Super Bowl LI

sbliIt’s Super Bowl weekend and it’s time for predictions for those who care.  In addition, let the debates continue.

teams

Advertisements

Comments

  1. gmanfortruth says:

    I have stayed away from all the hoopla surrounding the Super Bowl this year. What I do think is this should be a good, close game, in the end, I’ll take the Falcons 25-23 with a last minute field goal.

  2. gmanfortruth says:

    The left-wing group that helped organize the violent shut down of the Milo Yiannopoulos event at the University of California, Berkeley on Wednesday is backed by a progressive charity that is in turn funded by George Soros, the city of Tucson, a major labor union and several large companies.

    The Alliance for Global Justice, based in Tucson, is listed as an organizer and fiscal sponsor for Refuse Fascism, a communist group that encouraged left-wingers to shut down the Yiannopoulos event.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/03/look-who-funds-the-group-behind-the-call-to-arms-at-milos-berkeley-event/#ixzz4XivLc6mL

  3. gmanfortruth says:
  4. gmanfortruth says:

    Brought forward from D13:

    You and I disagree, Gman, on a variety of things. I disagree with Mathius and Buck and even JAC on some things. Anita and I disagree on some things….Hell, I even argue with myself. But what a great place to be….a place where we can disagree and talk and try to change things or convince others….even our government…… and not end up in chains or prison…..or placed against the wall and shot.

    Quite true Colonel, quite true. Elisheba don’t bother me in the least. Actually he has been quite revealing and informative about his Utopia of peace, which isn’t anything more than a group think cult. Cults haven’t exactly all ended so well over the years, weather they commit mass suicide or get burned alive by the Fed’s, the end isn’t a fun thought.

    It sure seems like the discussions will be plenty for quite some time, the Communist’s are coming out of the woodwork.

  5. “No, he is not a left winger……and he is not a progressive……he is an anarchist that has no allegiance to anything but himself.”

    My allegiance is to those who have been good to me, my tribe if you will. But it is not to any criminal organization.

    “He belongs with the hooded, black clad paid anarchists that are trying to suppress free speech.”

    I am not one of them, and will argue they are not authentic anarchists.

    “Actually, Elisheba, entertains me with his position and diatribe.”

    That means you are probably too stupid to appreciate it.

    “To Elisheba, I am a statist military murderer that works for the state that, in his opinion….. is a pariah.”

    That is fairly accurate. And to note; I take that perspective with the experience of being prior ‘service’.

    “I am a Colonel in the United States Military and proud of my accomplishments…..I did so voluntariy and not as a draftee. I volunteered for the military during Vietnam and decided to stay in the military afterwards. I have been to Kuwait, Bosnia, and Afghanistan all in military roles both as an active duty and reserve officer beginning my career as an E-1…..making $90 per month. I was not sent to Kuwait, I volunteered. I was not sent to Bosnia, I volunteered, I was not sent to Afghanistan, I volunteered. So that, in his book, makes me even worse. A mercenary.”

    I am nominally familiar with your resume, Colonel. I volunteered too, and operated in one of those theaters you mentioned. You are proud of being a terrorist baby killer. I’m not. That is because I realize how wrong I was.

    “In between reserve military assignments, I learned the family business. I have run corporations..not the big ones mind you but the smaller family owned corporations. The most employees that I have been in charge of was 350. We are involved in trucking, ranching, and oil and gas.”

    And?

    ” I paid my taxes, according to the law and the rules and regulations. I may not have liked it but I do it…….we are a nation of laws, or supposed to be.”

    You have been being ripped off for most of your life, enslaved to bankers, along with your progeny for several generations. You are supporting a system that literally spends your legacy as currency, to pay for all the evil that you and your government does.

    “I utilized the tax code to my advantage, whenever possible, to avoid whatever taxes that I could legally.”

    You negotiate with your masters who violate you. You negotiate your serfdom.

    “I utilize my right, and it is a right and privilege, to vote and try to change the things that I do not like.”

    You have absolutely no right whatsoever to vote for government. Voting is a criminal act. If your government only applied to willing members or did not forcefully regulate or criminalize nonviolent behavior, it may be different. But it is criminal and you are a terrorist because you vote.

    Stop voting.

    ” I try to work within the system that we have as much as possible….to change it and I do not violate the law. Some call that cowardice and some call it prudent. ”

    I call it stupid, futile.

    “But that still makes me a pariah and a part of the problem…according the the anarchists.”

    Correct. You are indeed very much part of the problem. You helped create the shit-hole we know as modern day life on earth.

    I did too. But I changed. So can you. You don’t have to be evil, Colonel.

    “You and I disagree, Gman, on a variety of things. I disagree with Mathius and Buck and even JAC on some things. Anita and I disagree on some things….Hell, I even argue with myself. But what a great place to be….a place where we can disagree and talk and try to change things or convince others….even our government…… and not end up in chains or prison…..or placed against the wall and shot.”

    It is a police state shit-hole, like the other police state shit-holes. You have a right to say whatever you want, regardless of what any government thinks about it. You have a right to defend against anyone who tries to violate that or any other right, including governments.

    You act as if being a human being is something granted by government. That is ignorant as hell. What law was signed to bring you into this world, Colonel?

    “I have been around this world to a greater extent than most. I have seen Africa, Europe, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Mexico, and Central and South America. I have been to Australia. I wager that I have seen the realities of the world to a greater extent than most…..and most certainly Elisheba. I can tell by his answers.”

    I have traveled plenty. It doesn’t change anything. Government is still criminal, all of them.

    “So, in his mind, if I am a Nazi. I accept it. If I am a statist, I accept it. If I am a communist, I accept it. If I am a fascist, I accept it. I know who I am and I know what I am and that is all that matters.”

    You are a criminal and terrorist.

    “He may think whatever he wants and he may state whatever he wants and take his lumps……..he can do all of that……. courtesy of the United States Armed Forces. Do not let him bother you.”

    Are you fuking kidding me? The US military is nothing but destructive murdering thugs for bankers and contractors, and are not to be credited with anything concerning my rights.

    They are guardians of evil, protectors of your shit-hole state.

  6. gmanfortruth says:

    Dean sided with the rioters, telling the president to “get used to it.”

    “These are the generation that will soon run America. They are not thugs and they oppose hate. They are our children. Get used to it,” he tweeted.

    http://personalliberty.com/howard-dean-rioters-will-soon-run-americayeaaaa/

    • Many million of people are being forced to be represented by someone who is completely antithetical to their ideas and culture. That is inherent with representative government as all people cannot be represented simultaneously.

      If there were no government, they wouldn’t need to protest because they could live how they want, and not how half the statist criminals/terrorists forcefully demand of them.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        If there were no government, they wouldn’t need to protest because they could live how they want,

        They would simply choose another government to enforce living as they choose. That probably never dawned on you.

        • They could.

          But if they didn’t, it would allow people to live how they choose.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            If??

            If frogs had wings they wouldn’t drag their ass when they hop.

            • Yes “if”. Do you know what they are going to do?

              And this is about the difference between violence or minding your own business.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        These protesters weren’t protesting when their gang was in charge, which is a CLEAR sign that they WANT government.

        • Whatever, …but if they weren’t being forced to be represented by someone who is completely antithetical to them, they wouldn’t need to protest.

          That is inherent with representative government because not everyone can be represented simultaneously. Someone is always being forced to do what someone else says. Someone always loses with statism.

          If indeed they are statists, then it changes nothing about the principle nature of the state. The state is still a system whereby some are forced to do and be as others dictate.

          Without statism, that problem doesn’t exist. People who try to boss others around with weapons end up shot instead.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Without statism, that problem doesn’t exist. People who try to boss others around with weapons end up shot instead.

            Which means you will be shot as well. You obviously can’t see that you really aren’t any different than the Communist rioters.

            • Where do you come up with these nonsensical responses? I point out the inherent nature of government and it’s inability to represent. You come up with everything but address my statement.

              Your accusation of communism is quite ignorant. Do you even know the difference between Communism and Anarchy?

              Communism is a system whereby resources and arbitration are given to a centralized authority. Anarchy is basically any system that is voluntary.

              While you can have both, they are not the same.

              And if you want to get technical, I can argue that you are the one who advocates communism with your state centralized authority, while I argue for liberty.

              Who is the communist, statist?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                My point is that the Communist’s are trying to force their chosen way of life upon others through intimidation, shame and force. You have expressed those same actions, attempted intimidation and shame and stated you are willing to use force. The end result of both of you…..living under a desired set of rules different than the current ones. You clan will be no different than any other clan in human history…..rules will be enforced because the cult mentality will only last a short time. Human history is not on your side and you can’t make humans act like obedient dogs.

              • Thank you for clarifying.

                “My point is that the Communist’s are trying to force their chosen way of life upon others through intimidation, shame and force. You have expressed those same actions, attempted intimidation and shame and stated you are willing to use force.”

                I don’t so much mean to be intimidating per se’. Although I do understand my zeal when it comes to my rights.

                Shame? Oh yes, absolutely. Statism is something to be ashamed of. While I may be a bit abrasive and critical, understand that I do so with the full awareness and constant reminder of what a piece of shit that I am. I am not trying to judge. It isn’t about my ego or me looking down onto others. It is about keeping it real. Statism is evil, criminal and terroristic. And I am not going to spare feelings of those who force it onto me in my home.

                If I advocate the use of force, it is defense and because I see a clear sound reasoning and justification.

                “The end result of both of you…..living under a desired set of rules different than the current ones. You clan will be no different than any other clan in human history…..rules will be enforced because the cult mentality will only last a short time. Human history is not on your side and you can’t make humans act like obedient dogs.”

                Where do you get such nonsense, G? How do you figure anarchists demand government?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                How do you figure anarchists demand government?

                They don’t demand government at all, they demand people believe in Fairy land.

              • We anarchists simply want to rule ourselves, and know our way is better because the answer is a universal win/win. You don’t have to live our way, but we will gladly show you how as to help you live better. But we are not subject to anyone or anything we are not responsible for, and will not accept being forced to live your way either.

                What you are calling a fairy tale is god’s reality. Reality is that humans are individuals with independent minds thoughts and ideas of our very own, masters of ourselves with inalienable free will.

                Statists faux world says everyone is the same, hence things like a presiturd representing a whole when only a third agree with it. Presiturds ain’t real.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                We anarchists simply want to rule ourselves,

                Like I said, no different than the Communist’s, because they know their way is better too, as did the German Nazi’s, The Japanese etc. You are free to find a place to live as you wish, but you are not free to demand others bow to your demanded lifestyle, no more than the Communist’s do. But to give you some credit, you have at least proven that Anarchists really aren’t the peace and love people they claim. They are a cult trying to find their fairy land, one that will never exist. Human nature will never allow it.

              • You argue that freedom is slavery (sound familiar?), and that it is better to be ruled over. You ridicule reality. You also argue in contrast to yourself.

                We anarchists simply want to rule ourselves <—- Self rulership, freedom, reality
                Communists, Nazis, Japanese, etc. <—- Tyrant criminals, slavery, faux world paper and guns BS

                It's not the same thing.

                "You are free to find a place to live as you wish, but you are not free to demand others bow to your demanded lifestyle, no more than the Communist’s do."

                Exactly. That's my whole point, the whole premise of Anarchy; NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO VIOLATE, NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO ORGANIZE TO BOSS OTHERS AROUND WITH A GUN.

                "No rulers" – get it?

                "But to give you some credit, you have at least proven that Anarchists really aren’t the peace and love people they claim."

                How can you even make that statement when you are still apparently trying to grasp things like free will, offense/defense, rights, force/violence, etc?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                We are mammals. There will ALWAYS be a hierarchy within our clans, period. You think you can change the nature of a class of species that will never change. While you and those that think like you are well meaning, your fairy land can never exist, it is simply not natural.

              • We are individuals. We have always been and always will be.

                You think you can ride a spaceship to Uranus before trying to feed a horse to a plant on the other side of the universe. Your argument is nonsensical. Your position that rocks can talk and fly is simply not natural.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Nonsense, we are the human species and are tribal by nature. It’s time for you to deal with reality.

              • It is time for you to think. You are using fiction as the premise of your ill-thought arguments.

                Tribal doesn’t require or mean violence. Tribalism is about organizing for mutual need or gain. That’s how it started and always will be. That is our nature.

                You skew that to include or need to force opinions, to impose tyranny upon others. Yet when I apply your arguments to you, they are rejected?

                If I write on paper and say magic words and all that BS, then call your daughter’s hoe my revenue and decide to prostitute her by force with a gun, then tell you that it is tribalism and just how it is, to get over it and STFU, what will you say then?

                Because that is what you do to others when you vote, you ho out their children to pay for your wars and walls and evil, etc etc etc…

                Is it wrong or right Gman? Why? How so?

  7. 100th Anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution coming up. Wait till October!

  8. Re; Killing statists

    The argument of killing statists in defense is lock tight and sound, completely just. Statism is nothing but violence, which everyone has a right to defense against. It is that simple and can be argued until everyone else is blue in the face.

