Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Attach:
(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rtf, mp3, webp, odt, html
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 30000KB, maximum individual size 30000KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: September 23, 2021, 10:22:59 PM »

Quote
U.S. Constitution.
You seem to be unfamiliar.
Quote
➽ The "right to rule" is the democratically agreed process.

Please present your evidence proving I, or others with a mindset like mine, have agreed.

➽ U.S. Constitution.

How does you mentioning the U.S. Constitution prove that I, or others with a mindset like mine, have agreed?
Quote
It's been five days since I replied to you. This tag is just in case Fecalbook was not working properly so you didn't get the notification of the last tag.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: September 23, 2021, 05:53:13 PM »

Quote
The "right to rule" is the democratically agreed process. I DID answer your question, it just wasn't the answer you wanted, therefore you ignored it.
You're looking to exploit "holes" in my idea while ignoring your own. You keep looping back to your "loaded" question. I answered it.
Go ahead and give me "three strikes" in this conversation (as if YOUR approval means anything to me), as you aren't looking for discussion, you want affirmation of your idea. You are reading to respond, not to understand, that much is clear.
Be well. I hope you work out your own catharsis. lol
Quote
➽ The "right to rule" is the democratically agreed process.

Please present your evidence proving I, or others with a mindset like mine, have agreed.

➽ The "right to rule" is the democratically agreed process.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: September 23, 2021, 12:56:38 PM »

Quote
Do you have a better idea?
So far, liberty has remained, for the most part, with this particular Republic. Fixing the system we have will require more than just voting, I agree, but it is an essential tool of the set. People cannot be trusted to regulate themselves, proven time and time again. We are forced to make laws to keep people from being shitty to one another. That's a travesty of liberty, but people just can't seem to control themselves. Ones liberty stops where it infringes on another. That includes government.
Quote
Since I've withdrawn my strike one regarding your laugh react, You've just re-earned a Strike One.

You have failed to answer my specific question... A question based upon your stated claim. To wit, you stated:

➽ Of course, the "majority rule" will never represent the minority,

To which I specifically asked: Where does this Majority get its right to rule?

I'll assume this error in communication is mine. This Majority chose who is going to be the ruler. How does the minority get to choose a ruler that I must obey?

By what authority does the majority have a right to choose a ruler for me?
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: September 23, 2021, 12:01:21 PM »

Quote
Dale, the legislator is granted authority as a representative of the people (majority) by democratic process.
Of course, the "majority rule" will never represent the minority, which is why we have Constitutional rights as individuals which no law should be passed that is in direct conflict with those individual rights.
Those rights may be restricted to an individual if they abuse their rights, or exercise them irresponsibly.
Laws are created as protections, but many have become service laws which feed a failed system.
We change that system by petitioning those elected authorities to represent the will of the people.
When politicians decide to override the will of the people, we vote them out.
Your idea suggests that once elected, we just leave them there and not take action to have them removed.
That's the result of your "solution" of surrendering your power.
I will never abide that.
Corrupt officials are voted into office because their friends know how to play the democracy game, and your idea is to stand on the sidelines and complain?
The less you vote, the worse it gets.
Apathy is not a solution.
Quote
I have taken the liberty of adding a line feeds to expand your paragraph in my public archive of your words. This is to make the points of each sentence easier to read and reply to.

➽ Of course, the "majority rule" will never represent the minority,

Thank you for understanding this specific, particular point.

Where does this Majority get its right to rule? By what authority?
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: September 22, 2021, 10:56:37 AM »

Quote
Dale, to make any real difference, one must vote LOCALLY, as politics trickles UP. Root to the fruit.
If you believe "giving up" against a criminal syndicate and having only their buddies doing the voting is a solution, you're just handing them their power. Having people believe as you do is to fuel their agendas. 3 boxes are the remedy; Soap box (as you are demonstrating), Ballot box which you have forfeited, and Ammo box for when the others fail.
I agree that the illusion of choice is a genuine issue. That will require remedy as well. We do that by voting in local elections, where the trickle starts.
Voting has resolved a great many issues in this country, and that's when the corruption started, followed by legalizing bribes (the criminals make all of their crimes "legal"), which has led to a fascism within our government purchased by the oligarchy.
Suffice it to say that I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I will never relent to not being active. Local voting has legalized harmless substances, eliminated for-profit prisons which perpetuated "drug wars" and subsequent "zero tolerance" laws. Corruption has lap-dogged the media, which was SUPPOSED to be the watch dog. How did that happen? People thought voting was pointless. Surrender of voting caused a great many of the issues you have outlined here. If you trace the history, you will discover that I am on point.
Many people are under the impression that being loyal to a candidate, or the state, is "Patriotism". It is not. Loyalty to the people and our Constitution is true patriotism, and those whom have infested our government must be removed.
Root to the fruit.
If the only people voting are criminals and statists, this will continue.
It will not be an easy task to convince me that surrendering my vote will EVER solve anything, ever. Contrary, the right to vote may have, in fact, been diluted (see filibuster) but that CAN be reclaimed if We the People work diligently to unfuck what apathy (not voting) has created.
Quote
I've skimmed your comment. I am saving a[n] anonymized copy of this discussion on my website. I will address your points after you address mine. So I have repeated what you chose to ignore.

