[late]

Sovereign Citizen........

No doubt. So much nonsense. Did anyone else notice this little tidbit?

Sorry, I've mostly dropped out of the thread, so I missed it. Is someone taking the Sovereign Citizen position?

[Pants-of-dog]

1) Actually for you to be on the side that brags about being right about everything, you seem to be consistently WRONG.

If you're asking a personal opinion I think that corporations should be held to the same standard and guarantee the same Rights as the government. There IS a caveat:

Property owners and citizens both have equal Rights. AND, they cannot both exercise them at the same time, so we have a government that regulates situations so that both sides are equally protected. Since you cannot infringe on the property owner's Rights, in theory their Rights would take precedence over the Rights of others. That is a personal opinion, not one that any philosophy I know of puts it in those terms

This is not what I am talking about.

What I am saying is that you seem to think that corporations can deprive people of unalienable rights with no problem.

2) You're right about one thing: it is your guess that the sex may not have been consensual - not unusual in terms of age difference for the time period. The evidence says it was a contractual agreement in exchange for Sally's unborn to be freed

So Jefferson used his ability to deprive children of their unalienable rights as leverage to force sex on this teenage girl. This still shows how the government at
the time was going around depriving people of unalienable rights.

3) Rape is illegal

Yes, but you are engaging in presentism now. Ask @Julian658 to clarify that for you.

At the time, rape was perfectly legal. Women could legally be raped by their husbands, slaves could legally be raped by owners.

In fact, the prohibition on importing slaves was a protectionist ploy to defend the US slave breeding industry. This industry consisted of forcing slaves to rape each other and selling the babies. So we see the government at the time was trying to make money off taking way the unalienable rights of people.

4) Our Rights are built around presuppositional principles; if you want to call them social constructs then so would any metric of right or wrong be when applied to slavery.

Yes, morality is also a social construct. You are beginning to get it.

[The Resister]

Indeed.

Sovereign Citizen........

No doubt. So much nonsense. Did anyone else notice this little tidbit?





I can see 32 armed men, collectively possessing 32 teeth, sitting under the trees, hearing this and nodding wisely.

Not a clue.

We appear to have interrupted you-know-who's speech and he is angry/frustrated.

Personal note. Point of Judaeo-Christian prerogative with a nod to Annatar.

I cannot imagine an argument where I would concede that personally amassing weaponry with which to kill one's fellow man, outside of the framework of the state, is God's will. The very idea is anathema to everything Jesus taught. Not once in the 2000 years since Jesus taught us love for our fellow man did God ride in on a white horse wielding a flaming sword and smite our enemies.



I am naturally frightened of people claiming to know God's will claiming power from it. The US has a great many good Christian men. I can take you to meet any number of them. None of them are wearing store-bought camouflage, running around in a $40,000 jeep armed to the teeth. I can't image Jesus saying:

"Get thyself off to Big Five Sports and there possess camouflage clothing. Rend thy street clothing with its Godless embellishments from thy body and clothe thyself in the invidable garments of righteousness. Take up thy AK-47 and though it be the handiwork of Godless communists grasp it for thy mighty works. Mount up thy SUV, engage the cruise control, partake of thy air conditioning in thankfulness and speed to thy Bretherin who are assembled in distant valley to meet on the Sabbath. Keep the Sabbath Holy by joining thy brothers in righteous discourse. Honor the Sabbath by drinking of the fruit of the Holy Barley and of the Hops and of the sacred yeast but casteth not down the can but taketh it home to recycle. Urge thy considerable bulk across the face of the protesting land with as much stealth as thy can muster. After partaking of the Holy Beer take up thy AK-47 and shooteth upon images of liberals for they are evil. They desireth to take food and giveth it to the hungry without recompense. They desireth to give medicine to their ill brothers without insurance provided by their lawful employer. They consorteth with people of the dark countenance who come from the evil cities of Detroit and Atlanta and other places forsaken by the Lord your God. They consorteth with the people of the rainbow banner in all their evilness. Do all this that when the great Trump of God sounds in the land of Florida, you can rise up to wipe the Godless liberals out, in His mercy. Thus sayth the lord."