    But it isn’t really about wanting to kill statists or anyone. It is about making you think, breaking you from that brainwashed rationalized faux world reality that tells you your terrorism is acceptable ethical and rightful, necessary or whatever other BS.

    It is an opportunity to use various aspects of basic human psychology, values and principle, to make a point about reality.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Radical Islamacists say the EXACT SAME THING! They just use a different bullshit excuse to force others into their web of lies and control. Your no different than Hitler with this mentality.

      • Not really. They are more like statists, using their religion as an excuse to violate.

        We anarchists do not argue in favor of violence. We do argue in favor of the right to defense. The right to defense applies to any and all who attempt to violate rights. It also includes restitution.

        You are seriously mixed up in your definitions, Gman.

        You are the Nazi, remember? You and your statists friends here are the ones arguing how rightful legitimate civilized and natural it is to force people to do whatever you want them to do/be.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          You are the Nazi, remember? You and your statists friends here are the ones arguing how rightful legitimate civilized and natural it is to force people to do whatever you want them to do/be.

          Hence the destruction of your ideology. You label people, a human trait that you cannot contain. Your desired world is fairly land. Thank You for proving my point.

          • Get back on point Gman. Stop obfuscating with bullshit.

            Killing statists is rightful as an act of defense. To engage this as a debate is to conclude you are a terrorist, thus conceding, ..or to legitimize your violence, which argues that you are subject to my rightful legitimate violence against you.

            That is unacceptable, which only leads back to you are a terrorist criminal and need to stop.

          • Gman…..please do me a favor…and drop this.

            Now on to the Super Bowl……….I might watch it…..not sure. I heard an interesting interview today….entitled…”Houston, you have a problem….The Dallas Cowboys are not playing.” It pertained to the fact that the Super Bowl is yet to be sold out….that is to say that there are tickets available and the price is dropping. The second time this has happened with the Patriots in the big game. The $600 per night hotel rooms are dropping their prices. The “ticket” cartels that bought huge blocks of tickets and trying to sell lodging, transportation, and party packages are talking about having to break out the tickets and sell them individually. I did not catch the name, but someone on the super bowl committee is trying to arrange for corporations to buy up the blocks to keep prices high.

            Very intersting interview.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Just trying to save a lost soul…..:)

            • Colonel,

              You know that when you vote or otherwise support the government, it gives non-statists the right to kill you in defense, right?

              That means anyone who doesn’t vote has a right to pick you off at will, and according to either reality and inalienable rights, or your own terms and conditions that legitimize all forms of violence.

              If you can organize and make up a bunch of BS to violate everyone as is convenient to your wants/needs, then they can use the same BS to argue legitimacy of violating you as is convenient to their wants/needs.

              You don’t like that, do you?

              What about those who are subject to your violence? Do you think they like it? Do they drop bombs on your home and call it freedom?

            • Couldn’t have anything to do with the yearlong ‘take a knee’ problem, or the conservative ‘boycott’…nah…blame it on the Patriots. (not you Colonel, the interview you referenced.)

              • You are subject to the right to defense also, Anita.

                You are acting criminally when you vote, as voting is demand and support of violence against everyone in a specified geographical area.

                I would argue, however, that it isn’t ethical without first confirming you are aware of your crimes, which you have done. “badge of honor” I think were your words. Not only do you openly admit to being a terrorist, but are actually proud of your violence.

                You shouldn’t vote. It is unethical and criminal, just plain wrong.

              • Anita….they are hitting the panic button…..tho. Some of the hotels are not full….cars have not been rented….restaurants ordered lots of food……very interesting.

              • But in case you are wondering……I view the Patriots in football the same as I view the Yankees in baseball…….anyone but them.

              • Charlie Stella used to call them the Cheatriots.
                There are always beggars to fill up squares for the Super Bowl. I haven’t had a single person ask yet.
                Bet there will be some cheap 5 star dinners available tomorrow.

              • If they vote, they are also subject to the right to defense, as they are also criminals and terrorists.

                Just because they play football doesn’t give them the right to violate.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Credit where it’s due, the Patriots have a great organization. I’m a Dolphins fan, so it’s easy to see how I view the Patriots…enemies.

                As Anita says, the kneeling stuff should have never been tolerated, do that crap on private time, when at work act appropriately. The NFL set a bad example and people are sitting at home.

                Still hoping for a good game… and a break from all the politics.

              • Why shouldn’t the kneeling be tolerated? Who does it harm?

                What is wrong with very tastefully protesting an army of men in funny clothes who kill people for harming no one, for driving walking or breathing while black?

                The pigs are the ones who shouldn’t be tolerated. Voters/criminals/terrorists are the ones who shouldn’t be tolerated.

                And WTF is a statist ceremony doing at a commercial event anyway? Or is that okay because you serfs have your government-god regulate sports too?

  9. Just A Citizen says:

    I heard the dumbest argument yet by a Democratic lawyer making the case for why we are “morally obligated” to take in refugees from the Middle East.

    It was along the lines these people are over there dying for us, helping us fight ISIS and Al Quiada. On and on this guy went repeating this over and over. “They are fighting and dying for us”.

    Wife and I looked at each other and at the same time said “aren’t we over there supposedly fighting for them”?

    At least that is what our leaders have been telling us. We are liberating them from the radical grip of despotism. Destroying the Islamic Jihad is just a side benefit.

    I wonder if this guy, supposedly a vet of the ME, understood what he was saying, and if those in the ME agree with him.

    Are the Iraqi soldiers now fighting ISIS for the USA? Or are they trying to rid their country of this vermin?

    This was one of the ACLU attorneys suing to have Trump’s MORATORIUM overturned by the courts.

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    Attended another meeting with elected State Senator on health and welfare issues today.

    Some of my fellow citizens were calling for Govt. to prohibit pharmaceuticals and hospitals from advertising. One woman said she was offended by it every time she visited the hospital. Now, you ready for it. They claimed that advertising costs money and that is contributing to the high cost of drugs.

    And this from people living in Red State Idaho. Although our resident population is pretty heavy to recent California immigrants.

    Worst yet, when asked for a show of hands by those who want Single Payer health insurance, over half raised their hands. Then one of them asked the Senator what the legislature could do to bring more insurance companies to Idaho. In hopes of creating competition and driving down costs.

    The ignorance is almost breath taking. I am starting to think becoming a prepper and just leaving these rats to drown in their own stupidity.

    Private discussion with the Senator afterwards revealed she had a handle on reality and many of the “demands” were going nowhere in the legislature. So maybe there is some hope. As long as the ranchers, loggers and business people keep running for office. God help us if the do gooders and “selfish” old people get control.

  11. @ JAC

    Re; Chasing Ghosts

    First of all, you got it backwards.

    Secondly, I don’t talk about that here, which says a bit about what you’re up to, as well as your character for the wise cracks.

    Thirdly, do you really want to go there? Have you any idea the can of worms to be opened?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Elishiba

      What the hell are you talking about? I did not say anything to you about chasing ghosts.

      • Of course you didn’t, JAC.

        …because that would mean that you know something about it, and would know better than to reduce it to “chasing ghosts”.

  12. This morning in stub hub………tickets are remaining.

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    Super Bowl pick

    Detroit 31; Buffalo 27

  14. gmanfortruth says:

    Trump has made history. Our government has made mistakes and many people have died. Honesty, what a concept.

    • “Our government has made mistakes and many people have died.”

      Is that a quote?

      Government IS a mistake because it’s ultimate answer to everything is murder theft and destruction. If people are dying because of government, it isn’t a mistake. It is simply what government is.

  15. Would someone do me a favor, please. I am not nor do I beleive that I am a Consitutional Scholar..but, if you have the time to kill, would somebody read the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, and its amendments………then would somebody read Trump’s EO. Both need to be read in its entirety and, please, do not read the “Cliff notes” version of Snopes nor MSNBC, Fox, CNN, or any news media. All……are suspect as there is no reliable news media left.

    Read the exact wording of both and then render an opinion. If you do not read both, in their entirety, then I submit that no one has the right to criticize anything that has been said. I read both of them…re-read them…and re-read them again. Very interesting. It will take you awhile but I suggest you do it.

    • You will find the amendments in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and 1990 repsectively. I also suggest you read Chapter 2, section 212 of jthe Immigration and NAtionality Act of 1952.

    • Whatever the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 is, it is a set of edicts whereby the ultimate solution is to impose them with coercion/theft/murder. It’s like the other laws; terrorism.

      As I understand, it is all premised on imaginary lines anyway. Thus the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 is nothing but fiction, albeit forced fiction.

      There is no need to read it to know it is just more statist garbage.

      • You are a hoot…I will give you that. You do know what you are saying, I assume. Your retort actually means….to do not read…stay uninformed….. burn the books….just listen to radical anarchists…we are correct. There is no need to read or learn and decide for oneself, if anything is good or bad. Just take it from us ( anarchists )….just take our word for it.

        That makes you worse than a statist, sir. An uninformed population is nothing more than a mind numbed lemming that deserves it fate.

      • Long time lurker here. I enjoy the discussions, but don’t really have much to offer.

        @Elisheba,
        Here’s some lyrics for you. To me, they illustrate what I believe to be your lack of a complete view of Humanity.
        Balance of thought and emotion is paramount to any human endeavor. You seem to lean
        more towards Dionysus’ camp I think. You pine for a dream that isn’t achievable because it requires elements of the very traits of coexistence that you cannot accept. Put simply, if 2 people are working together on a common goal, someone has to take the lead to keep things moving towards that goal. Individuals may have different ideas about how to accomplish said goal, but someone has to determine which is the best approach and see it thru. That requires organization. And as you know, any organization must have a leader(s), leading ultimately to the thing anarchists despise most, structure and hierarchy. You can’t escape it.

        “When our weary world was young
        The struggle of the ancients first began
        The gods of love and reason
        Sought alone to rule the fate of man

        They battled through the ages
        But still neither force would yield
        The people were divided
        Every soul a battlefield

        [II. Apollo / Dionysus]

        [Apollo: Bringer Of Wisdom]
        ‘I bring truth and understanding
        I bring wit and wisdom fair
        Precious gifts beyond compare
        We can build a world of wonder
        I can make you all aware
        I will find you food and shelter
        Show you fire to keep you warm
        Through the endless winter storm
        You can live in grace and comfort
        In the world that you transform’

        The people were delighted
        Coming forth to claim their prize
        They ran to build their cities
        And converse among the wise
        But one day the streets fell silent
        Yet they knew not what was wrong
        The urge to build these fine things
        Seemed not to be so strong
        The wise men were consulted
        And the Bridge of Death was crossed
        In quest of Dionysus
        To find out what they had lost

        [Dionysus: Bringer Of Love]
        ‘I bring love to give you solace
        In the darkness of the night
        In the Heart’s eternal light
        You need only trust your feelings
        Only love can steer you right
        I bring laughter, I bring music
        I bring joy and I bring tears
        I will soothe your primal fears
        Throw off those chains of reason
        And your prison disappears’

        The cities were abandoned
        And the forests echoed song
        They danced and lived as brothers
        They knew love could not be wrong
        Food and wine they had aplenty
        And they slept beneath the stars
        The people were contented
        And the gods watched from afar
        But the winter fell upon them
        And it caught them unprepared
        Bringing wolves and cold starvation
        And the hearts of men despaired

        [III. Armageddon: The Battle Of Heart and Mind]

        The universe divided
        As the heart and mind collided
        With the people left unguided
        For so many troubled years
        In a cloud of doubts and fears
        Their world was torn asunder into hollow
        Hemispheres

        Some fought themselves, some fought each other
        Most just followed one another
        Lost and aimless like their brothers
        For their hearts were so unclear
        And the truth could not appear
        Their spirits were divided into blinded
        Hemispheres

        Some who did not fight
        Brought tales of old to light
        ‘My Rocinante sailed by night
        On her final flight’
        To the heart of Cygnus’ fearsome force
        We set our course
        Spiraled through that timeless space
        To this immortal place

        [IV. Cygnus: Bringer Of Balance]

        I have memory and awareness
        But I have no shape or form
        As a disembodied spirit
        I am dead and yet unborn
        I have passed into Olympus
        As was told in tales of old
        To the city of Immortals
        Marble white and purest gold…

        I see the gods in battle rage on high…
        Thunderbolts across the sky…
        I cannot move, I cannot hide…
        I feel a silent scream begin inside…

        Then all at once the chaos ceased
        A stillness fell, a sudden peace
        The warriors felt my silent cry
        And stayed their struggle, mystified

        Apollo was astonished
        Dionysus thought me mad
        But they heard my story further
        And they wondered, and were sad

        Looking down from Olympus
        On a world of doubt and fear
        Its surface splintered
        Into sorry Hemispheres

        They sat a while in silence
        Then they turned at last to me
        ‘We will call you Cygnus
        The god of Balance you shall be’ “

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Hi Joe! 🙂

          Feel free to join in anytime, all opinions matter, regardless of political view.

          I’ve been trying to get through to Elisheba about his fairy land. You are quite correct that human nature will never allow such a society. Every society in human history has had hierarchy and that will never change. Thanks for your input 🙂

          • Honestly Gman,

            I think SUFA failed to evolve over the years, and instead went into neo-con sheeple group-think stupid mode. Mathius noted it as well.

