national health care...how awesome!

[UncleBuck]

Government is not eloquent. It is not reason. It is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington

so he knew about this yet presided over one anyway?

what a hypocrite.

at least he didn't kill anyone for missing a court date. and he was a grower

 

[medicineman]

If they are "initiating deadly force" aren't they ones threatening your life? Seems the guy clutching the golf club is trying to defend himself, he isn't initiating force, he is acting defensively. I think you are confusing how the process started. It was started by one party, trying to collect on a debt that another had no part in agreeing to. That puts the golf club guy in a defensive posture not an offensive or "force initiating posture".

I believe that by being a citizen of this country, You have basically given your consent to be governed, Which includes paying taxes, IE 16th amendment:
16th Amendment

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

[Rob Roy]

I believe that by being a citizen of this country, You have basically given your consent to be governed, Which includes paying taxes, IE 16th amendment:
16th Amendment

Amendment XVI

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Logical fail. First one would have to willingly become a "citizen" AND also provide his freely given consent. That kind of "accident of birth" logic is the same as saying a child born to slave parents is then consenting to be a slave also.

Consent CANNOT be given for another, nor can a document a person has not willingly become party to give consent on another's behalf.

I'll agree that the meaning of the word "consent" has been misapplied. The fact that the meaning has been misapplied or twisted and few have noticed doesn't change the meaning of the word consent.

Far as I know none of us here were alive when the Constitution was signed, none of us are signatories to it. I know you're an old guy, but you ain't THAT old Chief.

Consider this...Which other things would you feel bound to that you never agreed to and somebody else has said that you agree to, but you never really have?

Even if YOU consented to it today, that doesn't mean that I or others have. Only YOU can give YOUR consent. If another attempts to do this, using consent to describe what has occurred is erroneous.

You guys gotta read your Lysander Spooner essays! His no treason #6 is a good one to read on this topic.

 

[Rob Roy]

no, i am telling you what will happen if you try to use your rights as a citizen of this country to argue your definition of 'owe' in regards to income taxes. you will be smacked in the face by reality.

you can say all you want that you 'do not give your consent' to pay taxes. that statement in true and can never be disproven.

but your definition of 'owe' and 'extortion' are not the ones we play by. they are very narrow definitions that you have convinced yourself of. they are imaginary conditions you have made up (your persecution complex) that you can avoid if you choose to.

the advanced state of the country you are a citizen of is at least in part due to our government, which is a product of we the people, our founding fathers, and the constitution they wrote. if we the people played by your rules, do you think so many of them would recognize the need to be extorted and fraudulently owe to an extortionist? do you think federal income taxes and the like would still exist tomorrow if everyone on the internet were to hear your brand of 'truth'?



see, this is why i have taken to saying that you seem to have a 'persecution complex' lately.

you are extremely unwilling to concede even a millimeter from your rigid rulebook of 'extortion' and 'the government will kill you' and i find it comical.

even when a fellow-minded (but more reality-based) thinker like nodrama chimes in with what really happens (wage garnishments, etc) ... you still persist with the whole 'will the government kill me if i miss a court date' routine (which i know is code for 'yes, they will kill me' thanks to your 'checkmate' exclamation in regards to the health insurance mandate. thanks for that gem).

but to answer your question about not showing up for a court date: they will issue a warrant for your arrest which they will not actively pursue from what i understand through anecdotal evidence. also, i once missed a court date for a speeding ticket for about 6 months, realized it, called the court, and made good. it was a $300 ticket, which is not the $700 (or so) fine for health insurance, but i think it probably works about the same.

in other words, they won't kill you.

In other words they won't kill you? Oh but they will if it is carried all the way out... Let me explain further.

What will happen if you are picked up on a warrant and you refuse to go with them and begin to walk away ? Will they kill you yet? Maybe.

You're right in this regard... if you COMPLY, they may not kill you, they will likely only rob you. However even in some instances when a person peacefully resists and certainly when a person attempts to defend themself against the initiation of force they WILL kill you. So what it really comes down to, is if you carry it all the way out, holding to principle they WILL kill you. Ain't freedom grand?