There is one thing I will give you credit for. When it comes to pissing people off and posting off topic B.S. to the point of absolute insanity, you definitely are a "doctor." I don't say that in an insulting tone. At a personal level I don't like you, but even Sun Tzu's enemies respected the man's strategic mind. You are good at misdirection, deliberate misinterpretations, and selling the exact opposite of what the factual truth is.

As a matter of fact, Jesus DID order his apostles to buy a sword, even if they had to hock their robes to do it. Jesus apostles were as well armed as any enforcer working in Caesar's SWAT team. They were equally armed. Christians have a Right, a moral duty, and an obligation to exercise that unalienable Right.

[The Resister]

This is not what I am talking about.

What I am saying is that you seem to think that corporations can deprive people of unalienable rights with no problem.



So Jefferson used his ability to deprive children of their unalienable rights as leverage to force sex on this teenage girl. This still shows how the government at
the time was going around depriving people of unalienable rights.



Yes, but you are engaging in presentism now. Ask @Julian658 to clarify that for you.

At the time, rape was perfectly legal. Women could legally be raped by their husbands, slaves could legally be raped by owners.

In fact, the prohibition on importing slaves was a protectionist ploy to defend the US slave breeding industry. This industry consisted of forcing slaves to rape each other and selling the babies. So we see the government at the time was trying to make money off taking way the unalienable rights of people.



Yes, morality is also a social construct. You are beginning to get it.

1) NO. I do not believe that corporations should infringe on your unalienable Rights. I don't even believe that corporations should have access to government files on you unless they can show a genuine need for the information. For instance, a background check into your MVR is necessary if you're driving for a living, but a criminal conviction for a five year old misdemeanor should not be relevant if some guy is slinging burgers in a fast food joint

2) Jefferson did not deprive anybody of anything. He worked within the parameters of laws of his time. Sometimes that is ALL you can do

3) You need to do some research into history. You need to study POST constitutional law versus pre Constitution statutes.

You will do ANYTHING necessary to keep this thread alive because you cannot refute the first three posts. What do you say we move to another subject? Are you scared? By prolonging the beating you're taking here, it's just showing you really have NOTHING substantive to say about the real topic. This thread could have been over 100 or so posts back. We're here day after day and you offer nothing new. Are you that afraid of the next topic I might tackle?

[Pants-of-dog]

1) NO. I do not believe that corporations should infringe on your unalienable Rights. I don't even believe that corporations should have access to government files on you unless they can show a genuine need for the information. For instance, a background check into your MVR is necessary if you're driving for a living, but a criminal conviction for a five year old misdemeanor should not be relevant if some guy is slinging burgers in a fast food joint

Okay. Earlier you had talked about government slavery and completely ignored the slavery by private actors at the time. Now you seem to be claiming that both are wrong. Do you also agree that US individuals and companies were enslaving people at the time the DoI was written?

2) Jefferson did not deprive anybody of anything. He worked within the parameters of laws of his time. Sometimes that is ALL you can do

As a slaveowner, he personally deprived people of their unalienable rights to life and liberty. As a member of government, he passed laws and supported laws that supported slavery, thereby using government power to deprive people of unalienable rights.

3) You need to do some research into history. You need to study POST constitutional law versus pre Constitution statutes.

This does not change the fact that Jefferson and his brethren were actively supporting (perfectly legal) rape farms.

Is rape a violation of unalienable rights?

You will do ANYTHING necessary to keep this thread alive because you cannot refute the first three posts. What do you say we move to another subject? Are you scared? By prolonging the beating you're taking here, it's just showing you really have NOTHING substantive to say about the real topic. This thread could have been over 100 or so posts back. We're here day after day and you offer nothing new. Are you that afraid of the next topic I might tackle?

Please bring up your next subject.