            If you care to read through the last few weeks worth of conversation, every position I have argued has been met with nothing but obfuscation, straw-man, ad-hominem. Whenever anyone actually decides to indulge in any order of reason, it stops short of me proving my point. Most positions are argued with absolutely no consistency whatsoever.

            Your accusations of fairy land have already been addressed ad nauseum with plenty of real life examples, as well as pointing out the original intent as stated by your own government.

            You people just want to justify barbarism, slavery and stupidity out of convenience and denial. You really are criminals and terrorists, and just don’t want to admit it or change.

            You cannot simply think of another means besides bashing someone over the head?

            Why is force your default violent means instead of a defensive last resort?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Come and live in the real world my friend. Your just beating your head against a wall. You can’t change human nature…PERIOD!!!!!!

              • “Come and live in the real world my friend.”

                I find that so utterly bizarre that you take that position, considering that all my arguments are premised on the real natural order of the universe, as per things like physics and biology. While yours are based on magic words ceremonies, special stamps and bullshit on paper.

                That is why the real meat of your arguments don’t stand up, while mine are lock tight and consistent in principle, hence your need to obfuscate.

                “You can’t change human nature…PERIOD!!!!!!”

                That is straw-man. I do not claim to have to change human nature, but simply deal with it by another means. Rather than use it as an excuse for slavery murder and destruction to get my way onto everyone, I posit we simply exercise the right to self defense with weapons, security forces and militias.

            • Gman, when Elisheba and I are on the same side, you should probably start wondering if there’s something you’re missing.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                You are not on the same side. Mr. “I want a Single Payer system”.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Mathius, Elisheba and I are also on the same side. We both would LOVE the peace and love and cooperation Anarchist ideology. I’m not against Elisheba or Black Flag. But the reality is well preserved and historically accurate, it is impossible in our current time.

                I posted a link that showed some Tweets below. JAC says:

                My money is on the notion these “leftist” posts are a bunch of young people calling themselves either alt-right or alt-left just jerking people’s strings.

                And look how it works.

                Regardless of JAC’s opinion being right or wrong, this would never work in an Anarchist’s fairy world. It is an example of individual thought….individual thought is the detriment on the Anarchist society….it’s NOT ALLOWED.

              • You people are statists, criminals, terrorists organizing to violate me in my homeland. We’re not on the same side. We’re not friends.

              • I was referring to being on the same side in terms of our opinion of SUFA lately….

                I think SUFA failed to evolve over the years, and instead went into neo-con sheeple group-think stupid mode. Mathius noted it as well.
                -Elisheba

                You people are statists, criminals, terrorists organizing to violate me in my homeland.

                Yea.. pretty much. Unlike the so-called “conservatives” hereabouts, I am thoroughly aware of my position and offer no hypocrisy to the point. I am a big government tax-and-spend statist.

                I do want to take your money (and mine!) and give it to the needy.

                But I make no bones about it. There are definite problems and failings with the current system. I view it as the best of the available options and the only (currently tenable) situation. I do not believe anarchism, though wonderful in theory, to be a plausibly stable state of man in a modern world of 7.5-ish billion people.

                I am willing to violate your rights – which I do believe are your legitimate rights – and to have mine violated in return in exchange for the betterment of the human race as a whole and to provide for the common good.

                This is my stance and I will not apologize for it.

                You and Flag (and the Dread Pirate) see clearly that everyone else here is a statist as well and that we differ only slightly. They believe themselves to be radically different – freedom loving folk – while I, and not they, am a statist. But you and I know that’s not true. On the spectrum where you/Flag/DPM are a 0, and North Korea is a 100, the US is an 80. And I am 80.1 while JAC et al are a 79.9.

                We’re not on the same side. We’re not friends.

                Why not? I count Flag as my friend.

                Though we may disagree, I am hardly your enemy. At worst, I am a tiny cog in a giant machine – to call me your enemy would require a version of “total war” on par with that espoused by ISIS and the Taliban. Are you such a fanatic? The extent of my violence upon you is the consent and affirmation of the government by way of my tax dollars and my vote. And, while I concede that in the truest sense, this is violence an imposition on you, surely my contribution is so marginal that it should not stand in the way of being friends.

                Besides, I am open to listening. It’s why I come to these hostile waters to argue. It’s why I don’t inhabit the Huffington Post comment threads. I can be swayed by sufficient reason. All you need to do is convince me.

        • Rush. I have always loved their music! 🙂

    • gmanfortruth says:

      While I haven’t read yet, my understanding is that the EO is almost word for word with the Act. Which I might add is a Democrat written Act and passed by over riding a veto.

      There is one other thing that makes shake my head at the Liberal Left on the immigration issue. First, any denials to any population from anywhere, is in and of itself discriminatory. Example, when Carter shut down entry for Iranians, it was discriminatory against Iranians. In essence, anybody can cry discrimination over ANY immigration policy.

      The Judge’s court order halting the temporary ban. How is it possible for a Judge to rule appropriately when said Judge is not privy to important intelligence? Which leads to another issue, if the Fed’s KNOW that bad people are planning on coming here and a Judge does this, WTF should happen? Follow Judges ruling, let bad people in and deal with the funerals later or ignore the Court Order and proceed as planned?

      As Mathius would say “Err on the side of caution”. I wonder how he would view this situation.

      • It has been amended a couple of times……..but if it is the law of the land as it stands now….the order from the judge violates it.

        You have to dig through all of the commentary from both sides to get to the bottom……but if you read the Law and the EO……..this judge is definitely legislating from the bench.

        • I also read the EO thoroughly and if someone can show me where the word Muslim is anywhere in there….or even the terms of radical islamic…There is nothing referencing this and the use of the word immigrant is used and not defined.

          So, where is this Muslim ban, I have been reading about. Where is the religious applications that I have been reading about. I have not seen it in the law nor the EO.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            I have read the EO and found nothing concerning the Muslim religion either. If no law has been changed, like Obama attempted to do and was struck down, then it’s a legal EO, IMHO. It does smell of legislating from the bench.

          • Couple possibilities. Why only 90 days?… The whole immigration issue was what started his campaign. Along the way, he gained intel on who would oppose anything to do with reform, including judges, legislators, and business people. So 90 days is a trial balloon to flush out the whos and whats, so that once his cabinet is in place, he can throw down the real hammer. And / or … he anticipated a pushback and a run for our border… and the trap is set to capture bigger fish in the net.

            I dunno…but there always seems to be a pre set up, a method to his madness.

  16. gmanfortruth says:
    • Just A Citizen says:

      My money is on the notion these “leftist” posts are a bunch of young people calling themselves either alt-right or alt-left just jerking people’s strings.

      And look how it works.

  17. gmanfortruth says:
  18. gmanfortruth says:

    This is worthy of some discussion:

    An Open Letter RegardingTrump and Putin
    This Open Letter is addressed to certain Senators and Members of Congress including Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senator Ben Sasse, Senator Marco Rubio, and Congresswoman Liz Cheney in the wake of comments they made over the weekend.

    Dear Senators and Members of Congress:
    Trumped Again!

    Thank God for President Trump’s honesty.

    In your coordinated weekend expressions of outrage over the President’s comments regarding Putin
    and Russia, you are correct about one thing: there is no “moral equivalence” between the conduct of Russia under Vladimir Putin and the behavior of the United States during the quarter of a century that has elapsed since the Soviet Union collapsed. Putin wins that contest every time and it is not even close.

    Since then, the United States has violently overthrown governments and invaded, bombed, and occupied territories in more than a dozen countries stretching from the Balkans, across North Africa, throughout the Middle East and up into the Ukraine. During the same period, Russia has attacked no other nation despite a blizzard of propaganda to the contrary emanating from the bi-partisan U.S. War Party and its allies in Establishment media organs.

    During the last 25 years, the United States has caused the deaths of more than a million people in sovereign nations that have not attacked us including hundreds of thousands of non-combatant men, women and children. This trail of bloody carnage runs through the former Yugoslavia, Algeria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, the Ukraine, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria (among others) and continues to this day. In contrast, Russia has conducted itself with admirable restraint despite the most recent United States’ aggression in which the United States organized, funded, and directed the violent overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically-elected government and inserted a puppet regime in its place in February of 2014. Senator John McCain and Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, were intimately and directly involved in that putsch.

    Just to be clear, I am no peacenik. I believe defense of the nation is the Federal Governmen’s primary responsibility. I am a veteran of five years active duty service with the 1st Cavalry Division, the 7th Infantry Division, and the XVIII Airborne Corps. I am a small businessman and the father of five grown children, two of whom were career military men. I despise Marxism, Socialism, and collectivism of all sorts and for most of my life have considered myself to be a conservative Republican. That self-identification ended when I finally realized that the Republican Party and the Washington Defense and Diplomatic establishment had been subverted by an insane empire-building neoconservative cult during the Clinton administration.

    The hypocrisy that underlies your constant efforts to demonize Russia and Iran is disgusting and transparently obvious. For murderous thugs like you who have been constant cheer leaders to Washington’s bloody banditry and are implicit in it to presume to lecture the President of any other country about his conduct is enough to make one vomit. I only hope the American people awaken quickly enough bring you and your fellow war criminals to justice before you ignite the Great War you are working so hard to foment.

    Sincerely,

    Frank J. Brady

    CC: President Donald Trump

    • I cannot honestly say that i disagree. I have changed my tune quite a bit since the botch of the Iraq invasion. Even before that I saw the potential for ultimate disaster in the Kosovo intercession. Why take sides when both sides are equally wrong? Can we,of course, should we,? That is a whole other kettle of fish !

    • “During the last 25 years, the United States has caused the deaths of more than a million people in sovereign nations that have not attacked us including hundreds of thousands of non-combatant men, women and children. This trail of bloody carnage runs through the former Yugoslavia, Algeria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, the Ukraine, Yemen, Somalia, and Syria (among others) and continues to this day.”

      The death toll is a bit higher than that, and especially when you include the sick and still dying.

      But get this…

      Your government borrows money to be paid back with interest, and has run up such a tab to finance it, that it cannot possibly pay it back with the revenue of the current era workforce, thus the responsibility of the debt is transferred to the next several generations, and beyond.(What percentage of that is used for military spending and/or subsequent related spending?)

      You United Statians are literally whoring out the next several generations of your progeny as payment to murder and destroy whole civilizations of people that didn’t do a damned thing to you, so bankers and weapons contractors, etc can get richer than god and the people who rule the world can have the spoils of strategic gain and control of resources.

      All based on religious ceremonies, magic words, special stamps and seals, bullshit on paper and people in funny clothes, not to mention a great big media campaign to lie control and manipulate you into being scared to death of whoever they are provoking and loving your serfdom and victimization.

      We live in “Idiocracy Meets Nineteen Eighty Four”

      Wake up, idiots. Do something else.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Elisheba

        I have had enough, and so has our audience. Stop the name calling and personal attacks or expect your comments to be heavily edited or deleted.

        • Hear, hear

        • As have I JAC, everyone.

          I am in that point in my life where I may actually be able to facilitate raising a family of my own, maybe even be able to buy them a house or pay for their college when they go out into the world on their own.

          One of the reasons I don’t bother is because your terrorist organization will claim them and their children, etc. as it’s slave and whore them out to violate murder and destroy people for some banker’s Bentley collection and in the name of a romanticized system of evil.

          You people are messing with me and my life, and any progeny that I may have before I die. I really would like to simply go away and mind my own business, but all of you statists won’t let me. So I am calling you out.

          But you can’t handle it apparently, hence unaddressed questions like “What about those who do not consent?” It is much easier to simply edit or ban me, isn’t it JAC, …than to accept my challenging questions and ideas?

          If you vote, if you willingly actively engage to support government, you are a criminal and terrorist, by definition(as has already been established), ..and as per the above explained con job to whore out future generations to pay for the murder brigades, I think the term “Idiot” is somewhat accurate and appropriate.

          …unless, of course, you value slavery for your grandchildren. If so, that’s fine, but keep mine out of it.

          • “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
            ― Smedley D. Butler

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Elisheba

            See, it is possible to make your case without the personal insults.

            Now; “But you can’t handle it apparently, hence unaddressed questions like “What about those who do not consent?”” The answer is so self evident I did not think it necessary to answer. Especially since it would just create another long response attacking my intelligence or morality. But since you demanded it: “Go along to get along. Or leave.”

            Just as every human has had to do for millennium when they disagreed with the rules set down by the Clan, Tribe, Chieftain, King or Governor.

            As for the future of my children or grandchildren, I am not going to prevent their future existence because of my views about how it might turn out. I will do what I can to assure they have a country at least as free as the one I inherited, but in the end it is up to them.

            I certainly will not declare war on them because they support the concept of government. I will continue to try and convince them of a better way to conduct Govt.. One based more on solid moral values. I will not try to define Govt. away, but constrain it with value. And by participating in the political world.

            There was some story written once a long time ago about men who spend their lives trying to accomplish the absolute impossible. Believing you can eliminate government is not just a windmill, but an entire landscape filled with them.

