The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15182174
annatar1914 wrote:@The Resister , you are simply wrong. None of those initiatives were introduced, passed, or kept in place by self-identified ''democratic socialists'' or ''socialists''. You have presented no proof of that so far. It seems ''Socialism'' is some kind of ideological placeholder for you for any idea you don't like, instead of it's classical well defined definition.

Self identified Socialists try to implement the ownership of the means of economic production by the workers, anything else proposed (according to them) does not address the real issues or help the working people in any way.


Now you're being dishonest. Let's start here and educate you about socialism:



We can get your head screwed on right.
#15182180
The Resister wrote:Now you're being dishonest. Let's start here and educate you about socialism:



We can get your head screwed on right.


John Stoessel, the Libertarian? :lol:

America has had a long history of Libertarian types expanding ''Socialism'' and it's meaning into something like a synonym for ''Statism''. All are a bunch of drunken Anarchists, who have just enough sense to tell the public that they believe in some government-but when it gets down to the devil and the details, support for government evaporates among them. Damned Shithouse lawyers and yardbird legislators trying to run cons on ''the Man'' like the perpetually aggrieved professional victims they claim to despise . I got a video too;

#15182198
The Resister wrote:get your head screwed on right.

"IF truth is self evident"

If you read the article below, it's self-evident where your bullshit legal arguments and beliefs originate despite your denials.

A Legal Response to the Sovereign Citizen Movement

So,

Why do you think where you are coming from with this charter, irrelevant?

The FBI labels you a terrorist and your movement a domestic terrorist threat.


:)
#15182212
annatar1914 wrote:@The Resister , you are simply wrong. None of those initiatives were introduced, passed, or kept in place by self-identified ''democratic socialists'' or ''socialists''. You have presented no proof of that so far. It seems ''Socialism'' is some kind of ideological placeholder for you for any idea you don't like, instead of it's classical well defined definition.

Self identified Socialists try to implement the ownership of the means of economic production by the workers, anything else proposed (according to them) does not address the real issues or help the working people in any way.


What I said IS true. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you as you would do nothing but deny the facts. Deny, deny, deny, but never hold yourself accountable for what you believe in. More socialist myths exposed:



#15182217
The Resister wrote:the facts

Cooperative Capitalism...

Socialism is an economic and political system based on collective ownership of the means of production.

Cooperatives operating within the capitalist system are not socialist.

Workers labouring in such cooperatives are small capitalists.


:roll:
#15182223
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then you do not believe in the right to land that is advocated in the charter.

I find a lot of right wing libertarians think freedom and land is paramount, unless it is for women, Indigenous people, and non-whites.



You are contradicting yourself here.

Either they sold the land legally, or there is no way to determine what happened. You cannot simultaneously argue both unless you abandon logic.



I guess it was destiny that you pay income taxes and lose your rights to government then. Too bad for you.



Prove it. Where do you live? How was that land legally purchased or otherwise taken into US possession?



That depends. Why does this matter?



Sure, and since we are talking about groups like the Haudenosaunee (you would cal them Mohawks), the Lakota (aka the Sioux), and the Dene (i.e. Apache) who are still alive and still making land claims, we can say that we are not discussing the past but instead what is happening right now.



What part of the Constitution says we should keep depriving these people of their land rights?


I'm going to start ignoring these multi quote posts and pass them by just like the foreign guy that proclaims his love of communism. Pay attention:

If you have problems understanding the English language, you would be well advised to remain silent rather than to lie, misrepresent, and read into my replies statements I did not make. That's part ONE.

Now, continuing on, I have stated how the colonists came by the land. It was either purchased, fought for (because the land was not colonized and no real owner could be determined) and / or acquired because it was uninhabited. IF anyone had a claim to the land, they should have tried to litigate the matter when the matter was in dispute. IF such claims were made and the courts arrived at the wrong decision, you can always appeal. If not, too bad. You lose. That is why free people institute government.

What your problem is, you want to fit me into categories when you've been told, repeatedly, I'm not in those categories. Consequently, nothing I've posted on this board is inconsistent with The Charter, the law, or a Right to own private property. You are projecting out of fear and I'm getting bored out of having the same discussion. You ask questions, hoping for a "gotcha" answer; you are then outmaneuvered, and you get pissed off and make false allegations. I question your sanity. Damn you're stupid! Pay attention. When the colonists got ownership of the land, it was never ONE thing that happened. SOME OF THE LAND WAS NOT OCCUPIED; SOME OF THE LAND WAS NOT COLONIZED; SOME OF THE LAND WAS PURCHASED; SOME OF THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY RIGHT OF CONQUEST.

