Out2Lunch Backs Down, Admits the 'Birfers' are Complete Nutjobs! by Hero

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Out2Lunch Backs Down, Admits the 'Birfers' are Complete Nutjobs!

POSTED BY: HERO
UPDATED: Friday, August 7, 2009 18:45
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 7607
PAGE 2 of 5

Sunday, July 19, 2009 3:51 PM

Actually the exposition of these deficiencies and abuses occurred BEFORE they happened.

Jan 1788 in point of fact, in the person of BRUTUS, within Antifederalist papers #11 and #12.
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus11.htm
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus12.htm#01

Me, I don't want a "republic" OR a "democracy" - I don't want anyone "ruling" me "for my own good"!

The concept that we are all just thieving, murderous, immoral louts who need control "for our own good" has been a lie ever since it's inception, usually by those offering that control for their own reasons which have nothing whatsoever to *do* with benefit to us.

Isn't it long past time we admitted this simple truth ?

Think about it, if someone removed the "rules" tomorrow, would YOU, personally, really act so differently ?

Would you immediately turn and prey on your fellow man ?

And if those "rules" no longer protected those who DO victimise others (and protect them with the full might of a national military, no less!) from retribution on behalf of those victims, do you really think they would be so very inclined to it anymore ?

You can talk till your blue in the face about how you want a "republic" or a "democracy" or some other form of what amounts to government, but don't be surprised at me laughing, as you stand there at the three card monte table playin the shell game like a sucker.

The elusive pea of freedom is NEVER under any of the shells, you fools, and never will be - if you WANT it, you must upset the table, and refuse to play the game.

Only then does success become possible in earnest.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, July 19, 2009 6:02 PM

BYTEMITE

In any community, there has to be some kind of agreement and ways to resolve problems and issues that come up. If you don't like democracy, how do you propose communities reach a consensus and move to act?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 20, 2009 1:52 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Retired general, lieutenant colonel join Major Cook's lawsuit over Obama's birth status
www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/778482.html

Obama Signs Executive Order 13489 Barring Release Of His Birth Certificate On January 21st, 2009, his very first day in office
http://freedomedium.com/2009/07/obama-signs-executive-order-barring-re
lease-of-his-birth-certificate/

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

The concept that we are all just thieving, murderous, immoral louts who need control "for our own good" has been a lie ever since it's inception, usually by those offering that control for their own reasons which have nothing whatsoever to *do* with benefit to us.

It's the theiving, murderous, immoral louts who want to rule us.

Head shrinkers call that "projection" in the loonybin.

Keith Olbermann is the Worst Person in the World!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 20, 2009 5:57 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
In any community, there has to be some kind of agreement and ways to resolve problems and issues that come up. If you don't like democracy, how do you propose communities reach a consensus and move to act?

Very simple, the people *directly* affected by the results of that decision, and ONLY them - make the choice, with two caveats.

1. No force or violence.*

2. The agreement MUST BE UNANIMOUS.

Now, lemme illustrate why the first is so important, ok ?

Let's dispense with the myth that if you didn't use force that a decision would never come, that lie belongs in the dustbin right next to the idea that we need to be controlled for our own good - cause unless you discard these concepts why did you ever bother moving out of your parents house, yes ?

Fact is, once you remove force from the equation, negotiation and consensus actually becomes a smoother, cleaner, and often faster process, people ARE capable of getting along, never more so than without established structures encouraging them to hate over petty things like religion, or ethnicity, or what have you, that make no real difference otherwise in peoples interactions.

But once you add it, it becomes the easiest way, once you have the hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

And that is what government is, once you strip the lies away, raw naked force bent on making OTHER people do what YOU want them to do.

The concept itself is repulsive, but lemme make it crystal clear so there's no mistaking where my offense is, right-O ?

Every law, every regulation, every petty stinkin nitpick - has behind it LETHAL force, as in should you refuse to comply, then defend yourself from the thugs sent to force that compliance under threat, those thugs can and will kill you... in "self defense" of course, which is as much a falsehood as the notion that our troops are "just defending themselves" in Iraq.

So with that said - what are you, personally, willing to downright kill someone over ?

Like, maybe their garage is 2" wider than the building code allows, despite it being built long before that code was re-written that way ?

How about it then, do you think I should have to die because I refuse to mangle and rebuild my own garage on my own property at my own expense cause some other folk made a decision I wasn't even informed of, much less a participant in ?

Cause see - with the current system, that is what you are doing when you give your approval to laws, regs and the like, you are saying that you support enforcing them up to and including the death of those who fail to comply.

What's worth killin someone over to you ?

Just because you are removed enough from the actual enforcement that you don't have to get your own hands dirty or witness the carnage, does not in any way absolve you of the responsibility.

That is what my issue with it is, to be specific.

Now as for unanimous consent, well, there's two ways to get it - either kill/beatdown/incarcerate everyone who disagrees, a primitive and barbaric idiocy we STILL practice even though we pretend to be civilised, and something we damn well OUGHT to have had the moral decency and good sense to discard a couple hundred years ago...

Or, here's a novel thought - actually reason and negotiate with other people, contrary to what the established order would have you believe, that DOES actually WORK, you know!

Also, you might consider thinking about the word "community" and what the root expressions of it are, many rural communities, especially small ones, practice a form of de-facto collectivism even today, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone FORCED to participate in a barn-raising, but they come anyway, don't they ?

It all boils down to the simple fact that if left to get along, people DO get along, and what petty violence and disagreements occasionally happen in any human interaction are small in scale and rarely lethal - as opposed to when governments get involved and millions die, many of whom had no personal reason whatsoever to even dislike each other.

It's high time that we, as a species, grew the hell up, is what I am saying.

-Frem
*(Note: The simplest way to make force/violence not an option is to not create an imbalance of power by stripping folks of personal defenses.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 20, 2009 6:10 AM

BYTEMITE

Your definition of collectivism is pretty close to my definition of democracy. I always assumed that if someone had no interest in something, they wouldn't bother to vote or throw monkey wrenches in negotiation.

The only people who don't do that now are the people who want to add pork barrel and loopholes for themselves into everything, I thought.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 20, 2009 6:28 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Ah, the devil of the details...

Actually the technical term behind my concept is Kropotkinist Anarchism.
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents
.html

But I did already suspect that what you meant by "democracy" was actually something closer to collectivist mutualism of a non-violent stripe, just from various discussions here.

Yet I did need to point out exactly where and why my breakpoint with conventional Governments, even our own "democracy" was.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 20, 2009 5:58 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Smoking gun finally found?

United States Justice Foundation
April 28, 2009

AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has Released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school.

The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.

http://amfoi.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/barrysoetorooccidentalapplica
tion1978.pdf

The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.

Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue.

Britain's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, “Obama Eligibility Questioned,” leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K.

In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.

http://amfoi.wordpress.com/

President Obama = Oxymoron

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 20, 2009 7:41 PM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Quote:
Smoking gun finally found?

United States Justice Foundation
April 28, 2009

AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has Released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school.

The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.

http://amfoi.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/barrysoetorooccidentalapplica
tion1978.pdf

The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.

Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue.

Britain's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, “Obama Eligibility Questioned,” leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K.

In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.

http://amfoi.wordpress.com/

President Obama = Oxymoron

Hoax.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama_citizenship_quest
ioned.htm

Come on, at least.. show some effort.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:11 AM