New Meth Just for kids (Page 18/25)
84Bill MAY 28, 07:32 PM

quote
Originally posted by Fastback 86:
The quote changes nothing. We're still not having the same argument, Bill. You're arguing principle against my facts.



As I maintained from the begining, I am a free man. If you wish to bow down and kiss your masters hand then feel free.. I have merely chosen otherwise. All I'm asking from here is that you mute yourself and continue doing just that. This will allow me to do what I need to do without incuring ridicule that serves a hollow and needless purpose. Anyone can be a slave.

I suppose I could ingore you but how can it be possible to ignore an ankle nippin lap dog? Far easier for a trained puppy to do so... on command.


One question is raised...
What is "your" purpose in arguing this with me?

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-28-2007).]

84Bill MAY 29, 04:33 PM
A fragment of "Old Glory"

The supreme art replaced by superior artifice eagerly avails itself to individual’s caring only to themselves in their own right and entitlement; slap back the hand of those who seek remedy rather than offer it; forsaking a great gift to none other than they who are less deserving. Cloaking themselves in material trappings and lavishing in splendorous extravagance they call it home; furnished with envy they bow to a specious leafy god and mock all those who refuse such trivialities as excessive. Harboring and manifesting seething hatred they project it through miles of earth and ether with crystal clarity and ghastly ferocity. The black charlatans, purveyors of lies and deceit alike prey upon the unwary and exploit their victim’s weakness for their own benefit or mere amusement
Fastback 86 MAY 29, 07:07 PM

quote
Originally posted by 84Bill:


As I maintained from the begining, I am a free man. If you wish to bow down and kiss your masters hand then feel free.. I have merely chosen otherwise. All I'm asking from here is that you mute yourself and continue doing just that. This will allow me to do what I need to do without incuring ridicule that serves a hollow and needless purpose. Anyone can be a slave.

I suppose I could ingore you but how can it be possible to ignore an ankle nippin lap dog? Far easier for a trained puppy to do so... on command.


One question is raised...
What is "your" purpose in arguing this with me?




If you truly believe you are free as you define it, you're delusional. You're only as free as you think you are until the day that you make enough noise that some authority notices you. Then, you will be a prisoner in the freest (if thats a word) country on Earth, because you openly broke the laws of said country. And once again, all your principle will mean exactly nil in the face of simple facts. Feel free to tell the Judge all about your personal interpretation of the Constitution, I'm sure he/she will be very receptive. If you truly wish to be as free as you think you are, I suggest you find a nice, secluded spot in the middle of the wilderness where no one will bother you, because so long as you are a part of our system of government (i.e. one of the governed), you will be subject to our laws, whether you personally agree with them or not.

To answer your question, my purpose in arguing this with you was to do exactly what you want from me: to mute you. I must've suffered a severe lapse in memory to think that I could accomplish this, as you must have.
84Bill MAY 29, 07:27 PM
And thats my point..
Violations of Constitutional rights are supposed to be MENDED by law, not cause injury to them. Proving the point that the system of "justice" has been (over time slowly) corrupted, erroding away more and more freedoms.


quote

Feel free to tell the Judge all about your personal interpretation of the Constitution, I'm sure he/she will be very receptive.




quote

Then, you will be a prisoner in the freest (if thats a word) country on Earth, because you openly broke the laws of said country.



So tha means I MUST lay down at my masters feet simply because it is the "freest" country "on earth" (which is subject to even more of a morass of opinion than I care to waste my time on) means that I can not want for more... or even attempt to take back what was once enjoied by our previous countrymen?

I feel if you want to heel to your masters will you are free but that does not mean that I should be FORECED to (bound, have freedom restricted); just becasue you or some dude in a nightgown says so.


Let me ask you something that is more direct instead of sinking into the morass of poinless accusations and justifications for oppression and usurptations of justice and rights.

Should people be FREE or should they be BOUND to something?

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-29-2007).]

84Bill MAY 29, 07:43 PM
Sig test


The supreme art (the Constitution) replaced by superior artifice (the law) eagerly avails itself to individual’s caring only to themselves in their own right and entitlement;

In other words.. no one cares about the constitution or another citizens rights.

------------------
Even the dimmest of bulbs sheds light.

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-29-2007).]