I want you to get the matter out of your eyes, put up that whiskey bottle and use your brain for five minutes. I live in the United States of America under the pretext that we have a constitutional form of government. In that document, the Constitution of the United States, are guaranteed Rights. The first of those Rights is that the federal government will guarantee to "every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." What that means, in plain English, is that the government will acknowledge and hold the Bill of Rights inviolate. The majority of voters cannot over-rule the unalienable Rights of the individual. That is what it means.

In practice, the government illegally and dishonestly passed the Fourteenth Amendment on the pretext that it gave blacks citizenship. In fact, every time an individual Right came under the gun, the SCOTUS attacked the Right and reduced it into a mere privilege. Sir, you can make your silly ass arguments all day long, but I live under a social contract with the entity that calls itself the United States government. That contract doesn't have shit to do with what happened under the rule of King George. So, whatever beef you have with me, my family, or my ancestors ends with the Declaration of Independence and 1776. Then, we did not have a functioning government until 1789. Most of the wars between Indians and settlers / colonists / subject of the Crown happened before we had a United States. At one point, the Indians joined the British to fight the colonists for control of the land. When they did that, they inadvertently acknowledged that they lost the war to the British - because if they had won, the British would be in control of the Indians. You can't blame me or my ancestors for that. Do you understand that?

The logic used by the colonists in coming here (i.e. to establish a New Jerusalem) may not be popular with you; however, America uses the same, identical justification to put the Palestinians out on their ass in the middle East on the erroneous presupposition that the old Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem are one and the same. Dude, I didn't write the freaking rules. My forefathers founded a nation, conceived in Liberty, and from that point, forward, we lived under the presupposition that man has unalienable Rights. I'm not going to waste day after day after day after day after day arguing it with you. The acknowledgement that man has unalienable Rights cannot be enforced from time immemorial throughout every country on the globe. When the Constitution was ratified, the guarantees were made to the Posterity of the framers of the Constitution.

The United States has no jurisdiction to force their views on other countries. But, we do go and fight for the Right of other people to be free and have the same Rights that we claim for our own. Insofar as the Right to property: Despite what the founders and framers intended, the powers that be never treated property as an unalienable Right, but rather as an inalienable right. Then again, when the courts started making distinctions between unalienable Rights and inalienable rights, they may have been looking for a balance. I cannot say. The purpose of The Charter is to force the government to make good on the guarantees per Article IV Section 4 and the Bill of Rights. If they don't, the people reserve the Right to alter or abolish that government and, as free people, we are not required to submit to a yoke of tyranny. The government has the POWER to enforce unconstitutional laws, but it does NOT have the AUTHORITY.

Dude, if you don't want to sign The Charter, don't. You cannot convince me not to sign or support it. Either way, we get a definitive answer. It's ridiculous to live under a form of government that is a daily lie; one wherein you have no Rights, just a piece of paper making promises that the political propaganda prostitutes in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption wipe their ass on before they flush the commode each day. The Charter is the standard procedure (at least in Anglo Saxon law) that establishes the bounds of government so that a free people can agree to be serfs OR take the discussion to a different level. I have a Right, according to the SCOTUS, to disobey unconstitutional laws. So, we give them a chance to uphold the law and if the government wants to be in breach of the contract, we cross that bridge when we get there.

Another of your multi quotes and we're done.
#15182225
Rancid wrote:I declare myself a sovereign citizen. Not subject to the laws of man, or even God.


Rancid, take a deep breath. I'm not a sovereign citizen. There is only one sovereign and his name is Yahweh. You don't have to believe in him (though I'm sure he believes in you). We are all subject to the laws of God. We live and one day we die and nobody can circumvent that inevitability. If you choose to disobey the Laws of God, then if he is real, you've bet eternity on stubbornness. IF you choose to do that, it is sheer folly; however, I pledge to do all I can to support you.

Man may have the power to force you to submit to a yoke of tyranny, but he lacks the authority. It is only when people define the limits whereby they will submit to rule and join together that we can enforce the unalienable Rights we presume every person to have.