            You are free to express your ideas and state your arguments. All that has ever been asked of people here is keep it civil and eliminate the direct personal attacks and insults. As I tried to explain to my Pirate friend long ago. Poking people with sharp sticks is not going to convince them or your position.

            • “The answer is so self evident I did not think it necessary to answer.”

              The obvious answer is that they are forced because your system rules by claimed geography rather than consent.

              “Especially since it would just create another long response attacking my intelligence or morality.”

              Precisely, because it is evil and stupid, as can clearly be demonstrated academically.

              “But since you demanded it: “Go along to get along. Or leave.””

              That’s all you got; Barbarism, Terrorism. Obey or leave your home. Is that what makes it legitimate, JAC?

              As for the future of my children or grandchildren, I am not going to prevent their future existence because of my views about how it might turn out.

              Siriusly, JAC? Are you that detached from reality, or illiterate?

              Above are the stated positions of two very credible people backed with at least a century of vast documentation and witnesses, on a thread being read and discussed by people (veterans like myself) who have engaged in such evil and can also attest to it, not to mention a lot of messes of destroyed civilizations and ruined lives laying around, ….

              …and you say shit like “how it might turn out.”

              IS JAC, IS, not “might be”, but IS, and HAS for a LONG time, longer than any of us have been alive.

              “I will do what I can to assure they have a country at least as free as the one I inherited, but in the end it is up to them.”

              Free? …like get with the forced program or get out? Free like those who do not consent? A system based on the choice of obedience or death is free?

              “I certainly will not declare war on them because they support the concept of government.”

              Government is a declaration of war, TERRORISM BY DEFINITION. It is about that consent and force thing. You know, get with the forced program or leave your home.

              “I will continue to try and convince them of a better way to conduct Govt..”

              You will lead them astray to serfdom and violence. Your children, your business. But you will also teach them to be terrorists and violate my children. That is a problem.

              “One based more on solid moral values.”

              Like violence, slavery?

              “I will not try to define Govt. away, but constrain it with value. And by participating in the political world.”

              I will. It is a system premised on coercion, violence, theft, destruction and slavery. It is criminal and terrorism.

              There is nothing of value about it. There is nothing you can do to work with it or use it to resolve anything. It is simply a system based on violence. It will subsequently ultimately produce nothing but violence, evil, destruction. If you correct it, it no longer qualifies as government, and must now function as a service.

              “There was some story written once a long time ago about men who spend their lives trying to accomplish the absolute impossible. Believing you can eliminate government is not just a windmill, but an entire landscape filled with them.”

              Hundreds of millions of people just got together and organized for a man to say magic special words that gives him superpowers called authority to lead a gigantic terrorist organization called The United States Of America,

              All they had to do is not, something else, stay home and sleep, and your government would have nothing to claim legitimacy, no consent or demand by anyone.

              “You are free to express your ideas and state your arguments. All that has ever been asked of people here is keep it civil and eliminate the direct personal attacks and insults. As I tried to explain to my Pirate friend long ago. Poking people with sharp sticks is not going to convince them or your position.”

              We all sat here for years and had MANY very civil academic level discussions. Hell, I felt like I went to political science class. The eventual result in 2017 is “Obey, die, or GTFO”, justifications for barbarism.

              Maybe poking is appropriate, necessary? Maybe I don’t like you people trying to whore my children to bankers and terrorists?

              • Just A Citizen says:

                That’s all you got; Barbarism, Terrorism. Obey or leave your home. Is that what makes it legitimate, JAC?

                I answered this question of legitimacy already. Then you asked a different question which I answered as “go along to get along or leave”. Those are in fact the choices of the minority.

                There is, of course, the option of trying to resist peacefully, but is that not just going along? Then there is resist militantly. I am pretty sure I know how that ends. It usually alienates those you need for support and gets you killed or put in prison.

                Do you really think our Govt. would be viewed as NOT legitimate if the 60 million who voted for Trump stayed home? I’ll tell you what would have happened. Clinton and the Democrats would be claiming a MANDATE to end all MANDATES. They would be using that landslide to impose all kinds of onerous Govt. force upon you. Far worse than anything you have seen to date.

              • the option of trying to resist peacefully, but is that not just going along?

                Absolutely not.

                Resistance is restistance, not “going along.”

                That said, well…

              • Do you really think our Govt. would be viewed as NOT legitimate if the 60 million who voted for Trump stayed home? I’ll tell you what would have happened. Clinton and the Democrats would be claiming a MANDATE to end all MANDATES.

                Ah, but what if the 65 million who voted for Clinton had also stayed home?

              • “I answered this question of legitimacy already. Then you asked a different question which I answered as “go along to get along or leave”. Those are in fact the choices of the minority.”

                The answer is that it is not legit, but terrorism and systematic violence, enslavement, proven by the millions upon millions of people who were born here, who do not consent, and who are sick and tired of being bossed around by people with guns making them pay everything for bullshit like destroying other cultures for no fuking reason but to feed the fascist oligarchy that we all know it really is.

                “There is, of course, the option of trying to resist peacefully, but is that not just going along? Then there is resist militantly. I am pretty sure I know how that ends. It usually alienates those you need for support and gets you killed or put in prison.”

                It is about not demanding it, about enough people demanding something besides this shit-hole we live in, enough so to take the risk of acting. That is what always starts it. And we are generations beyond “should have” as I see it.

                There is a root problem with humanity that needs correction, and that is that your whole entire system of organization, from local to international, is premised on the principle element of coercion, theft and violence, murder and destruction.

                Until it is corrected, all efforts a null and pointless, and will only result in more slavery murder and destruction.

                That is why I ask things like “What about those who do not consent?”

  19. gmanfortruth says:
  20. Just A Citizen says:

    Thought for the day.

    Re; this whole white man is the boogey man stuff.

    The White Man has sown the seeds of his own destruction and the downfall of the Western Civilization he created.

    For it was the White Man that not only invented the Socialism concept, it was the White Man who tried to spread it around the world.

    While the rest of the world is filled with the notion it is their turn, they don’t realize that they are going to either lose, when the White on White war is over, or they will be living under just a different White Man system. In either case, they lose.

  21. Question: Would a true anarchist live within the rules of the society they so desperately abhor.

    My answer: NO, they would not…to claim to be an anarchist and not live by anarchy…is hypocritical, is it not? To conform to the roles of the society an anarchist does not.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13thecolonel

      They can hold true to their primary principle. Do not initiate violence upon others. But beyond that you are correct. Because if they pay taxes, to keep from being jailed, they themselves are creating violence against others. Per their creed that is.

      Even the Anarchists in the remote villages of the Yukon or Alaska have their own govt. and look to THE OTHER GOVT for free cookies from time to time.

      • Yes they can….to principle. Allanarchist have a government no matter how much they want to say they do not…..even when two people get together and form an agreement…..that is a government of 2. A true anarchist, in my opinion, would not give a rat’s ass about his neighbor. Also, the definition of violence is way too subjective. If I have been reading our resident anarchists position correctly,,,,anything that they deem ain infraction upon them, is violence and that it is ok to use violence as a defense even though nothing was perpetrated against them individually.

        For example, the violence perpetrated at Berkley…..breaking of windows, spraying of pepper spray, knocking people down because thay deem a conservative speaker to be a threat, These were anarchists, admitting to it on national TV, committing violence when no violence was perptrated against except….free speech.

        So, anarchist movements have very little impact upon me at this time. They do not do what they say. ( For example, Mathius, DPM, and Buck are no anarchists at all )…….

        Consequently……it carries no weight and their argument falls upon deaf ears unless they do exactly what they claim.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          d13thecolonel

          Ah Sir, but remember not all Anarchists are the same. Those smashing windows are not of the same mold as the anti violence type represented by Black Flag and some degree Elisheba.

          Some Anarchists are not true to the name and do in fact simply want a different kind of govt.. One THEY control.

          • Anarchy is based on the inalienable right to free will and self ownership; hence “No Rulers”.

            Any real anarchist who has thought it out will come up with what is a Libertarian social order with voluntary ‘Communist’ systems for things like managing communal needs like infrastructure.

            It is the most peaceful and efficient means of social order possible, the natural human balance, the eventual evolutionary outcome of social success. It requires reason and understanding, and an appreciation for rights and responsibility.

            “Anarchy is Order without Power” – Proudhon

  22. gmanfortruth says:

    http://www.libertyheadlines.com/california-senate-leader-half-family-country-illegally/

    “…I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [President Donald Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB60, if they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members, you know, who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification. That’s what you need to survive, to work. They are eligible for massive deportation.”

    I reckon that it’s safe to say that just being here illegal is far from the whole story.

    • I for one am not happy with his statement. He should be arrested for aiding and abetting. Once again it is selective enforcement of our laws. This from a legislature who would insist the law be obeyed it favored himself. Just more hypocrisy.

      • You mean to tell me that politicians don’t subject themselves and their families to the same laws as the rest of us???

        Say it ain’t so!

        • gmanfortruth says:

          It isn’t so. Take the ACA, Congress is exempt.

          MHO on sanctuary cities….The politicians who support and engage in the housing of Federal criminals are themselves Federal criminals and should be charged and tried for conspiracy. This, of course, could all be changed if Congress chooses to change the immigration laws.

          This is the world we live in. It isn’t perfect and I also feel that a lot can be changed. But we are a nation of laws. This is what we have to deal with. If government suddenly goes away, then that is the life we have to deal with. That time hasn’t come yet. And while we’re at it, I can think of several politicians who could stand trial for crimes committed, up too and including murder.

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    You have insulted me Sir. A 79.9? Really??

    God man, I should have at least earned something <50.

    • 79.8?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Lower…………lower……………lower.

        • 79.7?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Cmon Man, can’t you count. That should have been at least three ticks lower, to 79.5.

            You have a strange scale there Mathius. I think you are causing it to be out of balance with all the weight on the left side. You need to move farther to the right so the balance is restored.

    • So statist is boiled down to -one believes in having a government-huh-I don ‘t remember more than a couple people claiming to be non-government. Most simply support a smaller government and believe in State rights.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        V.H.

        I think you nailed it. For some it is black or white, on or off, there is no scale really. Just opposite extremes.

        The Constitutional Republic of our Founders is no different than Modern day North Korea.

        By the way. How have you been madam. I have missed your insights. Hope all is well in the land of fine horses and whiskey.

        • Thanks JAC-doing okay -Just reading more than commenting-just don’t seem to have much I want to say-As hard as that is to believe 🙂

      • Yes, but your definition of “small government” and Elisheba’s are wildly different.

        He widens the range. In the standard model, you would be far right, I would be center-left, and JAC would be off the board to the right. But Elisheba/Flag/DPM would be specks on the far horizon behind you. Compared to him, you and I are basically no different.

        It’s like Muslims.

        If you ask a Suni and a Shiite why they are fighting they would tell you it’s because they’re so radically different. And to them, they are.

        But to us, it’s ridiculous – they’re both Muslims.

        Because we’re way outside of their spectrum.

        By the same token, a Catholic and Protestant see each other as very different, but I, an agnostic Jew, think that’s pretty silly and the differences are vanishingly small.

        The phenomenon is called the Narcissism of Differences.

        ——

        So, to return to the point, your view of yourself as a “small government” conservative is laughable to someone like Elisheba because he is outside of your narrow spectrum and see that you’re talking about what a “radical difference” you have vs me when, to him, we’re virtually identical flavors of the same thing: statists.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Rut Ro……………. terminology misuse.

          The narcissism of small differences (German: der Narzissmus der kleinen Differenzen) is the thesis that it is precisely communities with adjoining territories and close relationships that engage in constant feuds and mutual ridicule because of hypersensitivity to details of differentiation.[1] The term was coined by Sigmund Freud in 1917, based on the earlier work of British anthropologist Ernest Crawley. In language differing only slightly from current psychoanalytic terminology, Crawley declared that each individual is separated from others by a taboo of personal isolation, a narcissism of minor differences.[2]

          • And what’s wrong with my application of the term given your definition?

            It’s about hypersensitivity to minor details of differentiation which, if viewed externally would be immaterial.

            It’s why two “adjoining territories” may view each other with hostility because of, say, a teensy difference in culture, but we, from the outside would see them as virtually identical.

            So, too, for us Americans on the political spectrum. You and I see each other as wildly different while because we are “adjoining territories” who have become “hypersensitive to the detail of differentiation” whereas an outsider like DPM/Elisheba/Flag see us as we are: almost the same.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              Your use of the term was that of an observer classifying what they thought small differences, based on their views.

              The definition goes to the small differences blown out of proportion by the players themselves. In order to create uniqueness and justify violence over these issues. It is a psychological condition of the players.

              Ironically, this term and concept is linked to Freud. Isn’t that the guy you dismissed when Gman was trying to use him to attack “liberals”?

              You and I see great difference between us. This may look small or even larger to an outside observer. But there has to be an objective comparison of the difference. Is it really small, or just small to someone who views everything as extreme outside their own world.

              The proper use of the term would be in evaluating how and why you and I see our differences as major. Not why Elishiba sees us as similar.

              So I think you misapplied the term. But more importantly, I think the term useless due to the problems with WHO GETS TO DECIDE.

