Feds: Banks Should Call Police if Customer Withdraws More Than $5k in Cash

[see4]

Oops. Misread.

These are the questions I wanted you to answer.

Can you show me any agreements that I or other people made with the purported "leaders" where we agreed to be subjects in the first place?

If you can't wouldn't their assumed authority over me be then based in an assumption they are my superiors and that I have no rights at all?

Show me those agreements please.


Now, I'll answer your question.

Its my belief and also a fact, my "citizenship" and the claimed "citizenship" of many others is not based on a consensual interaction or relationship with the people that claim us as their subject.

So, to renounce them and make a claim of self ownership is something I've already done in a sense. The fact is I do comply under duress with some things they insist upon, not because I want to, because I know they will harm me if I do otherwise. This too is irrefutable, unless you get absurd.

An implied authority without full acceptance is certainly considered coercion. However, it falls apart for you when you use the internet, drive on city roads, drink city water, stay on land that is protected by a military, and on and on. By staying here and doing the things I just listed, you are in fact accepting implied authority by the government.

Done in a sense, is not actually "done". When you renounce citizenship, you are literally no longer a citizen of the United States and therefore have no rights under it, and are considered an illegal alien. What you are currently claiming is a pseudo-version of that to satisfy your needs. Am I wrong?

 

[Rob Roy]

Jane Russel.

In real life I am very tall, close to 7' ,my lady friend is tall too. I have not however thrown a Buick over a house as I earlier claimed. Sorry for the exaggeration. I have however slam dunked over a multitude of white boys that have no game.

When I was cowering under my bed from the internet muscular jacked see4 my furry feet could barely even fit under there. When aroused I do grow about eleven inches, hope that clears things up.

 

[see4]

I propose things be done on a consensual basis and those that want or need things be free to chose those services amongst those that wish to provide them.

*choose

I propose things be done on a consensual basis and those that want or need things be free to chose those services amongst those that wish to provide them.

A coercive monopoly in a given geographical area exists not for the benefit of the livestock / subjects, it exists for the benefit of those in power. That too is self evident as a fact, since my proposals of real free trade are disallowed under threat of force by those holding the coercive power.

It would be nice if you answered my questions above too.

I'm not sure I grasp your logic here. But let me see if I can try to respond.

Well, the flaw in your assumption is that people are giving and compassionate, and that is evidently false. It seems you wish for a land of lawlessness and you bank of the fact that people will live peacefully among themselves. That might be true in your small neck of the woods, but in areas of population greater than 10,000, I'd bet that not be the case at all.

I agree that people in power who abuse that power make it feel as if those incapable of self reliance are coerced, but that is why I believe in a self regulating system untainted by capitalism and greed. Not that I'm saying capitalism is bad as a whole. It has it's place.

Let me ask you, what, if anything, should the governing body consist of?

 

[Rob Roy]

*to



An implied authority without full acceptance is certainly considered coercion. However, it falls apart for you when you use the internet, drive on city roads, drink city water, stay on land that is protected by a military, and on and on. By staying here and doing the things I just listed, you are in fact accepting implied authority by the government.

Done in a sense, is not actually "done". When you renounce citizenship, you are literally no longer a citizen of the United States and therefore have no rights under it, and are considered an illegal alien. What you are currently claiming is a pseudo-version of that to satisfy your needs. Am I wrong?

No, a person is not accepting it. if other options are unable to be pursued because they, the coercive ones, are preventing it via threats of force. That is not acceptance in any real sense, it is resignation to the status quo and a realization to who is holding the gun.



Also, you never answered my direct questions. Can you?

I am claiming that in order to renounce an agreement, there must first have been an agreement made absent any duress. You have failed to refute that and not addressed my questions dealing with that.

 

[Rob Roy]

*choose



I'm not sure I grasp your logic here. But let me see if I can try to respond.

Well, the flaw in your assumption is that people are giving and compassionate, and that is evidently false. It seems you wish for a land of lawlessness and you bank of the fact that people will live peacefully among themselves. That might be true in your small neck of the woods, but in areas of population greater than 10,000, I'd bet that not be the case at all.

I agree that people in power who abuse that power make it feel as if those incapable of self reliance are coerced, but that is why I believe in a self regulating system untainted by capitalism and greed. Not that I'm saying capitalism is bad as a whole. It has it's place.

Let me ask you, what, if anything, should the governing body consist of?