[Odiseizam]

@The Resister You have good point addressing Drlee rude debating style, if he was constitutional guard he should behave at least in ff's humanistic spirit [1] btw they were freemasons thus BenjaminF had different god in mind , so any comparison with Christianity is at best joke!

next

1. Jesus never told Apostles to bare arms! but this is oftopic and open new thread so we can argue!

2. in my previous post I have suggested why Your good will cant find fertile ground in usA and You didnt respond ... You can just wish that anytime soon usA citizens will become truly free, on contrary what is in effect is system that will suit more totalitarian times ahead after any next economic depression ... so forget even on the current legal rights, which btw even now after the bush'patriotic'act are suspended in favor of "security" on what ex-nsa tech director Binney will say we have already in place 1984 on Steroids, so think You waste Your time effectively, first insure the current constitutional legal rights, and then after go for legalization of the natural rights from the declaration!

https://youtu.be/xF_VYNtDgN8

[annatar1914]

@Drlee

Personal note. Point of Judaeo-Christian prerogative with a nod to Annatar.

I cannot imagine an argument where I would concede that personally amassing weaponry with which to kill one's fellow man, outside of the framework of the state, is God's will. The very idea is anathema to everything Jesus taught. Not once in the 2000 years since Jesus taught us love for our fellow man did God ride in on a white horse wielding a flaming sword and smite our enemies.

@Drlee

He will do so on the Last Day, which is His due and not mine to eliminate evil.

That being said, one of the major themes of my writing here on PoFo is precisely the political Satanism of the American ''Right'', which is more like Anarchism on the extreme edge represented by the ''Sovereign Citizen'' folks. Doesn't get much more Luciferian than such as these, despite what they might say to the contrary.

Lawlessness and superhuman pride.

I am naturally frightened of people claiming to know God's will claiming power from it. The US has a great many good Christian men. I can take you to meet any number of them. None of them are wearing store-bought camouflage, running around in a $40,000 jeep armed to the teeth. I can't image Jesus saying:

"Get thyself off to Big Five Sports and there possess camouflage clothing. Rend thy street clothing with its Godless embellishments from thy body and clothe thyself in the invidable garments of righteousness. Take up thy AK-47 and though it be the handiwork of Godless communists grasp it for thy mighty works. Mount up thy SUV, engage the cruise control, partake of thy air conditioning in thankfulness and speed to thy Bretherin who are assembled in distant valley to meet on the Sabbath. Keep the Sabbath Holy by joining thy brothers in righteous discourse. Honor the Sabbath by drinking of the fruit of the Holy Barley and of the Hops and of the sacred yeast but casteth not down the can but taketh it home to recycle. Urge thy considerable bulk across the face of the protesting land with as much stealth as thy can muster. After partaking of the Holy Beer take up thy AK-47 and shooteth upon images of liberals for they are evil. They desireth to take food and giveth it to the hungry without recompense. They desireth to give medicine to their ill brothers without insurance provided by their lawful employer. They consorteth with people of the dark countenance who come from the evil cities of Detroit and Atlanta and other places forsaken by the Lord your God. They consorteth with the people of the rainbow banner in all their evilness. Do all this that when the great Trump of God sounds in the land of Florida, you can rise up to wipe the Godless liberals out, in His mercy. Thus sayth the lord."

I only have small quibbles with what you're saying here. I've tried to tell people on PoFo for what seems like ages now that we're going to be facing a wave of applied lawless Objectivism/Libertarianism/Anarcho-Capitalism/Sovereign Citizen Movement, and President Trump is just a part of it.

Most Populist movements in history have been of people who wanted the State to hear their cry and strengthen itself in their regard for the cause of justice. Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, William Jennings Bryan, Huey Long, all pretty much leaders and reflections of these Populist goals. And worthy too.

Now we have a Populist movement that essentially wants to weaken the State and destroy the socio-economic security of the People, placing all power in private and lawless hands.

If this isn't the Spirit of Antichrist, I don't know what is.

[Drlee]

“Then Jesus said, ‘When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?’ ‘Nothing,’ they answered. He said to them, ‘But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.’” The disciples then produce two swords, which prompts Jesus to respond, “That’s enough!”

Nice try @The Resister Jesus did not tell his disciples to arm themselves. He busted Peter's ass for trying to defend Him with a sword. Jesus' message was unambiguous and direct. He was a pacifist of the first order. He spoke metaphorically very frequently. "Turn the other cheek" and all that.

But the thing is @The Resister the people you are supporting are going to win this battle. At the end of the day they may not be the people you wish had won but they are in the ascendancy for sure. Armed mobs usually succeed eventually. As a white, male, former soldier and republican I have little to fear from them if they can keep the economy going. There is, however, the possibility that they will break the whole system and try to replace it with some libertarian or ANCAP foolishness. The US economy is very fragile, now more than ever. There is the very real possibility that the US will break into two or more heavily armed, nuclear powers.