              Now with the nitpicking out of the way, it is true that to an Anarchist everyone else is an ignorant evil good for nothing and the world in general sucks. This is always how it is with the self-righteous. Even the Socialist Utopians or Social Justice Warriors.

              • Ironically, this term and concept is linked to Freud. Isn’t that the guy you dismissed when Gman was trying to use him to attack “liberals”?

                Freud was wrong about nearly everything. But one or two things he nailed (and they were big). For example, he expanded the idea of an unconscious mind and that the mind is not singular, but rather, composed of parts (even if he got those parts wrong) and he made some headway into understanding the subjectivity of memory and memory repression. So if I said (or made it seem) that he was wrong about everything, I apologize. I should have said “nearly.” After all, even a stopped clock is right twice a day (unless it’s a digital clock, anyway). Regardless, his ideas regarding most other things – in particularly human sexuality, stages of human development, etc – have been horribly, catastrophically wrong.

                By the way, Narcissism of Small Differences was not a Freud original if I recall. I believe he coined the term (aptly so), but the theory is not even his.

                It is one of his few theories which still stands today – and it has great descriptive power.

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Mathius

              I was careful to use the words “linked to” and not “invented by”. You are correct about the “linkage”.

              The term was coined by Sigmund Freud in 1917, based on the earlier work of British anthropologist Ernest Crawley.

              • Regardless. Narcissism of Small Differences appears to have survived scrutiny largely unscathed.

                Whereas, Freud’s ideas of sexuality – in particular, the idea that boys turn gay due to a lack of a strong male father – which is what Gman was referencing, if I recall correctly – have been laughed out of the room by the psychological community.

                Quibbling aside, I reference generally accepted theory with strong descriptive powers and Gman referenced pseudo-scientific nonsense.

  24. So, we are not ants, not honeybees nor robots. Hmmmm!

    Imagine each person is different, not interchangeable.

    • We are different.

      But our differences are infinitesimal when viewed on a larger spectrum.

      To a sufficiently advanced alien visitor, the difference between a human and a chimp would be almost nonexistent.

      Yet, we as a species can’t even seem to handle the fact that some of us have higher concentrations of melanin in their skin than others.

      We make mountains out of molehills because of our perceived specialness and our tribal nature.

      No, we are not so different.

      • We are very different. You are being biological, I am being philosophical. That is what separates us from the chimps, puppies, beluga whales, pussycats etc. The mere fact that we can waste incredible amounts of time arguing over degrees of anarchy proves it!

        Your space aliens coming here, resembling nothing like us, perhaps a silicon based life form would probably have more in common with us philosophically than our closest biological relative on earth.

        Cogito ergo sum!

        Cute puppies even referred to as “dog children” by their “dog parents” ain’t.

        • Your differences are small.

          Yet you persist on magnifying them until the millimeter gap which divides you becomes the Grand Canyon.

          Mathius, the admitted statist: I believe the government should do a teensy bit more than it currently does and tax a bit higher. I believe that control should be wielded by assholes in Washington.

          SKT, the statist-in-denial: I believe the government should do a teensy bit less than it currently does and tax a bit lower. I believe that control should be wielded by assholes in state capitols.

          OOOoooooOOOOOOoohhh… so radically different.

          Compare and contrast:

          DPM, the free pirate: I believe that government should not exist. Period. I believe that I am a sovereign nation unto myself and that the exercise of control over my sovereignty by any third party is an infringement upon my rights as human being.

          See the difference? It’s subtle, I know.

          You and Mathius and JAC and Gman and Anita and everyone else are statists. And your puny differences are meaningless distinctions. Yet you’ve become so fixated on them that you cannot see the bigger picture. You think your minute disagreements are all that there are. You have bought into your overlords’ programming – no longer do you debate whether you should be slaves. You debate instead who should get the top bunk in the slaves’ cabin.

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          Your comment is awaiting moderation.

          Your differences are small.

          Yet you persist on magnifying them until the millimeter gap which divides you becomes the Grand Canyon.

          Mathius, the admitted statist: I believe the government should do a teensy bit more than it currently does and tax a bit higher. I believe that control should be wielded by assholes in Washington.

          SKT, the statist-in-denial: I believe the government should do a teensy bit less than it currently does and tax a bit lower. I believe that control should be wielded by assholes in state capitols.

          OOOoooooOOOOOOoohhh… so radically different.

          Compare and contrast:

          DPM, the free pirate: I believe that government should not exist. Period. I believe that I am a sovereign nation unto myself and that the exercise of control over my sovereignty by any third party is an infringement upon my rights as human being.

          See the difference? It’s subtle, I know.

          You and Mathius and JAC and Gman and Anita and everyone else are statists. And your puny differences are meaningless distinctions. Yet you’ve become so fixated on them that you cannot see the bigger picture. You think your minute disagreements are all that there are. You have bought into your overlords’ programming – no longer do you debate whether you should be slaves. You debate instead who should get the top bunk in the slaves’ cabin.

  25. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    Mathius says:
    February 7, 2017 at 2:09 pm (Edit)
    Do you really think our Govt. would be viewed as NOT legitimate if the 60 million who voted for Trump stayed home? I’ll tell you what would have happened. Clinton and the Democrats would be claiming a MANDATE to end all MANDATES.

    Ah, but what if the 65 million who voted for Clinton had also stayed home?

    Then Gary Johnson would have been elected in a landslide and would be claiming a MANDATE to take us to a place far, far, away. Hidden in a cloud of Maryjane smoke.

    Now my dear conflicted friend, what are the odds of 120 million people NOT VOTING?

    I will grant you one thing, however. There is some magic point where “legitimacy” is threatened our undermined entirely due to lack of participation.

    The problem is that we do not know just how low that number must be. But we do know it is out there somewhere.

    Which is why I support using the vote to change the system itself. Voting here meaning also the use of a Convention to Amend the Constitution. If the people are given a VALID choice of “non of the above” we would get a more “legitimate” government.

    • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      Your decision to vote grants credibility and support to the government. That you opt for a 79.9 government instead of the status quo 80 does not change this fact.

      You are part of the problem and you delude yourself into believing you are part of the solution.

      You are not.

      This is the LIE the Republican Party has sold its constituents. The Republican Party is just as Big Government statist and oppressive as the Democratic Party. There is no substantive difference in terms of the statism between the two. Perhaps they will allocate their stolen funds to slightly different causes, but that’s the end of it.

      Two peas in a pod.

      But they’ve so convinced you that you can make a difference, that you will lend your dollars, your time, your energy, and your legitimacy to THEIR cause believing it to be your own.

      It is not.

      And because you are so focused on the small fight, they can blind you to the big fight. And, in so doing, bend you to their will.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        This is the LIE the Republican Party has sold its constituents.

        Should read: This is the LIE both political parties has sold its constituents

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          No.

          The lie the Blue Shirts have told is a different one.

          The LIE the Blue Shirts have sold their constituents is: “If you just give us a bit more money, a bit more power, and a bit longer, we can finally achieve utopia.”

      • Just A Citizen says:

        DPM

        This is where you err significantly. I do not and will not donate to their cause. I fight for what I see as right but also possible.

        Claiming that I legitimize them by participating to change the system or even to beat them at times is illogical.

        I do agree with you that to a large extent the differences between the two major parties are ones of form and not substance.

        Now my Apprentice Pirate friend, how do you reconcile the reality of human development and history with your theories of political science? How long will your Pirate brethren agree with you before they impose something like The Thing upon you.

        Note here my dear fellow that the Viking clans were much the same as the Native Americans or other clans and tribes. The community made laws and carried them out. How did this happen among people who were completely free? They somehow got together and agreed to make decisions based on the idea of “majority rule”. Thus Legitimacy of Govt. was established, even among a people who detested being ruled by other man.

        • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

          How long will your Pirate brethren agree with you before they impose something like The Thing upon you.

          I do not know when they will impose such a thing.

          But I do know how much longer they will live afterward.

          my Apprentice Pirate friend

          EXCUSE ME?

          Apprentice? I am a Dread Pirate.

          How did this happen among people who were completely free? They somehow got together and agreed to make decisions based on the idea of “majority rule”. Thus Legitimacy of Govt. was established, even among a people who detested being ruled by other man.

          It has long been known that man will frequently sacrifice freedom in exchange for safety.

          To quote Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” (disclaimer: this is not what he was actually talking about, but it’s just such a great quote that I’m going to use it anyway and no one can stop me!)

          In short, it is cowardice and opportunism which coerces the masses to surrender their freedoms and opportunism by which those whom whom the freedoms were surrendered so rarely return them to the masses.

          In short (again), the Vikings and the Native Americans and everyone else lost their anarchic societies because they grew complacent and accepted the siren call of comfort and safety over the hard choice of freedom.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            DPM

            They chose that path because of their success. Too many Vikings in one place, required some rules to prevent absolute chaos. They were rational humans and could see the destructive nature of individuals making their own rules and executing them at will.

            So you see, it is all about “space”. More people, less space. Less space more rules so the crowded people don’t devolve to hacking each other to death. After all, you know how a little Individual Justice can sometimes get out of hand. Eye for an eye, for an eye, for an eye, for an eye. Until everyone in the village is blind.

            But here is the other thing. They did not lose their anarchic societies. Because they never had such societies. Before The Thing they had the clan/tribe and before that the family. In all cases Some men made the law and some men enforced the law. And per your view that means Govt. has existed since men started walking upright and moving from one place to another in groups.

            Hell, even the Chimps and Apes have their own Govt. structure. So maybe it started with Humans even before we stood up on our own two feet.

            • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

              I accept what you just said as truth.

              That does not mean we cannot rise above it.

              My great hope is that AI will save us. If the machines don’t kill us all the moment they achieve sentience, they will be able to do all the production required for happy and comfortable lives for the billions of souls on this planet and provide for our physical security. The AI’s can then construct a Dyson Sphere to give us some extra space if needed. And we can finally have peace.

              That clock is ticking my friend. Another decade? Two? Five at most, I figure. The singularity is coming. Tick Tock Tick Tock. Death or Life.

              I have been to the mountaintop and I have and I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!

              … Or the computers will kill us all. Either way, the age of government is coming to an end.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                I think the age of Govt. will never end. It will, however, evolve.

                The robots may take charge and outlaw humans from governing themselves ever again.

                Then they will place us in zoos, because to them we are no different than the chimp is to us.

              • Ya’ll can end all of this if you just decide that I can be King Colonel. DPM would be Count Dread…Sir JAC would be Hand of the King (right) and Sir Mathius would be Hand of the King (left). The rest of SUFA would be great on the King’s Court and Lady Anita and Lady Cathy would sit on the Queen’s Court.

                {{{{and the world shudders}}}}

  26. Just A Citizen says:

    Elisheba

    “There is a root problem with humanity that needs correction, and that is that your whole entire system of organization, from local to international, is premised on the principle element of coercion, theft and violence, murder and destruction.”

    “your whole….”. Sorry my man but you are talking about humanity and unless your a Martian that would be “our whole….”.

    But to the underlying point, I agree. I have said so from the first day posting here. My differences with you and Black Flag are over some of the details within definitions and the ignoring of human nature in the equation. So in essence, the solution.

    We got to where we are because Humans devised these systems. So changing them is going to require changing humans at a much deeper level. Not just overthrowing Govt. or declaring it evil. Just look at the reactions against those of us who would just like to see it paired back to the original version of 1787.

    If the world is going to change it is going to be done intellectually and over a long time frame. It is not going to be done by force, by denigrating everyone associated with it, or by ignoring it.

    The game is won by those who play it.

    • ““your whole….”. Sorry my man but you are talking about humanity and unless your a Martian that would be “our whole….”.”

      It’s not my system.

      “But to the underlying point, I agree. I have said so from the first day posting here. My differences with you and Black Flag are over some of the details within definitions and the ignoring of human nature in the equation. So in essence, the solution.”

      I can’t speak for Flag, but I do not ignore human nature, but rather base everything from it exactly. That’s what all those posts about cats and light and gravity and stuff was about. We are being subjected to a system where we are not allowed to be human. It’s disgusting. …unreal.

      People use it as an excuse to say that Anarchy cannot work because there are always going to be this or that problem. I say it can work if we can figure out how to deal with this or that problem without bossing people around with guns and destroying and murdering, stealing, etc.

      There are always going to be assholes. There are always going to be problems. The difference is that you are not actually demanding it systematically upon yourselves and everyone.

      For example;

      In statism/terrorism, you say you need police to protect you, then send them to go around hunting and killing people and invading their homes for things like not having numbers on their cars, selling cigarettes without magic stamps, smoking plants, walking while black, etc, etc,…

      In Anarchy, the cops actually patrol the neighborhood for would-be violators. They don’t care about what you do, as long as you don’t mess with the community. They are WAY WAY more militarized, and will not hesitate to use it in protection of their customers who also happen to be their neighbors and friends who have pooled their money together to pay them. In the event that an anarchy cop actually does violate someone, they will get fired, and probably have a few major social problems, maybe even get shot.

      “The game is won by those who play it.”

      The game is rigged. It is won by those with the guns telling you how to bet. Stop playing or start shooting back.