No Drama and I are fine. He makes alot of sense and has a good sense of humor. You are attempting to rally support to your rationalizations and paint me as having a persecution complex. Fair enough, then I will declare your arguments stem from your
"rationalization complex" (I just made that up)

In your speeding case you eventually paid right? What would have happened if you KEPT not showing up and refused the sheriff when he came to collect you ? The fact that you submitted is what kept it from playing all the way out....

 

[UncleBuck]

In other words they won't kill you? Oh but they will if it is carried all the way out... Let me explain further.

What will happen if you are picked up on a warrant and you refuse to go with them and begin to walk away ? Will they kill you yet? Maybe.

You're right in this regard... if you COMPLY, they may not kill you, they will likely only rob you. However even in some instances when a person peacefully resists and certainly when a person attempts to defend themself against the initiation of force they WILL kill you. So what it really comes down to, is if you carry it all the way out, holding to principle they WILL kill you. Ain't freedom grand?

No Drama and I are fine. He makes alot of sense and has a good sense of humor. You are attempting to rally support to your rationalizations and paint me as having a persecution complex. Fair enough, then I will declare your arguments stem from your
"rationalization complex" (I just made that up)

In your speeding case you eventually paid right? What would have happened if you KEPT not showing up and refused the sheriff when he came to collect you ? The fact that you submitted is what kept it from playing all the way out....

unless you are threatening the life of the officer, they will not kill you.

derp dee der.

 

[Rob Roy]

unless you are threatening the life of the officer, they will not kill you.

derp dee der.

What if "the officer" enters your home, pulls his gun on you and you refuse his "offer" to comply by attempting to flee or simply tell him to leave YOUR house and he uses physical force against you and you defend yourself against his initiating aggression? He then shoots you dead. Who initiated force ? Who was in a defensive posture?

 

[UncleBuck]

What if "the officer" enters your home, pulls his gun on you and you refuse his "offer" to comply by attempting to flee or simply tell him to leave YOUR house and he uses physical force against you and you defend yourself against his initiating aggression? He then shoots you dead. Who initiated force ? Who was in a defensive posture?

i repeat, unless you threaten the life of an officer, they will not kill you.

get off it. you are a deluded individual with a persecution complex.

 

[Rob Roy]

unless you are threatening the life of the officer, they will not kill you.

derp dee der.

Just googled "police shoot man" there were 32,500,000 responses...derp dee der.

 

[UncleBuck]

Just googled "police shoot man" there were 32,500,000 responses...derp dee der.

obviously, there have been instances where police have acted stupidly. just as there have been cases where innocent people are sent to jail. the world is not perfect.

but the only allowable justification for a LEO to take your life is if you threaten their life.

only a complete rube would argue otherwise.

a rube roy, if you may.

 

[Rob Roy]

i repeat, unless you threaten the life of an officer, they will not kill you.

get off it. you are a deluded individual with a persecution complex.

Repeating the same thing while offering no evidence or logic and failing to address the questions the other party raises is a weak argument. Your refusing to answer questions that you have no answers for is telling.

I predicted you would not answer the questions I asked, why not take a moment and give them a go or are you feeling a little um persecuted?

 

[Johnnyorganic]

It's all academic, fellas.

Judge strikes down healthcare reform law

 

[UncleBuck]

Repeating the same thing while offering no evidence or logic and failing to address the questions the other party raises is a weak argument. Your refusing to answer questions that you have no answers for is telling.

I predicted you would not answer the questions I asked, why not take a moment and give them a go or are you feeling a little um persecuted?

fine, let me answer your questions.

if you flee, they will chase you down.

if you resist, they will subdue you.

but only if you threaten the life of an officer will they kill you.

who initiated force? doesn't matter. it only matters who initiated deadly force. and the only justified reason for the officer to do so is if you do so first. you are not allowed to shoot the police for trying to arrest you.

who was in a defensive posture? i could just as easily say it is the officer, who is defending the law of the land. by that argument, you, the person who breaks the law, initiated the whole incident.

again, show me WHERE an officer is allowed to kill you for any other reason than you threatening his life or the lives of others.

derp dee der.

 

[UncleBuck]

It's all academic, fellas.