So are you one of the Sovereign Citizen folks?

[The Resister]

Okay. Earlier you had talked about government slavery and completely ignored the slavery by private actors at the time. Now you seem to be claiming that both are wrong. Do you also agree that US individuals and companies were enslaving people at the time the DoI was written?



As a slaveowner, he personally deprived people of their unalienable rights to life and liberty. As a member of government, he passed laws and supported laws that supported slavery, thereby using government power to deprive people of unalienable rights.



This does not change the fact that Jefferson and his brethren were actively supporting (perfectly legal) rape farms.

Is rape a violation of unalienable rights?



Please bring up your next subject.

1) When the Declaration of Independence was written, most of the world was practicing slavery. What in the Hell is with this line of questioning that runs 180 degrees opposite of the truth AND you pretending that I said crap I wouldn't say if I were dog drunk? Is your position THAT fragile?

2) Jefferson did not write laws that promoted slavery and this damn well is NOT the thread for such a bizarre statement

3) NOBODY has an unalienable or any other kind of Right to rape. Again, what kind of nonsensical, idiotic line of questioning is this? Forget it. We need to move on.

[The Resister]

@The Resister You have good point addressing Drlee rude debating style, if he was constitutional guard he should behave at least in ff's humanistic spirit [1] btw they were freemasons thus BenjaminF had different god in mind , so any comparison with Christianity is at best joke!

next

1. Jesus never told Apostles to bare arms! but this is oftopic and open new thread so we can argue!

2. in my previous post I have suggested why Your good will cant find fertile ground in usA and You didnt respond ... You can just wish that anytime soon usA citizens will become truly free, on contrary what is in effect is system that will suit more totalitarian times ahead after any next economic depression ... so forget even on the current legal rights, which btw even now after the bush'patriotic'act are suspended in favor of "security" on what ex-nsa tech director Binney will say we have already in place 1984 on Steroids, so think You waste Your time effectively, first insure the current constitutional legal rights, and then after go for legalization of the natural rights from the declaration!

https://youtu.be/xF_VYNtDgN8

Yes, Jesus DID order his apostles to carry a sword, but it's a topic for another thread.

[Rancid]

If jesus were alive, he's be a socialist.

Dirty fucking commie.

[Unthinking Majority]

@The Resister

Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm trying to understand some of your arguments. Are you arguing that:

1. The rights in the 2nd amendment are unalienable, therefore the right to bear arms shall not be restricted by government in any way?

2. The 14th amendment was passed illegally, therefore should be repealed. Therefore, African-Americans should not have citizenship or the vote, or have equal civil and legal rights?

[Prosthetic Conscience]

1) When the Declaration of Independence was written, most of the world was practicing slavery. What in the Hell is with this line of questioning that runs 180 degrees opposite of the truth AND you pretending that I said crap I wouldn't say if I were dog drunk? Is your position THAT fragile?

2) Jefferson did not write laws that promoted slavery and this damn well is NOT the thread for such a bizarre statement

3) NOBODY has an unalienable or any other kind of Right to rape. Again, what kind of nonsensical, idiotic line of questioning is this? Forget it. We need to move on.

Your first 3 posts, of which you are so proud, are about " certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The slavery that the writers of the DoI allowed to continue, and in many cases practised, is direct evidence that they did not really regard liberty (and the pursuit of happiness, and in practice (and maybe in law too in some states) life) was "unalienable", since they regularly withheld it from people under their control. In 1776 Jefferson proposed that for Virginia, anyone born into slavery before 1800 should continue to be a slave. You quote Jefferson yourself in the hallowed first three posts, so it clearly is the thread for discussing Jefferson and his attitude to slavery. Whether most of the world was practising slavery is not the point; the DoI was the document claiming "unalienable rights", but the writers did nothing before or after to secure these rights for slaves. This indicates it is a deeply flawed document.