I thought of something: A lot of these miseducated people, deriving their education from Google, actually believe the Sovereign Citizen deal to be the brainstorm of a white supremacist in 1970 or thereabouts. That is absolute B.S. So is the allegation that I oppose the illegally ratified Fourteenth Amendment on racial grounds. Sovereign Citizens most likely got most of their talking points from Howard Freeman. Freeman litigated the two classes of citizenship for YEARS preceding the alleged white supremacists starting a Sovereign Citizen movement - which is a half truth at best... especially considering that most Sovereign Citizens are black today.
#15182226
The Resister wrote:I have a Right, according to the SCOTUS, to disobey unconstitutional laws.

Wrong!

You have no right to decide what laws you will obey.

Only the courts can determine what is, or is not, lawful.


:lol:
#15182230
The Resister wrote:I'm going to start ignoring these multi quote posts and pass them by just like the foreign guy that proclaims his love of communism. Pay attention:

If you have problems understanding the English language, you would be well advised to remain silent rather than to lie, misrepresent, and read into my replies statements I did not make. That's part ONE.

Now, continuing on, I have stated how the colonists came by the land. It was either purchased, fought for (because the land was not colonized and no real owner could be determined) and / or acquired because it was uninhabited. IF anyone had a claim to the land, they should have tried to litigate the matter when the matter was in dispute. IF such claims were made and the courts arrived at the wrong decision, you can always appeal. If not, too bad. You lose. That is why free people institute government.

What your problem is, you want to fit me into categories when you've been told, repeatedly, I'm not in those categories. Consequently, nothing I've posted on this board is inconsistent with The Charter, the law, or a Right to own private property. You are projecting out of fear and I'm getting bored out of having the same discussion. You ask questions, hoping for a "gotcha" answer; you are then outmaneuvered, and you get pissed off and make false allegations. I question your sanity. Damn you're stupid! Pay attention. When the colonists got ownership of the land, it was never ONE thing that happened. SOME OF THE LAND WAS NOT OCCUPIED; SOME OF THE LAND WAS NOT COLONIZED; SOME OF THE LAND WAS PURCHASED; SOME OF THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY RIGHT OF CONQUEST.

I want you to get the matter out of your eyes, put up that whiskey bottle and use your brain for five minutes. I live in the United States of America under the pretext that we have a constitutional form of government. In that document, the Constitution of the United States, are guaranteed Rights. The first of those Rights is that the federal government will guarantee to "every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." What that means, in plain English, is that the government will acknowledge and hold the Bill of Rights inviolate. The majority of voters cannot over-rule the unalienable Rights of the individual. That is what it means.

In practice, the government illegally and dishonestly passed the Fourteenth Amendment on the pretext that it gave blacks citizenship. In fact, every time an individual Right came under the gun, the SCOTUS attacked the Right and reduced it into a mere privilege. Sir, you can make your silly ass arguments all day long, but I live under a social contract with the entity that calls itself the United States government. That contract doesn't have shit to do with what happened under the rule of King George. So, whatever beef you have with me, my family, or my ancestors ends with the Declaration of Independence and 1776. Then, we did not have a functioning government until 1789. Most of the wars between Indians and settlers / colonists / subject of the Crown happened before we had a United States. At one point, the Indians joined the British to fight the colonists for control of the land. When they did that, they inadvertently acknowledged that they lost the war to the British - because if they had won, the British would be in control of the Indians. You can't blame me or my ancestors for that. Do you understand that?

The logic used by the colonists in coming here (i.e. to establish a New Jerusalem) may not be popular with you; however, America uses the same, identical justification to put the Palestinians out on their ass in the middle East on the erroneous presupposition that the old Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem are one and the same. Dude, I didn't write the freaking rules. My forefathers founded a nation, conceived in Liberty, and from that point, forward, we lived under the presupposition that man has unalienable Rights. I'm not going to waste day after day after day after day after day arguing it with you. The acknowledgement that man has unalienable Rights cannot be enforced from time immemorial throughout every country on the globe. When the Constitution was ratified, the guarantees were made to the Posterity of the framers of the Constitution.

The United States has no jurisdiction to force their views on other countries. But, we do go and fight for the Right of other people to be free and have the same Rights that we claim for our own. Insofar as the Right to property: Despite what the founders and framers intended, the powers that be never treated property as an unalienable Right, but rather as an inalienable right. Then again, when the courts started making distinctions between unalienable Rights and inalienable rights, they may have been looking for a balance. I cannot say. The purpose of The Charter is to force the government to make good on the guarantees per Article IV Section 4 and the Bill of Rights. If they don't, the people reserve the Right to alter or abolish that government and, as free people, we are not required to submit to a yoke of tyranny. The government has the POWER to enforce unconstitutional laws, but it does NOT have the AUTHORITY.