Judge strikes down healthcare reform law

that makes it even stevens then. 2 for, 2 against.

no surprise that florida sent it to one of the most conservative places they could find and got this verdict. the same judge who made this ruling also had some odd things to say about social security and medicare. he also struck down being able to keep your 26 year old kid on your policy as unconstitutional.

that cracked me up.

 

[Rob Roy]

obviously, there have been instances where police have acted stupidly. just as there have been cases where innocent people are sent to jail. the world is not perfect.

but the only allowable justification for a LEO to take your life is if you threaten their life.

only a complete rube would argue otherwise.


a rube roy, if you may.

In the words of the Family guy...why do we always have to talk about drapes? Slapping together a reply that doesn't address my questions is a ruse.

I said that ultimately if a person continually refuses to comply, they will kill him. You deny this?

Rube Roy? Still doesn't address my question though does it?

 

[UncleBuck]

In the words of the Family guy...why do we always have to talk about drapes? Slapping together a reply that doesn't address my questions is a ruse.

you watch family guy? a show subject to the scrutiny of the FCC? you support this extortion? wow

I said that ultimately if a person continually refuses to comply, they will kill him. You deny this?

a better question is why you argue this.

yes, i deny this.

refusing to comply will not allow the officer to use deadly force.

only if you initiate deadly force will the officer initiate deadly force.

and only a rube would argue otherwise.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

that makes it even stevens then. 2 for, 2 against.

Not so much.

no surprise that florida sent it to one of the most conservative places they could find and got this verdict. the same judge who made this ruling also had some odd things to say about social security and medicare. he also struck down being able to keep your 26 year old kid on your policy as unconstitutional.

This case includes a majority of states as plaintiffs. That's new.

And the judge ruled the LAW unconstitutional. Not part. Not half.

The whole enchilada.

that cracked me up.

What will crack you up when the SCOTUS agrees to hear the case and uphold his ruling?

 

[Rob Roy]

fine, let me answer your questions.

if you flee, they will chase you down.

if you resist, they will subdue you.

but only if you threaten the life of an officer will they kill you.

who initiated force? doesn't matter. it only matters who initiated deadly force. and the only justified reason for the officer to do so is if you do so first. you are not allowed to shoot the police for trying to arrest you.

who was in a defensive posture? i could just as easily say it is the officer, who is defending the law of the land. by that argument, you, the person who breaks the law, initiated the whole incident.

again, show me WHERE an officer is allowed to kill you for any other reason than you threatening his life or the lives of others.

derp dee der.

Might be before your time...Kent State University... 4 dead in O-HI-O.

 

[UncleBuck]

Might be before your time...Kent State University... 4 dead in O-HI-O.

the fact that some choose to ignore a law does not mean it ceases to exist.

cops shot an unarmed dude that they had pinned in the oakland area not too long ago. the officer faced criminal penalties for his actions. he got off way too easy, but it reinforces what i have told you 389 times now: the only justified reason for an officer to initiate deadly force is if you threaten their life first.

are you sure you're not dense?

 

[UncleBuck]

Not so much.

really? has it not been upheld twice and struck down twice? i follow the news pretty closely, and have not heard of any other cases.

This case includes a majority of states as plaintiffs. That's new.

And the judge ruled the LAW unconstitutional. Not part. Not half.

The whole enchilada.

exactly, that is what amuses me. where in the constitution does it prohibit congress from establishing a law that allows you to keep your kid on yourpolicy for another year or two?

What will crack you up when the SCOTUS agrees to hear the case and upholds his ruling?

down syndrome porn.

and rube roy.

but don't count your chickens before they hatch

 

[Rob Roy]

the fact that some choose to ignore a law does not mean it ceases to exist.

cops shot an unarmed dude that they had pinned in the oakland area not too long ago. the officer faced criminal penalties for his actions. he got off way too easy, but it reinforces what i have told you 389 times now: the only justified reason for an officer to initiate deadly force is if you threaten their life first.

are you sure you're not dense?

Yes but I've told you 391 times, that's not what we started off debating. You have shifted your argument to talking about justified killing by cops. I said if a person refuses to cooperate all the way through, they will eventually kill him.

Read Spooner or remain dense. Over and out.