Did you seriously misread "is rape a violation of unalienable rights?" so badly that you thought it was talking about an "unalienable right to rape"? Or were you just typing something to make it look as if you've considered what someone said without actually doing so? Obviously, it was about the unalienable right to not be raped. Which most people would indeed class among the 'unalienable rights' these days, though the problems with laws that say a husband has the right to force his wife to have sex show that the idea of universally-agreed "unalienable rights" is not really a starter.

You really cannot ask people to move on from the topics you yourself introduced in the title and opening posts of this thread.

[Pants-of-dog]

1) When the Declaration of Independence was written, most of the world was practicing slavery. ....

Yes, this is true. Most of the world, including the newly formed USA, practiced chattel slavery. At the time, there only a few places that recognised a human right to liberty. Since this right only existed at certain times and in certain places, it is hard to argue that it is unalienable.

2) Jefferson did not write laws that promoted slavery .....

I never claimed he wrote the laws. I claimed that he supported them.

3) NOBODY has an unalienable or any other kind of Right to rape.
.....

It seems to be a matter of historical record that rape was perfectly legal in certain cases in the USA. Same goes for the Bible, actually! But that is not what we are discussing here.

I was wondering if rape was a violation of unalienable rights.

Do we have an unalienable right to not be raped? Yes or no?

[The Resister]

@The Resister You have good point addressing Drlee rude debating style, if he was constitutional guard he should behave at least in ff's humanistic spirit [1] btw they were freemasons thus BenjaminF had different god in mind , so any comparison with Christianity is at best joke!

next

1. Jesus never told Apostles to bare arms! but this is oftopic and open new thread so we can argue!

2. in my previous post I have suggested why Your good will cant find fertile ground in usA and You didnt respond ... You can just wish that anytime soon usA citizens will become truly free, on contrary what is in effect is system that will suit more totalitarian times ahead after any next economic depression ... so forget even on the current legal rights, which btw even now after the bush'patriotic'act are suspended in favor of "security" on what ex-nsa tech director Binney will say we have already in place 1984 on Steroids, so think You waste Your time effectively, first insure the current constitutional legal rights, and then after go for legalization of the natural rights from the declaration!

https://youtu.be/xF_VYNtDgN8

Yes Jesus DID tell the apostles to carry a sword - the same tool in Caesar's SWAT team. The balance of your post, well intended, went a bit over my head.

While some of the forefathers of this country IIRC it was 13 out of 39 as if the other people who had input AND it presumes that all Masons know what the real deal is. Most I've found to be extremely ignorant of the facts. See me in another thread.

[The Resister]

@The Resister

Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm trying to understand some of your arguments. Are you arguing that:

1. The rights in the 2nd amendment are unalienable, therefore the right to bear arms shall not be restricted by government in any way?

2. The 14th amendment was passed illegally, therefore should be repealed. Therefore, African-Americans should not have citizenship or the vote, or have equal civil and legal rights?

The earliest courts ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms is above the law. The FIRST United States Supreme Court holding agreed and said the "Right to keep and bear Arms is not a Right granted by the Constitution, NEITHER IS IT DEPENDENT UPON THAT INSTRUMENT FOR ITS EXISTENCE."

What language shall I put this in so that you understand that the original intent was YES to your question. What language do I have to put it in to get the point across that the only constitutional way to alter that holding is via an amendment to the Constitution? I've given the cites over and over; I've quoted the man who WROTE the Second Amendment; produced the words of the United States Supreme Court Justice he nominated to the bench to agree with the assessment. Have you bothered to actually READ this thread?

IF they repealed the 14th Amendment, I'm sure a lot of side issues would have to be decided. You cannot uncitizen those you've already naturalized. The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man acknowledges that the Constitution was breached and as far as I can tell, it's a relic from a bygone era since you cannot enforced a breached contract.

[The Resister]

Your first 3 posts, of which you are so proud, are about " certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The slavery that the writers of the DoI allowed to continue, and in many cases practised, is direct evidence that they did not really regard liberty (and the pursuit of happiness, and in practice (and maybe in law too in some states) life) was "unalienable", since they regularly withheld it from people under their control. In 1776 Jefferson proposed that for Virginia, anyone born into slavery before 1800 should continue to be a slave. You quote Jefferson yourself in the hallowed first three posts, so it clearly is the thread for discussing Jefferson and his attitude to slavery. Whether most of the world was practising slavery is not the point; the DoI was the document claiming "unalienable rights", but the writers did nothing before or after to secure these rights for slaves. This indicates it is a deeply flawed document.