Fastback 86 MAY 29, 09:16 PM
Freedom requires responsibility. Otherwise, its just anarchy.
84Bill MAY 29, 09:25 PM
Anarchy is mob rule or rather an unruly mob.. without rules there is no such thing as unruly or even anarchy because anarchy is a state of society without government or law.

My opinion we have too much of both but only need one.
"It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all." --Thomas Jefferson


quote
Originally posted by Fastback 86:

Freedom requires responsibility. Otherwise, its just anarchy.



Again I dont want to sink into a morass of semantics.

Again the question.

Do you feel people should be FREE or BOUND to something?

And if you want to go a step further and split a hair then okay.. answer thiese questions

YOU are FREE to be BOUND to law like lap dog resting at his masters feet..
What recourse do I have? What remedies are available to me? What protections do I have from YOUR master?

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-29-2007).]

Fastback 86 MAY 29, 10:14 PM
You're vastly oversimplifying and you don't need me to point that out to you. There is an enormous difference between being free (by your definition) and acting like a subservient puppy at the master's feet. Neither analogy works in real government. Complete oppression fails because some will always choose not to be completely subservient and cause unrest. The simple remedy is to do like China and give those who would cause the most problems more freedoms in exchange for compliance. On the other hand, complete anarchy (which is the absence of laws and government, not mob rule) also fails because needed services are no longer available. Mob rule happens because of anarchy, because people are trying to create some kind of order in their environment.

Point is, in order to have a functioning society where we can be as free as possible, we have to agree to some limitations. If no one is held accountable for their actions, society fails. If not everyone contributes, and as such, some people are nothing but a burden to society, society fails. So far, democracy seems to be the best way to meet both needs.

Lessons on basic political theory aside, I'll answer your question as well as it can be, considering its oversimplifications.

People should be free to chose, and must live with the consequences of thier choice. And the consequences are simple: If you choose to be free (and therefore not bound by the laws of the society), then you give up any benefits that the society has to offer. If you choose to be bound, you agree to follow the society's laws in exchange for its benefits.

The problem, for you Bill, is that you don't have the option not to be bound any more. Every square millimeter of this planet has been claimed by a government of one form or another. Like it or not, you alone do not have the power to dispute an entire government. There is nowhere you can where you will be completely free of any "master." The closest you can come would be a desert island somewhere, or one of the poles, but best of luck living there, they're a little short on resources. Your only option then is to decide which government you can compromise with the best, because wherever you go, you're going to be bound by some government's laws. You might be able to hide out in a remote village for a while, but sooner or later, you'll have to deal with it.

So, given that all the governments and thier borders are already well established, you're going to have to decide which one you can work with best. Theres a process for effecting change in any government, but they're all different. Pick the one you like best and run with it. Fact of the matter is, anywhere you go, there'll be some kind of "master" over you. Get far enough away and you may only rarely have to deal with said "master" or its minions, but they'll still be there. The USA works best for me. Pick one that works for you and either effect the change or stop complaining to people who don't care about something you're not willing to put any real effort into.
84Bill MAY 29, 10:49 PM

quote
Originally posted by Fastback 86:
You're vastly oversimplifying and you don't need me to point that out to you. There is an enormous difference between being free (by your definition) and acting like a subservient puppy at the master's feet. Neither analogy works in real government. Complete oppression fails because some will always choose not to be completely subservient and cause unrest. The simple remedy is to do like China and give those who would cause the most problems more freedoms in exchange for compliance. On the other hand, complete anarchy (which is the absence of laws and government, not mob rule) also fails because needed services are no longer available. Mob rule happens because of anarchy, because people are trying to create some kind of order in their environment.



That is an over exaggeration based on a simple premice.

Anarchy IS difined as a society eithout government OR law.

We have both and we need only one. OUR country (freedom) was based on this SCRAP of now useless paper


quote

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,



Penned by Thomas Jefferson who also wrote

"It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all."
AND

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Thomas Jefferson


quote

Point is, in order to have a functioning society where we can be as free as possible, we have to agree to some limitations. If no one is held accountable for their actions, society fails. If not everyone contributes, and as such, some people are nothing but a burden to society, society fails. So far, democracy seems to be the best way to meet both needs.