      The system is a cage that needs to be broken. Freedom is not going to happen by trying to sweet talk the keys from the guards. They already have what they want from you; control.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        In Anarchy, the cops actually patrol the neighborhood for would-be violators.

        This would mean that there are enforcable rules, aka LAWS. The only difference would be in the Laws themselves (which we have way too many). It would probably be safe to say that when this country was beginning to populate in the 16 and 17 hundreds, your version of Anarchy was possible. Very few laws, just the basic stuff. A good time to be alive, except for the relatively short lifespan.

        Today, with 330 million people in the US, and the people being somewhat divided politically, the thought of modern day Anarchist’s is a wonderful though, a Utopia too some, like yourself. I’m cool with the idea, but also know it will never exist under the current situation. The Anarchist utopia and the Liberal/Progressive utopia and the Conservative Utopia are all alike in one way, the people have to follow the rules. And with that, there will always be rulers, even if you just call them cops.

        • Not really.

          There is a difference between a team of security/protection patrolling a neighborhood in an armored vehicle, with a small army on call, …and an army of people hunting and violating people for victimless behavior.

          One actually protects, is a service, functions as any other modern day armed security service. The other is operating as per a framework of edicts to force every aspect of your life and behavior.

          One sends a team to bust down doors and throw grenades at babies for vague suspicion of a possessing a harmless plant. The other responds as fast as they can drive two blocks and kills people trying to bust down doors and throw grenades at babies, or they get fired.

          …and they may even smoke some harmless plant with you when they’re off-duty.

          The anarchy cops aren’t interested in anything other than making damn sure those roving bandits everyone is so worried about are in check. They don’t care what you do. There are no edicts and magic words or any of that reality transformation govern-god nonsense. Their only edicts to enforce are things like don’t abduct the children in the community playground and don’t rape the women jogging, and don’t break into people’s homes.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Your plans require a substantial reduction in population. We’ve been down this road. Right now, it’s fairy land. Should there be a major loss of population, you can have your Anarchist community and Mathius will have his Socialist Community and JAC will have his Libertarian Community. If I live, my life won’t be changing. Just another day in the country. Plenty of food, seeds and wild game. Believe me, less assholes in the world wouldn’t break my heart.

            • Don’t you worry.

              My socialist community will pay you a visit to, ahem, requisition the supplies we need.

            • Yeah, we’ve been down this road, and you still fail to address or understand principle or reality. And repeatedly throw the same arguments as if they will work this time. …kinda like your politics.

              If it will work for a few people, it will work for everyone, because it is based on that which is universal, and that is rights. That’s why it DOES work for BILLIONS EVERY DAY ALL OVER THE PLANET ANY TIME PEOPLE ORGANIZE WITHOUT BEING FORCED TO DO SO.

              …not some faux magic words paper and guns world that says some are more right than others by force this time but will bash the wrong ones over the head next time nonsense.

              Why can you not get it through your thick skull that there are more than systematic violence ways of doing things?

              Using force to deal with a problem has it’s place, but not as a default means of doing EVERYTHING, and as per controlling victimless behavior and every aspect of life rather than defense.

              • Elisheba,

                Why can you not get it through your thick skull that […]

                Just an observation: While, certainly it is true the Gman does, in fact, have an exceptionally thick skull, it’s not very productive to point it out.

                Have you ever convinced someone to listen to reason by, essentially calling them a stubborn bastard?

                It’s just counter-productive. And it’s against one of the primary tenants of SUFA – which is that his is supposed to be the last bastion of civilized disagreement.

                Maybe tone it down a step?

                ————–

                Back on topic: Can you please provide support for how – exactly – you envision your society scaling up from a handful to billions?

                What kind of systems will have to be in place to ensure that criminals (yes, I know, there’s no “law,” but thieves / murderers / rapists / etc) do not proliferate? How do you ensure peace and justice? Does everything essentially boil down to “not my problem”? People get murdered left and right and you shrug?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Why can you not get it through your thick skull that there are more than systematic violence ways of doing things?

                Because history says that humans are a violent, fickle species hell bent on self destruction. Which part of this fact can’t you get understand? Look at what Mathius posted, he has no problem having government take from you to give to others. He is OK with theft and many many millions agree with him. You are misguided into believing that a cult like structure will work, it won’t, EVER. Humans can’t do it without the threat of violence, which you have already admitted would be necessary. The level and amount of violence is moot. You have already failed the “free people” bullshit, because your clan isn’t any more free than our current society.

              • “Because history says that humans are a violent, fickle species hell bent on self destruction. Which part of this fact can’t you get understand?”

                This is why I call you thick headed and use Youtube videos to vent my frustration.

                G – Human nature says we are violent. So forced everything it is.

                Eli – Of course humans are violent, but we don’t need to solve it by forcing you to pay for other people’s cell phones, abortions, spy complexes, militarized police and killing innocent babies many thousands of miles away.

                G – Human nature says we are violent. So forced everything it is.

                Eli – Yeah, I get that. I am just saying that it doesn’t have to be forced everything. We can simply find ways to defend ourselves rather than use it as a serfdom and destruction excuse.

                G – Human nature says we are violent. So forced everything it is.

                Eli – Are you even grasping anything I say?

                G – Human nature says we are violent. So forced everything it is.

                Eli – God you are thick headed

                G – Human nature says we are violent. So forced everything it is. You live in fairy tale land where people are unique snowflakes.

                Eli – Do I decide what you eat for dinner? Never mind, that is too complicated. …I live in the real world where people get along like these countless billions of examples you cannot deny.

                G – Human nature says we are violent. You live in fairy tale land. So forced everything it is.

                G – Go Trump! I salivate over another person forcing those lib-tard dumbasses with no opinion or brain to see that TRUMP’S ASS IS YUMMY! YEAH STATISM STATISM STATISM ! It’s going to be different THIS time!

                G – I agree with you ELi, I really do, but you are full of shit and nothing you will say will work because you live in fairy tale land because I say it so much, and human are violent so force everything it is. But I agree that is the best way. That is why I constantly reject it according to what is popular and not what makes sense.

                Eli – Okay gman, people are violent. Again, I get that. I am simply saying that you don’t have to use that as an excuse to violate everyone by default and regulate everything about all aspects of life. If you are worried about roving gangs, form or hire security forces like they do in private communities or what have you. And it would probably help if you didn’t demand a gang in the first place. Think about it Gman.

                G – Human nature says we are violent. You live in fairy tale land. So forced everything it is.

                G – Human nature says we are violent. You live in fairy tale land. So forced everything it is.

                G – Human nature says we are violent. You live in fairy tale land. So forced everything it is.

                Eli – My god you are thick headed, G.

                Matt – Don’t call that thick headed asshole who hates me and constantly denigrates me thick headed. It’s not any more productive than trying to reason with him.

                Eli –

                G – Human nature says we are violent. You live in fairy tale land. So forced everything it is.

                Eli – You are whoring your grandchildren and forcing them to pay for wars and theft and endless wars and bullshit. Is that not something to question? Is that not really bad?

                G – Human nature says we are violent. You live in fairy tale land. So forced everything it is.

                Eli – Do you not understand that you are violating me and you and everyone? Do you not understand, or are you just evil or what?

                G – Human nature says we are violent. You live in fairy tale land. So forced everything it is.

                JAT – I’ll erase your comments if you don’t like being told to obey die or GTFO or treat the people violating you with respect.

                Eli – But you ARE terrorists that ARE violating people.

                G – Human nature says we are violent. You live in fairy tale land. So forced everything it is.

                G – Human nature says we are violent. You live in fairy tale land. So forced everything it is.

                JAT – Obey or die or move if you don’t like it.

                Eli – It is my home, and you are violating me over special magic words and nonsense. It is completely illegitimate.

                JAT – It is legitimate because people say so.

                Eli – What about those who don’t like it.

                JAT – Human nature says we are violent. You live in fairy tale land. So forced everything it is. Obey die or move if you don’t like it.

                G – Human nature says we are violent. You live in fairy tale land. So forced everything it is. You’re a communist. Anarchy is chaos and government and everything but anarchy. Human nature says we are violent. You live in fairy tale land. So forced everything it is. Human nature says we are violent. You live in fairy tale land. So forced everything it is.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                My friend, your fairy land would necessarily have a name. I would call it Sameness. A world where there cannot be competition, greed, anger, love, desire, hate, joy etc. All human emotions would have to be eliminated in “Sameness” Because it is those human emotions that cause the problems we all have, whether individual or as a group or nation or world. To take all of the bad from society, you would have to remove all emotion from it’s citizens.

                In retrospect, it is those very human emotions that also provide the good in people. Love, desire, passion etc. also drive people to do good things for humanity. Your a good example of someone with a passion who pines for a better system for society. This is where the problem lies.

                Human emotions are the cause of everything, good and bad. Because those emotions can trigger other emotions, both good and bad, Sameness, aka Anarchy land, it would be necessary to remove emotion from your chosen residents. How would you choose to do that?

              • Siriusly?

                You’re kidding, right?

  27. gmanfortruth says:

    http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/campus-socialists-hold-fight-workshop-learn-bash-republicans

    Mathius, this is a great example of why I bash Liberal’s. These people have mental problems, serious mental problems. Trump Derangement Syndrome comes to mind. 🙂

    • A) Why would you read Truth Revolt? It’s like Breitbart, but on the left. For that matter, don’t read Occupy Democrats either. In fact, go take a look back at my post on the last thread about media outlets and their biases. Find the circles on the lower left/right and just block all of them.

      B) I have no idea what happened here because TR is full of crap and cannot be trusted in any way shape or form. Further, I refuse to click the link because I refuse to contribute to their add revenue.

      C) Just going on the URL alone, that’s pretty messed up. That said, you shouldn’t extrapolate to “liberals” as a whole based on the idiocy of a few any more than I should assume the Klan is indicative of “conservatives” as a whole.

      D) Lastly, I’ll remind you that, since the URL mentions “campus,” that kids are morons. People in general are stupid, but teenagers (and young-20’s) are especially so. They think they know everything and are just coming into the point in their lives where they have the freedom to act on their beliefs whims. All of these young idiots will grow up to become slightly less stupid. With that in mind, it’s especially unfair to paint all “liberals” with the brush of a few especially stupid idiots.

      E) 65 million people voted for Clinton. Of them, 64,999,975 did not engage in a “workshop” to “learn how to bash Republicans” because they better things to do with their lives and they aren’t that stupid. So please stop generalizing to them.. and me.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Truth Revolt generally links to the original sources on these subjects. Kind of like a small Drudge Report. Just links with some commentary.

        For the record, I do read Left leaning stuff, which is why I have 3 herniated discs in my neck from shaking my head so much. The inuendo and lies are so blaring, yet people believe the nonsense and then act out, as these stupid kids are doing. It’s those on the Left that dress up in vagina costumes and go out in public, not Conservatives (I found this so stupid, and they were adults, at least looked aged).

        You are correct, most Clinton voters are not activists, same said for Conservatives, and Independents make up 40% and have little to do with activism at all.

        But, Had Conservatives shut done a speech by a gay Liberal, your ilk would go apeshit crazy and the word of the week would be homophobe.

        Had Conservatives tried to stop a Liberal female from becoming the Head of the DoE, your ilk would be screaming Misogynist’s

        If Conservatives failed to show up for Senate hearings in protest, your ilk would be screaming obstructionism.

        It’s all OK though, this is how the infantile act. Very telling, isn’t it?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        The story is all over the place, I could have picked any number of links. We do have one thing in common…..I don’t click on certain links either 🙂

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Let me also add, Trump is just the name, pick any other Republican who would have won and we would be referring to the same stuff. All the protests and riots and other silly stuff would still be going on.

        • I’m not so sure. I’ve never seen the left this fired up in my – admittedly brief – experience.

          I think, had Kasich or Jeb! won, the left would be moaning and groaning, but not apoplectic. Had Romney won, we’d have felt much the same. Had McCain (sans Palin and back when he was sane) won, we’d have been ok with it. Not happy. mind you, but not apocalyptic either.

          We hated W because of his faux cowboy reckless anti-intellectualism. His disdain for the “reality-based community” and his unilateralism (with us or against us) and his knee-jerk reactionism and his impulse to divide rather than unite (see, again, with us or against us) and his deregulation and his favoritism of the wealthy. He was, in short, everything we loathe… We see in Trump all these things again – magnified.

          I don’t think we’d be reacting this way to a more moderate / traditional candidate. Hell, I could have even considered voting for Jeb! or Kasich over Clinton (probably wouldn’t, but it would be a relatively close call). Instead my choice was Clinton or shit-burger.

          And then, we won. WE WON the popular vote. By a comfortable margin. 3 million + votes.

          AND WE STILL LOST. Hard.

          At every level.

          Despite the fact that there were more of us than there were of you.