Dude, if you don't want to sign The Charter, don't. You cannot convince me not to sign or support it. Either way, we get a definitive answer. It's ridiculous to live under a form of government that is a daily lie; one wherein you have no Rights, just a piece of paper making promises that the political propaganda prostitutes in Washington Wonderland, District of Corruption wipe their ass on before they flush the commode each day. The Charter is the standard procedure (at least in Anglo Saxon law) that establishes the bounds of government so that a free people can agree to be serfs OR take the discussion to a different level. I have a Right, according to the SCOTUS, to disobey unconstitutional laws. So, we give them a chance to uphold the law and if the government wants to be in breach of the contract, we cross that bridge when we get there.

Another of your multi quotes and we're done.


Again, where do you live?

How is the land you are living on right now not stolen by government?

And since this is the case, you personally are benefiting from having government steal land by force.

And you seem to have no problem with this.

Also, have you read the forum rules?
#15182231
ingliz wrote:Cooperative Capitalism...

Socialism is an economic and political system based on collective ownership of the means of production.

Cooperatives operating within the capitalist system are not socialist.

Workers labouring in such cooperatives are small capitalists.


:roll:


@ingliz , I was using the example of the cooperatives as a intellectual bridge for @The Resister to understand what Socialism is. Obviously if every economic business became a cooperative...
#15182234
The Resister wrote:What I said IS true. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you as you would do nothing but deny the facts. Deny, deny, deny, but never hold yourself accountable for what you believe in. More socialist myths exposed:





Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez is not a Socialist, but a Liberal. She does however have a great set of knockers.

Bernie Sanders is not a Socialist, but a FDR/Johnson style liberal.


Hugo Chavez and Maduro are not Socialists, even if they nationalized some aspects of their fossil fuel industry.

None of the people Stoessel talks about are Socialists, even if AOC thinks she might be (she also is a bartender who thinks she's a Congresswoman because she plays one on TV).

Again, all of this nonsense comes from a Libertardian conflation of Government action with ''Socialism''.
#15182235
The Resister wrote:Freeman litigated the two classes of citizenship for YEARS preceding the alleged white supremacists starting a Sovereign Citizen movement.

Howard is not a person; 'he' is a website.

And not being a person, he was incapable of litigating "the two classes of citizenship for YEARS preceding the alleged white supremacists starting a Sovereign Citizen movement."

The Two Classes of Citizenship theory is Richard McDonald's.


:lol:
#15182246
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, where do you live?

How is the land you are living on right now not stolen by government?

And since this is the case, you personally are benefiting from having government steal land by force.

And you seem to have no problem with this.

Also, have you read the forum rules?


Have you read the rules? I haven't benefitted off of anyone. I pay property taxes and literally over a thousand dollars a year goes to school taxes. I've never had a kid in school in this district. So, although I have a Deed, I'm like the rest of the King's subjects: renting the house I own from the government.

I've walked you through this three times. How many times do I have to repeat the same information? Asking a question a hundred times will only get you the same answer. The land I live on was gained through the cession of Creek Indian lands. Cession means that some formal government process took place and the Indians signed the land over.

Nothing I've posted suggests what you falsely claim? What is your point? Or do you really have one?
#15182247
annatar1914 wrote:Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez is not a Socialist, but a Liberal. She does however have a great set of knockers.

Bernie Sanders is not a Socialist, but a FDR/Johnson style liberal.


Hugo Chavez and Maduro are not Socialists, even if they nationalized some aspects of their fossil fuel industry.

None of the people Stoessel talks about are Socialists, even if AOC thinks she might be (she also is a bartender who thinks she's a Congresswoman because she plays one on TV).

Again, all of this nonsense comes from a Libertardian conflation of Government action with ''Socialism''.



https://www.vox.com/2015/11/19/9762028/ ... -socialism

According to Wikipedia:

" He (Bernie Sanders) is a self-described democratic socialist"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... ie_Sanders

If you watched the John Stossel video, he predicted your strategy and talking points verbatim. That's what you get for not watching the video.
#15182249
@The Resister ;

So, although I have a Deed, I'm like the rest of the King's subjects: renting the house I own from the government.