Thomas Jefferson also made warnings that the government would USE the peoples ignorance againt themselves. Due LARGELY to a lack of undertsanding responsibility.. which laws help create more of .


quote

Lessons on basic political theory aside, I'll answer your question as well as it can be, considering its oversimplifications.



Laws are bassed on definitions and here is the definition of freedom


quote

free·dom /ˈfridəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[free-duhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial.
2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.
3. the power to determine action without restraint.
4. political or national independence.
5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
6. exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually fol. by from): freedom from fear.
7. the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc.
8. ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country.
9. frankness of manner or speech.
10. general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation.
11. the absence of ceremony or reserve.
12. a liberty taken.
13. a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation: freedom to levy taxes.
14. civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.
15. the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like.
16. the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will: to have the freedom of a friend's library.
17. Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination. Compare necessity (def. 7).



Now argue the "over simplification of freedom.. it's simple.. free is just that free from being bound.


You are FREE to be a slave to laws but what if I DO NOT WANT TO BE A SLAVE to it?

It's fine for you to be one but I do not wish to be.. I want to be a free man.


quote

People should be free to chose, and must live with the consequences of thier choice. And the consequences are simple: If you choose to be free (and therefore not bound by the laws of the society), then you give up any benefits that the society has to offer. If you choose to be bound, you agree to follow the society's laws in exchange for its benefits.



Laws are REMEDIES for injury not arbetrary decrees handed down to all subjected.

The BALANCE
The constitution and rights are balanced by laws and laws are BALANCED by rights.. thats where the "blind scales of justice" came from.

Individual rights must always take precidence over laws thats why the Constitution is so valuable to FREEDOM.

laws when administered without arbitration or consideration to rights are UN-Constitutional becasue they leave no recourse, it effectivly removes rights with no possibility of being protected.

As I argued with pokey. When I stand before a judge my rights are NO EVEN CONSIDERED and this is a corruption of the judicial system and a blatent disregard for the rights of the accused.

There must be
1. Injury to person or property (the rights we all share)
2. That person must stand witness against the accused. (the rights of both the accused and the injured)
3. Evidence to injury must be presented. (to support the violation of another rights)

Thats LAW with recourse

That is what "the BLIND scales of justice" mean. RIGHTS of the ACCUSED VS RIGHTS of the ACCUSOR.

Law makes that distinction possible

BUT
What we have is totalitatin law. Laws over rule RIGHTS to smoke pot, own a gun, have an abortion and that is why they are called UN-Constitutional.

1. Law is reviewed (without regard to rights) .
2. Evidence is presented to prove the breaking of it. (without regard to rights)
3. The level of culpibility is determines and sentensing is passed. (without regard to rights)



quote

The problem, for you Bill, is that you don't have the option not to be bound any more.



Which makes me what?

A slave to laws or rather to YOUR laws but not to MY laws becasue I do not subscribe to slavery.. I do not want to be a Slave living in a "free" country because that is a PARADOX.


My laws go like this.. If you dont want to listen to Stern swearing.. change the channel. (preserving the rights for other to listen)
If you dont like methamphetimines... dont do them (preserving the rights for others to do them)
If you dont like the color RED on your new care pick WHITE (preserving the rights for others who like red)


It's that simple..

Now the question AGAIN...

Yes or No
Do you feel people should be free or do you feel they should be bound to something? IE a slave to <insert rule here>.

I'll give you another out and this time you can pick either one with a yes or no.


1. Do you feel that people have rights? Y or N

2. Should rights be replaced with laws and privilages to be revoked at any time, place or reason? Y or N

3. Was the fight for freedom a lie? Y or N

4. Was the constitution designed with NO balance in law? Y or N

5. Was the government formed without balance? Y or N

6. Is the country now totalitarin? Y or N

[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-30-2007).]

Fastback 86 MAY 29, 10:56 PM
There you go again. You're arguing principle and political theory to my simple facts. I'm trying to be realistic with you, Bill. The world is not perfect. Your personal rights are going to be infringed upon from time to time. Complaining about how thats not how it should be is a waste of time. Be proactive. Because, at the end of the day, you're still living in America under America's laws. Change them or live with them, because complaining accomplishes nothing.

I'm not going to play your "yes or no" game, Bill, because you're framing the questions to suit your argument.