Did you seriously misread "is rape a violation of unalienable rights?" so badly that you thought it was talking about an "unalienable right to rape"? Or were you just typing something to make it look as if you've considered what someone said without actually doing so? Obviously, it was about the unalienable right to not be raped. Which most people would indeed class among the 'unalienable rights' these days, though the problems with laws that say a husband has the right to force his wife to have sex show that the idea of universally-agreed "unalienable rights" is not really a starter.

You really cannot ask people to move on from the topics you yourself introduced in the title and opening posts of this thread.

I am no longer responding to people who misrepresent my positions.

[The Resister]

Nice try @The Resister Jesus did not tell his disciples to arm themselves. He busted Peter's ass for trying to defend Him with a sword. Jesus' message was unambiguous and direct. He was a pacifist of the first order. He spoke metaphorically very frequently. "Turn the other cheek" and all that.

But the thing is @The Resister the people you are supporting are going to win this battle. At the end of the day they may not be the people you wish had won but they are in the ascendancy for sure. Armed mobs usually succeed eventually. As a white, male, former soldier and republican I have little to fear from them if they can keep the economy going. There is, however, the possibility that they will break the whole system and try to replace it with some libertarian or ANCAP foolishness. The US economy is very fragile, now more than ever. There is the very real possibility that the US will break into two or more heavily armed, nuclear powers.

So are you one of the Sovereign Citizen folks?

HELL NO I AM NOT A SOVEREIGN CITIZEN AND YOU KNOW DAMN WELL I'M NOT. How many times do I have to repeat myself? I'm not a Democrat or Republican; left or right; conservative or liberal ... and I threw the Libertarian Party in for good measure. How many damn times do I have to tell you I am done with all the political B.S.? I don't wear ANYBODY'S political label?

Jesus ordered his apostles to arm themselves and we only looked at one scripture in the Bible. IF this were about that topic, I'd continue, but I am finished with your trolling.

[annatar1914]

@The Resister ;

The earliest courts ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms is above the law. The FIRST United States Supreme Court holding agreed and said the "Right to keep and bear Arms is not a Right granted by the Constitution, NEITHER IS IT DEPENDENT UPON THAT INSTRUMENT FOR ITS EXISTENCE."

However, you've forgotten the first half of the second Amendment, about the ''well organized Militia''. Therefore it stands to reason that the nature of that organization and therefore the armaments of and training of individual militia members are the proper object of government oversight and law.

What language shall I put this in so that you understand that the original intent was YES to your question. What language do I have to put it in to get the point across that the only constitutional way to alter that holding is via an amendment to the Constitution? I've given the cites over and over; I've quoted the man who WROTE the Second Amendment; produced the words of the United States Supreme Court Justice he nominated to the bench to agree with the assessment. Have you bothered to actually READ this thread?

IF they repealed the 14th Amendment, I'm sure a lot of side issues would have to be decided. You cannot uncitizen those you've already naturalized. The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man acknowledges that the Constitution was breached and as far as I can tell, it's a relic from a bygone era since you cannot enforced a breached contract.

So what is it you're proposing, a new Constitution in effect?

[The Resister]

@The Resister ;



However, you've forgotten the first half of the second Amendment, about the ''well organized Militia''. Therefore it stands to reason that the nature of that organization and therefore the armaments of and training of individual militia members are the proper object of government oversight and law.


So what is it you're proposing, a new Constitution in effect?

I'm not proposing anything other than people read, support, and sign the Charter and Declaration of the Rights of Man. Currently, like it or not we do not have a legitimate Constitution. Adding insult to injury, once the Electoral College is voted out, we will be a Socialist Democracy in violation of Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution. The Constitution will then officially be a bygone relic from times past. For now, I am focusing on our unalienable Rights.

As per gun control, how many times do I have to repeat the same stuff? The first three posts in this thread show the facts as ruled on by the courts. Have a problem with the wording of the Second Amendment? Let me repeat this for you. Check it out - fastest minute and half explanation you should ever need: