the same as simplicity.

sim·plis·tic   [sim-plis-tik]
adjective
characterized by extreme simplism; oversimplified: a simplistic notion of good and bad.
simplicity is the state of being simple. you cant get any simpler than simple. it is what it is no matter how many words you ascribe to it. to come up with an adjective to be able to make a point of view does not change the fact that simple is quite simply...simple.
reverendjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2012, 08:35 PM   #50
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
I dont see any inconstitcienceis..Just you ignoring questions and deviating from the issue..As normal.
Edit
I take it you are a lawer?
I don't know what a lawer is.

Bollocks to your rather flimsy avoidance jibe. I highlighted the inconsistency in your freeloader argument, you asked me to define my sort of freeloader for the purpose of this debate and I did, since when you have done everything possible to avoid addressing your inconsistency.

Let me spell it out for you because you don't seem to get it (surprising, given what I said 2 posts back) - you have adopted a position of it being alright to haul a banker before the courts but when it comes to my freeloader example you suddenly decide "oow, hang on, you'd better prove a direct financial loss in that case." Totally bizarre. Banker (arguably) causes me indirect loss (operating a system which contributes to national debt, which I pays taxes towards). Freeloader causes me indirect loss (sponges off the system, which I pay taxes towards). OK to go for banker in an indirect loss situation, but apparently not OK to do so in the case of a freeloader. Double standards.

Now, one more time, are you going to address this inconsistency or continue avoiding the issue?
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2012, 09:17 PM   #51
h2pogo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 11,650
Likes: 1,189 (670 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
I don't know what a lawer is.

Bollocks to your rather flimsy avoidance jibe. I highlighted the inconsistency in your freeloader argument, you asked me to define my sort of freeloader for the purpose of this debate and I did, since when you have done everything possible to avoid addressing your inconsistency.

Let me spell it out for you because you don't seem to get it (surprising, given what I said 2 posts back) - you have adopted a position of it being alright to haul a banker before the courts but when it comes to my freeloader example you suddenly decide "oow, hang on, you'd better prove a direct financial loss in that case." Totally bizarre. Banker (arguably) causes me indirect loss (operating a system which contributes to national debt, which I pays taxes towards). Freeloader causes me indirect loss (sponges off the system, which I pay taxes towards). OK to go for banker in an indirect loss situation, but apparently not OK to do so in the case of a freeloader. Double standards.

Now, one more time, are you going to address this inconsistency or continue avoiding the issue?
There is no inconsistency, the banks and government steal directly where as a freeloader doesnt..

So who do you have in mind when you say freeloader?
Some victim was it?

How did we get here....That was it...you equated a mans right to water as freeloading..So
Is a man that needs water and expects that right a freeloader?
h2pogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2012, 10:06 PM   #52
iq_145
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Trapped in a body.
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
Again i agree to an extent..As i expected from the start there is missinfo and just plain wrong ideas brought into play.
But.
The idea that the courts exist to protect us from criminals still resonates with me..
I have been reading your posts now for a while and can see you are a genuine poster with genuine concerns..So i ask you..Is there an easier more peacefull way to bring the criminals to justice?
Any ideas?
A very good question ... and a very difficult one. It's difficult because the masses, for whatever reasons, are more and more selfish and care not for the collective good of even their own neighbourhood, let alone caring about the fact that some of their money goes toward blowing the arms and legs off women and children in very distant lands.

To change this system for the better would require the masses standing up for principles that do not seem even close to the top of their list of priorities.

Also, the ones who actually run the world are very brazen and blatant now. They know that they have the power, through laws that have been introduced since the time of Thatcher and Reagan, and through the immense power of their military, to suppress any rebellion, even resulting to murder if necessary. Laws, such as the requirement for a proper inquest after a suspicious death, are ignored when it suits them (e.g., Dr. David Kelly, John Kennedy Jr., etc.) and there seems nothing that can be done about it, because the corruption seems to go right to the top of the tree.

Therefore, to answer your question, each one of us has to do what they can within the confines of the system. Stand up, but don't lose your house. Resist in a peaceful way. Make your point, but show respect. And, above all, spread the word, even if most people couldn't care less. Don't act in a stupid way, or make needless problems for yourself and your family. Play their game, but put your slant on how you play it within their rule set.

Sorry to have been a bit long-winded in my response, but it is a difficult question.

Best wishes in your quest.
__________________
The Titanic never sank, it was the Olympic that the US Navy sank in the North Atlantic in 1912.
iq_145 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2012, 10:17 PM   #53
iq_145
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Trapped in a body.
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

P.S. I don't think that we can bring the criminals to justice, for there is no justice in this world. Just look at George W. Bush, Tony Blair and Hillary Clinton, to name but three. They are not going to face any form of trial and justice in this life.


P.P.S. I think that some of the posts are getting a bit nasty, without any real cause. Can we not just debate?
__________________
The Titanic never sank, it was the Olympic that the US Navy sank in the North Atlantic in 1912.

Last edited by iq_145; 27-01-2012 at 10:17 PM.
iq_145 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2012, 10:19 PM   #54
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post

How did we get here....That was it...you equated a mans right to water as freeloading..
No, you're wrong. I suggest you re-read the thread. micklemus did not write anything of the sort.
In fact no one has written that.
However, I did write:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
But the landowner is not depriving anybody of life. The individual concerned is free to obtain their water elsewhere, but it would appear that they are too lazy to do so and instead expect to infinge on the rights of other people in order to carry on with their freeloading.
If you interpret that passage as stating "a man's right to water is freeloading" I suggest that you brush up on your comprehension skills.

Last edited by rumpelstilzchen; 27-01-2012 at 10:20 PM.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2012, 10:23 PM   #55
h2pogo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 11,650
Likes: 1,189 (670 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iq_145 View Post
A very good question ... and a very difficult one. It's difficult because the masses, for whatever reasons, are more and more selfish and care not for the collective good of even their own neighbourhood, let alone caring about the fact that some of their money goes toward blowing the arms and legs off women and children in very distant lands.

To change this system for the better would require the masses standing up for principles that do not seem even close to the top of their list of priorities.

Also, the ones who actually run the world are very brazen and blatant now. They know that they have the power, through laws that have been introduced since the time of Thatcher and Reagan, and through the immense power of their military, to suppress any rebellion, even resulting to murder if necessary. Laws, such as the requirement for a proper inquest after a suspicious death, are ignored when it suits them (e.g., Dr. David Kelly, John Kennedy Jr., etc.) and there seems nothing that can be done about it, because the corruption seems to go right to the top of the tree.

Therefore, to answer your question, each one of us has to do what they can within the confines of the system. Stand up, but don't lose your house. Resist in a peaceful way. Make your point, but show respect. And, above all, spread the word, even if most people couldn't care less. Don't act in a stupid way, or make needless problems for yourself and your family. Play their game, but put your slant on how you play it within their rule set.

Sorry to have been a bit long-winded in my response, but it is a difficult question.

Best wishes in your quest.
Sound advice..Too late for me though, I dropped out a long time ago
h2pogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2012, 10:30 PM   #56
h2pogo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 11,650
Likes: 1,189 (670 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
Is it right/wrong to deny accses to the stream?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
If it's on private land that would be a decision for the landowner.
I would say that anybody who reqiuires water could dig a well on their own land.
Quote:
Originally Posted by micklemus View Post
Is it right for people to seek to freeload off others?
Three consecutive posts exept micky wasnt replying to either of us..Pure assumption on my part i agree..but!

Besides i was on about the imaginary plane crash victims in the desert..Should the land owner deny these people water if he wishes?
h2pogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2012, 10:38 PM   #57
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
Three consecutive posts exept micky wasnt replying to either of us..Pure assumption on my part i agree..but!
No buts, micklemus did not write what you previously claimed he did. Nor did I for that matter.

Quote:
Besides i was on about the imaginary plane crash victims in the desert..Should the land owner deny these people water if he wishes?
That would be a choice for him to make. If he were to deny the water I would say that he was morally wrong and I would give the water. But he is free to make his own choice. We may feel giving the water is the correct thing to do but I fail to see how the landowner is depriving anybody of any rights because imo the right does not exist apart from inside people's imaginations.

Last edited by rumpelstilzchen; 27-01-2012 at 10:38 PM.
rumpelstilzchen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2012, 10:48 PM   #58
h2pogo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 11,650
Likes: 1,189 (670 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rumpelstilzchen View Post
No buts, micklemus did not write what you previously claimed he did. Nor did I for that matter.


That would be a choice for him to make. If he were to deny the water I would say that he was morally wrong and I would give the water. But he is free to make his own choice. We may feel giving the water is the correct thing to do but I fail to see how the landowner is depriving anybody of any rights because imo the right does not exist apart from inside people's imaginations.
I am not going to go back and see if you edited your posts..as Yozhic was always claiming..Cos i know what i just quoted was whats quoted.

The man refusing water is killing those people..If you think thats his right that is your opinion.
But what right has he to the land?
h2pogo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-01-2012, 10:55 PM   #59
micklemus
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Under your skin
Posts: 3,894
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post
There is no inconsistency, the banks and government steal directly where as a freeloader doesnt..

So who do you have in mind when you say freeloader?
Some victim was it?

How did we get here....That was it...you equated a mans right to water as freeloading..So
Is a man that needs water and expects that right a freeloader?
Oh, so when does a banker "steal directly" then?

This is getting even more interesting now. I mean, it now appears you're also saying benefit fraud isn't theft (your ref to a freeloader not stealing; and that is one type of freeloader).

You definitely are making this up as you go along. The whole thing is now even more inconsistent.

Why not just admit it. You have a very biased world view where those at the top can't do right, those at the bottom can't do wrong and you're going to twist things to suit, kangaroo courts or not?
micklemus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-01-2012, 01:16 AM   #60
solzhenitsyn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,090
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by h2pogo View Post

The man refusing water is killing those people..If you think thats his right that is your opinion.
But what right has he to the land?
This seems like a strange position from somehow who presumably detests income tax (please correct me if my presumption is wrong.) I could just as easily claim that the man refusing to pay taxes (so that those taxes can be used to provide water to the poor) is killing the poor.

Indeed, as you say, what right does a freeman-on-the-land have to be "on-the-land"?
solzhenitsyn 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 11:24 PM.


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