A right to vote for what? I'll limit my focus to the what, more correctly the who, which is a lying politician for a criminal syndicate... Er... a government office. Specifically, for this discussion, a legislative office. Thus, this vote is to choose a candidate for the position of legislator to fill the legislative office.

Elected Legislators have the job of making rules, called laws, that purport to have authority over you. Elected Legislators have the job of making rules to tell you what you are allowed and not allowed to do. Elected Legislators have the job of making rules to set how you shall be punished if you get caught not obeying Legislator rules. The LEO's (Law Enforcement Officers) have the job of arresting you if they catch you breaking Legislator rules. To include using escalating force, up to and including killing you if you forcibly resist being arrested.

HOW DID LEGISLATORS GET AUTHORITY OVER YOU BY BEING ELECTED AS A LEGISLATOR?
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: September 22, 2021, 08:40:24 AM »

Quote
Not voting is surrender.
Surrender of voice.
Surrender of influence.
Surrender of power.
The powers that be would prefer that you don't vote.
Quote
Voting is surrendering to vote for evil. Period.

You have my attention. Please make sure I am tagged when you reply. dale.eastman.75
Quote
Not voting is silencing your voice.
Silence is consent to the evil you speak of.
People died so that everyone has the right to vote.
Not voting is to ignore that, and ignorance renders no solutions.
Quote
Are you for or against liberty?
Quote
That laugh react is strike 1. If you can't or won't answer such a simple question so I may determine where you stand...
Quote
Dumb question, the only people who AREN'T pro-liberty work for the state or are invested in the state. I am adamantly pro-liberty.
I am pro-choice and pro-gun.
I am not binary or tribal when it comes to these things.
Quote
Thank you. I suspected as much, however I do my best to NOT assume. I am a pedantic asshole when it comes to meanings of words.

The admin of this group is even more hard core fuck voting than I am.

I will now take the time to compose a proper response to your first comment.
Quote
I do appreciate a genuine discussion.
Thanks.
I know that I am limited to my own extrapolation/perspective. I need others to complete an unbiased view.
Quote
➽ Not voting is surrender.
➽ Surrender of voice.

On that point, you are in error. My voice is NOT surrendered. My voice is not YET silenced.

➽ Surrender of influence.

Attempting to influence the criminal syndicate called government is a futile action. It's not the criminal syndicate that needs influencing. It's all the humans inculcated to the beliefs desired by government by 12 years incarceration in a government indoctrination center. You know these GIC's as public schools. More specifically government controlled schools. Look up "Prussian Method" or "Prussian Education".

Have you read Lysander Spooner's NO TREASON? If so, when? During your incarceration in a GIC or after your release? Same question regarding Frederic Bastiat's LAW?

Now since I just triggered my own thought about "law", have you read John Locke's discussion of NATURAL LAW in his SECOND TREATISE OF GOVERNMENT? Again, If so, when?

This. Right here. Is me projecting my voice; This is me attempting to influence a person who has not rejected voting. And when I do such projections of my voice, I am not just presenting my thoughts to you, I am presenting my thoughts to anybody else reading this discussion.

You are NOT going to influence government by working within its system. By voting, you give legitimacy (non-bogusness) to a system that is steeped in FRAUD. Government does NOT follow its own rules. Yet you think voting will change things. Imagine the societal discussion when the office of hair sniffer is filled by only 1,000 votes. I don't mean by 1,000 votes more than the other guy, I mean 1,000 votes period.

VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! Carlo Gambino or Vito Genovese.
Choose your next criminal syndicate ruler.

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." If you vote, you APPEAR to give consent. Even if you don't, "they", the criminals called government, will spin your voting as giving them consent.

➽ Surrender of power.

When a criminal points a gun at you, what power have you actually surrendered? None. You actually surrendered your power to the criminal when you chose (read, inculcated) to believe he has a right to point guns at you to make you do what he wants. Voting for one criminal or another does not surrender this "power". Paying taxes so the criminal syndicate can buy those guns... That when you surrendered your power.

➽ The powers that be would prefer that you don't vote.

The flaw in your thinking is when NOBODY votes. Then the "[criminals] that be", will be exposed.

➽ Not voting is silencing your voice. Silence is consent to the evil you speak of.

Voting is consent to the evil doers.

➽ People died so that everyone has the right to vote.

A right to vote for what? I'll limit my focus to the what, more correctly the who, which is a lying politician for a criminal syndicate... Er... a government office. Specifically, for this discussion, a legislative office. Thus, this vote is to choose a candidate for the position of legislator to fill the legislative office.

Elected Legislators have the job of making rules, called laws, that purport to have authority over you. Elected Legislators have the job of making rules to tell you what you are allowed and not allowed to do. Elected Legislators have the job of making rules to set how you shall be punished if you get caught not obeying Legislator rules. The LEO's (Law Enforcement Officers) have the job of arresting you if they catch you breaking Legislator rules. To include using escalating force, up to and including killing you if you forcibly resist being arrested.

How did Legislators get authority over you by being elected as a Legislator?

I'm still catching up on my Fecalbook notifications, so I'll end this here. Next I intend to examine where this alleged authority comes from.