Answer my questions, then later, perhaps tonight I will answer yours.

Avoiding directly answering ,my questions ,makes me think you are having a hard time doing so.

I have to go now, thank you for being civil and not climbing thru the internet with your massive body and thrashing me, I was quite frightened.

 

[see4]

No, a person is not accepting it. if other options are unable to be pursued because they, the coercive ones, are preventing it via threats of force. That is not acceptance in any real sense, it is resignation to the status quo and a realization to who is holding the gun.



Also, you never answered my direct questions. Can you?

I am claiming that in order to renounce an agreement, there must first have been an agreement made absent any duress. You have failed to refute that and not addressed my questions dealing with that.

What do you mean by, "threats of force" and "resignation to the status quo"?

I did try to answer your direct questions. If you are not satisfied with my answer, try rephrasing your question.

You are not picking up what I am putting down, and I think you lack the understanding how binding agreements work. By using the resources the government provides, you are implicitly agreeing to their rules. Is this not a concept you either understand and/or agree with?

 

[see4]

Answer my questions, then later, perhaps tonight I will answer yours.

Avoiding directly answering ,my questions ,makes me think you are having a hard time doing so.

I have to go now, thank you for being civil and not climbing thru the internet with your massive body and thrashing me, I was quite frightened.

If you are unsatisfied with my responses, try rephrasing your questions.

Try practicing what you preach about civility. You thank me for being civil then immediately throw out a snide remark. Civility given to those who deserve it.

 

[overgrowem]

These are the questions I wanted you to answer.

Can you show me any agreements that I or other people made with the purported "leaders" where we agreed to be subjects in the first place?

If you can't wouldn't their assumed authority over me be then based in an assumption they are my superiors and that I have no rights at all?

Show me those agreements please.


Now, I'll answer your question.

Its my belief and also a fact, my "citizenship" and the claimed "citizenship" of many others is not based on a consensual interaction or relationship with the people that claim us as their subject.

So, to renounce them and make a claim of self ownership is something I've already done in a sense. The fact is I do comply under duress with some things they insist upon, not because I want to, because I know they will harm me if I do otherwise. This too is irrefutable, unless you get absurd.

"So, to renounce them............" You speak for many when U state Ur beliefs. If the Gov. could work faster than glacial, maybe it would seem things are better. The Agreements part makes me think of all the minor cartas agreed to in feudal times. Usually bottom up, I believe the peasants were agreeing to be compliant dwellers, for considerations.

 

[overgrowem]

In real life I am very tall, close to 7' ,my lady friend is tall too. I have not however thrown a Buick over a house as I earlier claimed. Sorry for the exaggeration. I have however slam dunked over a multitude of white boys that have no game.

When I was cowering under my bed from the internet muscular jacked see4 my furry feet could barely even fit under there. When aroused I do grow about eleven inches, hope that clears things up.

My thinking is Jane was up to any situation.

 

[UncleBuck]

You strike me as a privileged frat-boy type. You probably raped more than one unconscious coed after the rest of your Greek buddies were done with her.

It's hard to get much more misogynist than to use the term "sloppy seconds". It's hard to get much more despicable than to associate with ATF highway robbers, and secret service toadies of the cartels.

aren't you a white supremacist who wishes federal prison time on growers and then rejoices when they get sent to federal prison?

 

[UncleBuck]

Don't blame the government, blame your parents for getting you a birth certificate and social security card.

they also made him a slave and raped him by sending him to public schools, so he returned the favor by raping and enslaving his own kids by sending them to public school.

 

[see4]

Its my belief and also a fact, my "citizenship" and the claimed "citizenship" of many others is not based on a consensual interaction or relationship with the people that claim us as their subject.

No it's not. Show me that your citizenship is not based on consensual interaction or relationship. But first explain to me what that means. Do you mean, literally, you want an agent of the government to come to your house and hold your hand while you discuss your citizenship and your rights and responsibilities thereof?

It's my understanding the individuals who issued you your Social Security card and birth certificate are agents of the state. At the very least the individuals who notarized them are. That being said, you should go yet at your parents for getting those issued to you, otherwise you should seriously consider renouncing your citizenship literally. Not "per se".

 

[UncleBuck]

I propose things be done on a consensual basis.