So you are aware of the reality, regardless if you think that it is a fiction. Or am I guessing too much, that you accept the idea that you do not-nor almost anyone else-has absolute rights to ''private property''?

I've walked you through this three times. How many times do I have to repeat the same information? Asking a question a hundred times will only get you the same answer. The land I live on was gained through the cession of Creek Indian lands. Cession means that some formal government process took place and the Indians signed the land over.


All property rests on injustice, on might, in it's origin. If one were to unravel it, one would no doubt ruin everything for everybody.
#15182251
@The Resister , you said about Bernie Sanders that;

https://www.vox.com/2015/11/19/9762028/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism

According to Wikipedia:

" He (Bernie Sanders) is a self-described democratic socialist"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political ... ie_Sanders


Bernie can say that he's a Socialist, but he isn't. Never seen him put forwards a Socialist bill in Congress, ever.

If you watched the John Stossel video, he predicted your strategy and talking points verbatim. That's what you get for not watching the video.


:roll:

I can predict every Libertarian rebuttal ever made to a Socialist;


''The Socialist will say that that isn't real Socialism, that real Socialism has never been tried, etc...''


Like I said, I am not looking for Utopia. Socialism is the socio-economic system where the working classes own the means of economic production in society, directly or held in trust by their political representatives. Some things might not be of more benefit to certain persons, but no economic system is. But I believe that it is the best for the common working people, the majority of people in a society. People might not get all they want-which is the case anyway-but they'll at least get pretty much what they need, to have a better existence.
#15182283
The Resister wrote:Have you read the rules? I haven't benefitted off of anyone. I pay property taxes and literally over a thousand dollars a year goes to school taxes. I've never had a kid in school in this district. So, although I have a Deed, I'm like the rest of the King's subjects: renting the house I own from the government.


The only reason why you can own land is because the government took the land of someone else without their consent.

The fact that you then pay taxes to support this system shows that your respect for property rights is inconsistent at best.

I've walked you through this three times. How many times do I have to repeat the same information? Asking a question a hundred times will only get you the same answer. The land I live on was gained through the cession of Creek Indian lands. Cession means that some formal government process took place and the Indians signed the land over.

Nothing I've posted suggests what you falsely claim? What is your point? Or do you really have one?


If you mean the Muscogee, then please note that the vast majority of those were forcibly removed from their land in what is called The Trail of Tears.

The Trail of Tears was what they called the ethnic cleansing of the land east of the Mississippi.

The lands were not signed over in some legal and consensual way.

And the Muscogee are still alive today, so the original landowners are still there and still think their land was taken without consent.

But you support the government that took the land without consent. This contradicts the charter you claim to support.
#15182291
annatar1914 wrote:@The Resister ;



So you are aware of the reality, regardless if you think that it is a fiction. Or am I guessing too much, that you accept the idea that you do not-nor almost anyone else-has absolute rights to ''private property''?



All property rests on injustice, on might, in it's origin. If one were to unravel it, one would no doubt ruin everything for everybody.


I want to ask you a serious question. It's not meant to be facetious or condescending. It is a legal / psychological question? Have you ever been evaluated by a psychologist or psychiatrist?

I've told you more than half a dozen times: unalienable Rights are a journey, not a destination. What is the mental block that keeps you from understanding that?

Second to that, I've told you many times, repeatedly, that I didn't write the rules. The way something is, simply is the way it is. Dude, all I can do is to work within the parameters of the system to get the outcome most favorable to what I believe in. Regardless of what the courts have decided, the founders and framers held private property Rights in high esteem. I will work to make those Rights as unalienable as possible. If you don't like that answer - I'm sorry for you.

How many times do you want the same answer? Nothing is perfect and certainly not you. I have an unalienable Right to life. The next guy has a Right to Life. If one of us encroaches on the Rights of the other and a loss of life occurs, how do you resolve the issue? Having the Right to Life doesn't mean you can't be killed. Where in the Hell do you really want to go with this childish interrogation? You are so insecure in your beliefs that you can't comprehend simple English and you insist on ascribing things to me that I haven't written. So, are you still beating your wife? Do you see how idiotic that garden variety of question is? It's in the same family of your troll bait. Grow up.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 11

Not even @wat0n denies that the IDF and Israeli […]

^ Wouldn't happen though, since the Israelis are n[…]

I was actually unaware :lol: Before he was […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Every accusation is a confession Why sexual v[…]