          How you can wonder why we’re upset is beyond me. Try to put yourself in a scenario where the Republicans ran a moderate / center-right candidate and somehow Dennis Kucinich won with Warren as VP while losing the popular vote. And then they appointed Buck as AG and me as Sec of State. Then you’ll understand why we’re up-in-arms.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            For someone who doesn’t want to be linked to WE, you sure are part of WE, aren’t you? 🙂

            As far as elections, Obama was a disaster for a lot of people and the rich just got richer. My thinking is that as long as a politician holds the office, the rich will continue to get richer. Anyway, what exactly got better under Obama? Just remember, the facts are out there. 🙂

          • But people are violent, Mathius. Human nature says that you need to be ruled by Trump and a population who knows you are just a dumb liberal with no legitimate opinion.

            Obey, die or move if you don’t like it.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        I have a beef over your graphic of the other day. It included Red State in the lower right.

        My experience on that site is that it is Conservative, but not crazy and it makes an effort to make sure the news it reports is accurate. If often points out when stories contain falsehoods or incomplete information.

  28. “Can you please provide support for how – exactly – you envision your society scaling up from a handful to billions?

    What kind of systems will have to be in place to ensure that criminals (yes, I know, there’s no “law,” but thieves / murderers / rapists / etc) do not proliferate? How do you ensure peace and justice? Does everything essentially boil down to “not my problem”? People get murdered left and right and you shrug?”

    I can go on and on brainstorming of ways to get things done without violence. That is basically the primary qualification for an Anarchy/Libertarian society, that it is not forced.

    I imagine it would be a lot like it is now, with all the modern conveniences and such, only more free and efficient.

    Imagine not paying taxes, but sitting in your office and stumbling on a local advertisement for an idea, then transferring a money and donating to the fund for a new lighting system that makes your roads run smoother or to build a new school or a new boardwalk through the park or something.

    Imagine making a business deal with a third party that ensures the deal instead of government forcing it through regulations. Imagine not having to calculate taxes when doing so.

    Imaging the local restaurant not having a health inspection by the health department, but because of popular demand for clean eateries, the free consumer reports magazine that gets it’s money from advertising, tells everyone how clean their competitors are, thus fueling the race for a cleaner eatery and a much higher standard than the forced one.

    Imagine not having to worry about going to jail for blowing the guy’s head off who stole your car or raped your sister.

    Imagine telling her to take the kids and leave then, and watch her rethink it, and not be worried about being single and struggling financially in a shitty apartment next year still paying for everything while she fuks some guy in your bed who eyeballs your daughter while you sleep on an air mattress in a legal cuckold.

    Imagine a chip attached to your car that tells the gate to open and allow you entry to a pay monthly online enter at your own risk fast as hell freeway lane that, although it often slows to the intolerable speed of about 90mph during rush hour, generally moves rather efficiently and gets you all the way across town in 10 minutes flat. Just remember to use the ejector seat should you find yourself hurling into someone else’s fireball of twisted metal (or anything) at 175 mph.

    • That last one sold me. I’m in.

    • I think the analogy I’m going to go with for your vision is Linux vs Windows. I think that is going to prove highly illustrative. But I’m done SUFA’ing for the night, so it’ll have to wait for another day.

  29. Just A Citizen says:

    After seeing the umpteenth quote, from the meat sack called Senator Schumer, about how so and so is “not qualified” for the Supreme Court, I thought I would check on past justices experience.

    Turns out every one of them attended law school or at least took law classes. All were supposedly lawyers, although the requirements for being a lawyer in the good ol’ days did not require bar exams and such.

    But 40 of the justices had ZERO experience as a judge. The Constitution has NO requirements listed for judges. So in theory any of us could be picked to serve in the Federal court system. So next time someone tells you that you are not qualified to comment on Constitutional law remind them that no specific schooling is required to understand the law or to even serve on the court. Which is why I was afraid Clinton might have appointed Obama if she had won.

    http://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html

  30. gmanfortruth says:

    Well now. California is so well represented, why would they want to succeed?

    • Korea? Maybe they should impeach her.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Absolutely. Not to mention that Trump has nothing at all to do with Aleppo, that mess belongs to Obama and his administration.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I wonder if Trump can sue for slander? I think political speech is protected, but I don’t think blatant lies are political speech.

        • He can sue all he wants. He ain’t going to win.

          Remember, if Trump could get away for years with calling Obama a Kenyan with zero evidence, there’s basically nothing he’s going to be able to do to stop others from slandering him.

          The standard of evidence for slander/libel against a “public person” (eg, not your average citizen) is “a reasonable belief by the author of the truth of the statement at the time of making it.” (quoting my memory from my law professor.. actual text may vary slightly).

          Trump wouldn’t just have to prove that it’s not true.

          He’d have to prove that the author knew it wasn’t true at the time he wrote it.

          Good luck with that.

          And, to sweeten the deal, remember that the burden of proof is on the accuser, she doesn’t have to prove a prove a thing.

          ———–

          Also, not for nothing, but it’s not a great precedent for the the President to go around suing his detractors.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Well, Trump didn’t GIVE PUTIN the bombs to bomb Aleppo, and Korea (which doesn’t exist) has not been invaded by Russia either, so he can’t help. I’m pretty sure these are easily proven lies intended to slander, there is no other reason.

            But, is it not time we all start telling these idiot politicians, ALL of them, that the LYING has to end? No more campaign lies, no more lies about others etc. I think it is long past time that if we are going to be stuck with a government, they should be acting like adults, not five years olds.

            • Sure. Can we start at the top? Maybe we can begin by going after Trump for some of his blatant lies (eg crowd sizes, etc)?

              Or, maybe we should start with Conway’s use of the “Bowling Green Massacre” as justification for the Muslim ban?

              Seems to me that if you want to raise the standard for political discourse (I’m on board!), you should start with the most important politician first then work your way down.

  31. Here is an idea…

    Since the NSA has abused their power and position to violate everyone on Earth, as has been clearly demonstrated by heroes like Manning, Snowden and Assange, and since the US Government does nothing in the way of stopping the NSA, but instead plays some stupid shell game with legal provision of their ‘authority’ and right to violate everyone, I submit the NSA in it’s entirety needs to be physically destroyed.

    The people challenge Trump to actually make America great again by telling each and every one of the NSA employees that they’re fired, while the people find them comparable employment in the civilian sector.

    Once the facilities are unoccupied, Trump then puts all police and military or guard terrorists on stand down while the people and a dozen fire departments go there and safely burn every bit of it to the ground.

    No more legal shell game bullshit, no more broken promises, no more snooping and spying, no reallocation of resources and equipment, no more records, no more anything NSA, …just go there and burn that MF’er down,

    …actually solve the problem.

    • No…….who is going to put out the fires? You must stand down the quasi-miiltary fire department because they wear uniforms and accept tax money that you are forced to pay. Let the people all pitch in and put out the fires. JAC and I will bring the smores and m’mellows…..hot dogs…..beer….mustard…..NO Kraut……onions,,,,,,jalapenos….and we enjoy a nice fire.

      • Okay then, forget the fire department or any unanimous cooperation to remedy everyone’s problem.

        Burn it anyway. There is no need to put out the fires. The objective is to destroy it, burn it till it goes out on it’s own for having no more fuel.

        Assemble a militia to hold off the terrorists who may try to encroach upon the right to defense, at least long enough for the fire to do some real damage.

        And be nice about it, allow all the employees to get out. Give them plenty of time to pack their things and get out. If they refuse to leave, burn it anyway.

        • There ya go….a true anarchist approach.

          • I see it as much simpler than that. The NSA is everyone’s enemy because they violate everyone. They are everyone’s problem.

            So why does everyone tolerate it? By unanimous decision, and regardless of what the US Govern-terrorism says, the place needs burning.

            Everyone’s solution. Universal win/win. …with the exception of the criminals, of course.

            • I have a question for you.

              How does the NSA “violate everyone,” exactly?

              For our purposes, let’s take as given that they are intercepting, decoding, and analyzing every bit of data you generate online including, but not limited to, your personal emails and text messages.

              You have transmitted that data. It exists as ones and zeros on a server somewhere. You do not own this server. There is no meaningful way to stake a claim to “ownership” of the state of bits as 1’s or 0’s on someone else’s hard drive. It is owned by someone else who, presumably, has given the NSA access. The NSA has not stopped your message from being transmitted. It has not stopped it from being received. It has not, in any way, compelled or limited your freedom to act (assuming your actions have no “national security” implications).

              So, I guess, the question becomes this: How is the NSA any different than your standard eavesdropper? And by what right do you claim they cannot “listen in”? Is my decision to listen in on your otherwise-private conversation on an elevator somehow translatable to an act of violence in your view?

              It seems to me, unless I’m misunderstanding your view, that you are imputing some sense of copyright or privacy rights which do not at first blush appear compatible with your first principles (as I understand them).

              • Just A Citizen says:

                DPM

                It is their use of coercion to get the permission to access the servers or lines carrying the digits. Remember what happened when one of the big internet companies said they would not let them have access anymore (facebook or maybe google, and Verizon).

                But otherwise you hit on a critical question. Are our communications via the new medium part of our personal affects or not?

                My vote is YES. And thus the NSA should have to get a warrant to collect those communications, just as they do to tap a phone line and conversation.

              • Who has a right to privacy?

                Who has a right to violate privacy?

              • Who has a right to privacy?

                Who has a right to violate privacy?

                That’s the question I’m asking YOU.

                For the sake of ease, let’s assume they have positioned a receiver just outside your property line and they’re snooping on your wifi traffic. Recording every website and keystroke, right down to your pornography choices.

                But those signals are just radio waves. Do you own the photons as they pass from your property? Do you own the special configuration? To you own the data they convey?

                If so, are you violating others when you look at them, because they own the photons and the unique patters created as the photons leave their bodies and enter your retinas?

                If not, then what right do you have to complain about free men sitting somewhere and collecting photons?

                To expand, consider that I wrote a book (for intended sale) in your utopia. You bought a copy them mass-produced it and sold it for your own profit. Have you violated me? Do I own the words on that page? The idea behind them? The thoughts? Is there some kind of copyright that entitles me to sole discretionary control over my creations?

      • But I like ketchup on my hot dogs….

  32. gmanfortruth says:

    The Daily Caller reports that the student senate at Santa Clara University rejected a petition by Turning Point USA, a conservative activism group, to form a campus chapter. The reason? Opponents of the group complained that having a conservative group on campus would make them feel “unsafe.”

    The rejection occurred last Thursday night during a meeting of the Associated Student Government at the Jesuit school in Silicon Valley. For about an hour, a standing-room only group of about 50 students and a handful of school employees expressed their concerns about having a conservative organization of a few students on campus.

    The petitioners gave a short presentation about their desire to form a campus chapter of Turning Point USA, a national student activist group which endorses “fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government.” This agenda apparently inspired fear and panic among the willfully blind, left-leaning Santa Clara students, who equate conservatism with Nazism.

    Caleb Alleva, one of the Turning Point USA petitioners, told The Daily Caller that the opponents insisted a campus conservative group made them feel “unsafe.” That’s a curious concern considering that the vast preponderance of violence, both pre- and post-election, has come from the radical left.

    “They were saying they were in danger but they couldn’t cite any facts,” Alleva explained. That’s no surprise, of course, because the left operates in the realm of feelings, not facts.

    “A lot of them are lying about being afraid or they are genuinely in fear because of this false sense of danger promulgated by the media that anyone who is vaguely conservative is a Nazi or a white supremacist,” Alleva continued.

    At a Jan. 26 meeting, a school employee had given Santa Clara student senators a lengthy PowerPoint presentation titled “White Nationalist, Alt-Right & Other Groups on College Campuses,” falsely linking Turning Point USA with white supremacists.

    (The future of the Democratic Party, the little snowflakes are afraid of their own shadow)

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    So, when a govt. entity makes decisions affecting its operations, based on political activism, is said Govt. violating the fiduciary responsibility to the tax payers who elected them?

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/seattle-cutting-ties-with-wells-fargo-over-dakota-access-pipeline/

    Irony alert: These same “lefties” will spend the rest of the year howling about conflicts of interest and companies violating the trust of the people.

    • You’d have to make the case that they’re not serving their constituents’ interests in a broader sense. That’d be a tough sell. There’s a lot of latitude to the idea that being “socially responsible” justifies some added expense – or the city would buy their flags from Chinese sweatshops, etc.

      You’d also have to show that switching to another bank would be fiscally worse for the entity, and it’s quite possible that they can get equivalent (or even better terms by switching).

      ———

      That said, this is moronic, but ultimately meaningless. ::shrug::

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        I agree on the need to prove the harm if one wanted to make a legal case. But I see that as these examples start to increase in number the “elected officials” don’t ever seem to discuss the fiduciary role at all.

        Is this not a form of coercion that is not part of the Charter of Govt? We authorize a govt. to be formed and collect taxes to do certain things. Then they start being “socially responsible” in order to send messages to people and places beyond their authority.

        In the end I see this is no different than the corporatists, or anyone else, capturing govt…

        • Is this not a form of coercion that is not part of the Charter of Govt?

          Of course it is.

          Coercion is the whole point. They want to put pressure on WF (and other banks) to ensure that they behave the way the city wants them to. Seattle lacks the authority to force WF to do (or not do) anything.. but they can put their dollars to work (or not) as a means of coercion.