 

[see4]

aren't you a white supremacist who wishes federal prison time on growers and then rejoices when they get sent to federal prison?

oh is desert dude the one who got excited about fdd or sheskunk or whatever the fuck his name was/is, going to jail for being a dumb drug dealer?

 

[UncleBuck]

oh is desert dude the one who got excited about fdd or sheskunk or whatever the fuck his name was/is, going to jail for being a dumb drug dealer?

yeah, desert dude taunted FDD with federal prison the very day before he got sent to federal prison.

then, he rejoiced about FDD getting sent to prison. see here:

you're wishing federal prison time upon growers left and right and with your utmost conviction.

does it feel good when your wishes come true, desert rat?

Wishing hypocrites to be hoisted on their petard seems legit to me.

FDD may be a racist with a tiny penis sock puppeted loser, but he does not deserve prison time.

the whole reason desert dude wished prison time on FDD was because he did not share desert dude's political views on rawn pawl.

desert dude is the type of rat who would imprison people for havng the wrong political views.

that's almost more terrifying than the fact that he is an honest to Dog white supremacist.

 

[see4]

yeah, desert dude taunted FDD with federal prison the very day before he got sent to federal prison.

then, he rejoiced about FDD getting sent to prison. see here:




FDD may be a racist with a tiny penis sock puppeted loser, but he does not deserve prison time.

the whole reason desert dude wished prison time on FDD was because he did not share desert dude's political views on rawn pawl.

desert dude is the type of rat who would imprison people for havng the wrong political views.

that's almost more terrifying than the fact that he is an honest to Dog white supremacist.

Ahhh, now it's all making sense now.

I completely agree. FDD was/is a complete fucking loser, but he certainly did not deserve jail time. Though interstate commerce without FDI is a crime in itself, notwithstanding the thing being distributed is federally illegal. But whatev's.

but desert dude is really the lowest of the low, and a total coward. he is much worse than i originally thought.

I wonder how FDD feels about desert dude. I wonder if he would try to ban desert dude or cry about him to moderators like he did/does to me. sheskunk, have anything to add to this subject?

 

[panhead]

You are correct Sir,
Yes, FZ was quite prescient regarding US Government behavior.

I am particularly fond of his Central Scrutinizer character from Joe's Garage (1979).
It is a shame that he has not been around for quite some time now so he could see just how prophetic he was. He died in late 1993.
Yikes.

I hear ya on that album , its prophetic in so many ways , my favorite FZ rant was him vs Robertson , he put Robertson on blast & trolled his ass hard .

Zappa on Robertson & his Republican cronies.

They got lies so big
They don't make a noise
They tell 'em so well
Like a secret disease
That makes you go numb

With a big ol' lie
And a flag and a pie
And a mom and a bible
Most folks are just liable
To buy any line
Any place, any time

When the lie's so big
As in robertson's case,
(that sinister face
Behind all the jesus hurrah)

Could result in the end
To a worrisome trend
In which every american
Not 'born again'
Could be punished in cruel and unusual ways
By this treacherous cretin
Who tells everyone
That he's jesus' best friend

When the lie's so big
And the fog gets so thick
And the facts disappear
The republican trick
Can be played out again
People, please tell me when
We'll be rid of these men!

Just who do they really
Suppose that they are?
And how did they manage to travel as far
As they seem to have come?
Were we really that dumb?

People, wake up
Figure it out
Religious fanatics
Around and about
The court house, the state house,
The congress, the white house

Criminal saints
With a 'heavenly mission' --
A nation enraptured
By pure superstition

When the lie's so big
And the fog gets so thick
And the facts disappear
The republican trick
Can be played out again
People, please tell me when
We'll be rid of these men!

 

[NoDrama]

*to

You do know the difference between too and to don't you? Your post indicates that you do not.

Rob has it correct.

 

[NoDrama]

What do you mean by, "threats of force" and "resignation to the status quo"?

I did try to answer your direct questions. If you are not satisfied with my answer, try rephrasing your question.

You are not picking up what I am putting down, and I think you lack the understanding how binding agreements work. By using the resources the government provides, you are implicitly agreeing to their rules. Is this not a concept you either understand and/or agree with?

What resources does the government provide?

 

[see4]

What resources does the government provide?

Besides, military, natural disaster aid, foreign aid, social welfare programs, corporate governance, programs for cleaner air, cleaner water, police, fire, rescue, and on and on, I suppose not much.

Oh, and roads and public schools.