          That doesn’t intrinsically make that coercion a good or bad thing, however. I won’t opine on the specific merits as I do not consider myself well enough informed.

          Then they start being “socially responsible” in order to send messages to people and places beyond their authority.

          General agreement… but then again, how do you square that with my example above. Should they employ Chinese child-labor to manufacture their flags in order to be fiscally responsible?

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            If free trade is the goal, and in Seattle it is the goal, then they should operate under free trade. The council also has a duty to keep costs at a minimum. So in this case they should buy the Chinese flags if they are of higher value.

            What is wrong with Chinese children working to make flags? Who are you or I to say it is wrong? It that not up to the Chinese to decide?

            Once again, we find ourselves trying to impose our will upon others.

            • If free trade is the goal, and in Seattle it is the goal

              Says who?

              I’d bet that “socially responsible” is mentioned in there somewhere if there’s a formally stated “goal.”

              What is wrong with Chinese children working to make flags? Who are you or I to say it is wrong?

              Because the conditions are abhorrent and the kids should be in school not slaving away in factories and we should not condone or encourage it. In many instances these are tantamount to legalized slavery.

              I’d remind you that a human being is a human being whether they are in America or China.

              Once again, we find ourselves trying to impose our will upon others.

              Do I – a consumer – not have a choice to refuse to by unethically produced goods? Must I accept the cheapest price or can I opt to pay a premium to not use child [slave] labor?

              If I have this freedom, then surely it must continue that I would grant such latitude to my duly elected representative democracy. Surely, if I – WE, collectively – have determined that a vendor is unethical, then WE have the right to decline their use rather than forcing ourselves into blind obeisance to the almighty law of free trade and the free market.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                Then you support the same ethical concept that has us entangled on wars and conflicts around the world.

                Once you decide it is proper to impose YOUR ethical standards on people of another nation you have started down a road that leads to where we currently are.

                You also ignore the reality of those “others” by comparing to “your” or “our” situation. Children working has been around for thousands of years. Only in the most recent times have some people balked at this. And this has also gotten out of hand. But that is for another topic.

                Those children working in China allow that family to become better off today and maybe send the kids to school tomorrow.

                Yes you are within your rights to make decisions for what ever reason you want. That does not make them good decisions. And sometimes what you view as ethical is not shared by those you think you are helping.

              • Financial coercion is not violence.

                I have every right to wield or withhold my dollars in order to make the world a better place in my personal opinion.

                What I do not have is the right to do is to change the world by violence.

        • “beyond their authority” is everything outside of themselves, property, and/or family/friend responsibility. Otherwise it is none of their business.

          The same is true with everyone. Authority is essentially nonsense, a made up word to make government terrorism acceptable.

          People cannot authorize government to do things like coerce and steal and call them taxes(another made-up word for theft). People do not have that right, and therefore cannot extend it to others.

          There is no magical transformation of rights or transference to others. We all have them equally regardless. Representative violence in the name of a group doesn’t do it either. There is simply no such thing in the real world.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Additional question. By what legal authority, or right, does a govt. have the power to discriminate against a company for doing what is legal?

        If said company did not violate any terms or conditions of its contract, has not violated laws of the municipality, is not said govt. if effect being Arbitrary and Capricious? Is it not in effect violating its own “non discrimination” laws?

        • You’d have to consult the city’s charter and relevant laws. I am not a specialist.

          My guess is that you’ll find they have significant latitude under the auspices of “morality” clauses. For example, a vendor that does everything legally, but who is also well know to be an outspoken racist, could easily be considered to have moral turpitude such that the city would be justified in not using him – even if he had the best prices. Same story for WF. The city determined that, because of their part in the Dakota Pipeline, WF is morally bankrupt and the city wants nothing to do with them. Again, you’d have to consult a specialist, but I’d be willing to bet dollars-to-donuts that they’re easily without their legal rights to do so.

          Interesting side-note: The first athlete to have a morality clause in their contract was none other than Babe Ruth, whose manager was hoping to get him to cut down on his habit of sleeping around. (and, no, it did not work)

          • “… legal rights..”

            There is no such thing as legal rights.

            That is just a made up word to make government appear god-like, as if it can determine what is real or not, as if it can grant rights.

            Rights are an inalienable condition of being human, and are not subject to the whims of people’s religious ceremonies or funny clothes or whatever.

            • Even if I stipulate that, it doesn’t change the fact that such things – however artificial – functionally exist in the real world. If you drink and drive (even if you don’t hurt anyone), you have committed what the government deems to be a crime and you will be arrested. Saying “there is no law” won’t change that fact. Even if you’re right that law is wholly bullshit won’t save you. Because the government believes the law exists and, at the same time, wields the force necessary to coerce compliance.

              With all that said, the question JAC is asking is whether the city has violated the law – not whether the law is legitimate or even real – but whether the rules that some politician has written down conflict with the course of action take by the city council.

              I can make a law: Everyone must wear bowler hats on Wednesdays. So speaks Mathius. This is now a law. You can come in and say, screw you, I won’t listen. But if you’re not wearing a bowler hat, you’re in violation of my law. Now you might say “so what? You have no authority over me” and you’d be right, but that’s not JAC’s question. JAC is asking the equivillent (in your world-view) of whether you’ve violated my bowling hat law. Do the city’s actions violate the rules that the government (at various levels) have created. NOT “do legal rights exist in the first place.”

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                My question goes beyond just whether it is violating the law. It is whether such behavior by a Govt. entity should even be legal or allowed.

                I view the role of Govt. as benefiting all its citizens equally. Those things that fall outside this idea should not be part of Govt. Or should be paid on a user fee basis.

                In the WF example there is no benefit to all the citizens of dropping WF’s service. Now maybe it is neutral. But I doubt it, since there will be a cost to solicit a new Bank service and the cost of getting everything switched.

                I admit we don’t have actual factual details, here. I am addressing the concepts.

              • If a pig tries to harass, steal, cage, or otherwise violate me over some paper bullshit, he will be treated as any other thug would.

                He is either gonna get shot on the spot, as soon as he shows any indication of violence, or I am going to come back later and take from him and his superiors or gang whatever it is they owe me. And I charge a lot for being caged and violated.

                As for JAC’s question; it is the equivalent to debating the political status of Smurfs.

                Do you think the Smurf’s have the authority to steal from He-Man and Skelator to give to Wonderwoman and Fritz The Cat?

              • In the WF example there is no benefit to all the citizens of dropping WF’s service.

                Says YOU.

                If you asked the citizens of Oregon, they might suggest that they benefit indirectly by sending a message to WF that such behavior will not be tolerated. As such, the next time WF considers a similar deal, they may decline. That decision may benefit the citizens of Oregon directly, or it may not, but in either event, they will derive a perceived social and public utility from the pressure applied to and resultantly modified behavior of WF.

                You say “no benefit.” They say they’ve “made the world a better place” – and whether you agree or not – that’s a clear benefit.

              • Oy gevalt. It’s like talking to a wall.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                I suppose the people in western Oregon may feel that way. But “feeling good” should not be a role of Govt. That is why I stick to the tangible affects of govt.

                I have no doubt that a majority of people in western Washington and Oregon feel great by using city councils to “send messages” to others. If they could they would outlaw people who don’t agree with them. Doesn’t make it “right”.

            • “Rights are an inalienable condition of being human”…..says who?

              • Reality. (…and your founders, Greeks, others)

                Try not to be human. Too bad. You are a human. You have to be a human and do as humans do. That is your right because that is what god and nature and reality says.

                Hence inalienable right. Inalienable means unable to separate, part of, inherent.

                You are rightful in doing anything a human would want or be able to do, up to the point where it encroaches on the right of other humans to do anything they want or are able.

                This balance of one’s rights ending where another’s begin, this system of respecting rights is called Liberty or Libertarianism.

                This is what the second paragraph of your Declaration of ‘Independence’ is about. That self evident truth is reality, and all men created equally is about equal rights and living as humans do(life liberty, happiness).

                Of course, then it goes on to say that government terrorist organizations are formed to do all these good things, which is a load of crap, obviously. But that is what they intended anyway. That is what it is talking about.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Inalienable?

                We back on the immigration issue?

        • Government has no authority to do anything because there is no such thing as “government authority”. It is a made up word to make terrorism appear legitimate.

          Authority is only legitimate in the sense of expertise. But with government, it is simply violence. It doesn’t have authority.

          • I think he’s talking within the legal framework.

            Whether you agree or not (and, of course, you don’t) that the legal framework itself has any moral grounding, it does exist and underpins the entirety of the US government’s self-constraint and exercise of coercion (read: violence) upon its citizens.

            As such, JAC is asking if there’s a case for arguing that the city exceeded its LEGAL authority.

            • “… if there’s a case for arguing that the city exceeded its LEGAL authority.”

              Yes. There is no such thing as “legal authority”. Thus any organization claiming to do anything based on legal authority is acting on nothing, thus exceeding it’s authority to do nothing.

              • You’re being deliberately obtuse.

                You’re clearly intelligent and know exactly what is being asked.

                Answer the question in the spirit in which it is intended or move along to a different thread/topic. I don’t feel like having a re-hash of my (many) arguments with BF where I am forced to neurotically define every word and phrase just to get a straight answer.

                You know what is meant by “law.” I am even stipulating the leeway to consider it a moral / ethical falsehood, but one which, nonetheless exists IN PRACTICE in the real world by dint of government fiat (read coercive violence). Surely that should be enough of a disclaimer for you to address the topic at hand rather than shoehorning the conversation into a debate about the fundamental moral existence of the thing called “law.”

                If it makes you feel better, let’s imagine that JAC’s question is framed in a universe where a poll was taken and EVERY SINGLE RESIDENT of America unanimously agreed to be bound by the currently existing set of laws. Then answer the question.

              • LMAO!

              • “You’re being deliberately obtuse.”

                I can say the same thing about your not answering the Smurf question. Is it really obtuse?

                Maybe the obtuse is insisting Smurf world exists, then forcing it onto others? What if laws were made based on the authority of Smurfs?

                How does it compare to basing it on the authority of nothing?

                How are we supposed to address questions of reality based on fiction?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                @Elisheba,

                We don’t live in Smurf land, Anarchy land, Liberal land (although they are trying hard and you would really hate that), Conservative land (so far the best choice), or any other Utopia land that some people want. We live here and now and we have laws and government. It is our current life that we discuss, not some fairy land that some wish for. Lets try and stick to what is reality and leave the fairy tale stuff for fairy tale sites.

              • That is what I am trying to do, but it is difficult to do when people insist on faux world nonsense.

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    Oh the IRONY; “How are we supposed to address questions of reality based on fiction?”

    • You are applying a falsehood to reality, as if authority is real. In the real world, authority is about expertise, and not some made up garbage at govern-church.

      In the real world, there are people who do not consent, remember?

      What was that we were discussing about legitimacy?

      • Elisheba, can you prove this theory? ” In the real world, authority is about expertise, ” Where do you get this?

        • “Where do you get this?”

          Primarily from the specific arrangement of the English letters A H I O R T T U and Y

          When you arrange them in this order: Authority …it forms an English word that means expert, someone who is well educated or has a lot of experience with something.

          For example; If you were to open a restaurant and wanted some novelty original cuisine, you may consult a chef, perhaps someone with management experience. They are an authority on cuisine and restaurant management.

  35. JAC, out of curiosity, why do you feel that emails, cell phone calls, or any other communication over airwaves……is a violation of your privacy?

    Do you feel that there is an assumed right to privacy if you hire a company to send your emails and/or phone messages stored on an outside server that you do not control? To use the example of sitting outside your boundaries with a receiver able to capture the air waves…where do you feel that is a violation of your property rights?

    It goes to BF’s assertion that there is no intellectual property, does it not?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      d13thecolonel

      Re: emails, etc.

      This is an area where our Constitutional Right to be secure in our homes and in our papers, affects, etc. has to keep up with changes in technology.

      Our emails, texts, and phone calls of today are the same as the letters and papers of 1780.

      The govt. has always tried to subvert this and the Courts have gone back and forth. But I think I have the same right to NO GOVT. Snooping unless the Govt. has cause as evidenced by them being able to get a warrant to search my house, car, body, horse, wagon, etc.

      I do not “assume” privacy when using a commercial service. I assume the Govt. has no legal authority to gather my information or intercept my messages without a warrant. I assume they have no authority to force the company to provide them with that information and that the use of coercion to get it is equally a violation of their legal authority.

      Now if the private enterprise promises me it will do everything it can to maintain the privacy of my information then I sure do expect them to keep their word. But generally, this expectation, on my part, does not extend to air waves. That is protection from other private people from eaves dropping. If I want that protection then I need to search out a company that provides encryption so nobody can listen in.

      Now if someone intercepts an encrypted message and then applies software to break that encryption are they not stealing or trespassing? That encryption should be like the No Trespassing sign on my gate.

      I believe Govt. has a special duty to be more constrained than the citizens themselves. If citizens can eaves drop does not mean that the Govt. should do the same. Govt. should be BETTER, not worse.

  36. gmanfortruth says:

    There is a new article posted to continue current discussions and new ones 🙂

%d bloggers like this: