HAARP Engineering 'FRANKENSTORM' Hurricane Sandy - CAUGHT on SATELLITE and RADAR!!! ‏

[bombadil.360]

Freedom from the coercion of other men through government monopoly on violence would be nice though.

the monopoly on violence by the government is called 'the social contract'.

if there were no such 'social contract', the violence would be divided up and any simpleton would be in his "right" to enforce violence against whomever he wished.

sure, the 'social contract' creates a tyrant of a government in many aspects; but this tyrant at least in theory keeps other tyrants from popping up left and right.

there's no law or social system to keep tyrants from popping up though, whether these are legal tyrants (police, judges etc...) or common ones.

it can be argued it is human nature to be so dual, where each individual has the choice to be good or bad.

the question is why do we usually choose to become tyrants and not saints?

who knows...

 

[TheArchitect]

the monopoly on violence by the government is called 'the social contract'.

if there were no such 'social contract', the violence would be divided up and any simpleton would be in his "right" to enforce violence against whomever he wished.


sure, the 'social contract' creates a tyrant of a government in many aspects; but this tyrant at least in theory keeps other tyrants from popping up left and right.

there's no law or social system to keep tyrants from popping up though, whether these are legal tyrants (police, judges etc...) or common ones.

it can be argued it is human nature to be so dual, where each individual has the choice to be good or bad.

the question is why do we usually choose to become tyrants and not saints?

who knows...

I'll let someone else respond for me.

According to the will theory of contract, a contract is not presumed valid unless all parties agree to it voluntarily, either tacitly or explicitly, without coercion. Lysander Spooner, a 19th century lawyer and staunch supporter of a right of contract between individuals, in his essay No Treason, argues that a supposed social contract cannot be used to justify governmental actions such as taxation, because government will initiate force against anyone who does not wish to enter into such a contract. As a result, he maintains that such an agreement is not voluntary and therefore cannot be considered a legitimate contract at all.

You've been duped to believe other people than yourself care about you.

Governments are the evolution of tribal warfare, just now on a global scale, it will continue until we go extinct, or some crazy supernatural metaphysical spiritual awakening occures

 

[dagnabit]

so what does "freedom" mean to you?
define the term?
should i be free to take from my neighbor without government intervention?

 

[bombadil.360]

You've been duped to believe other people than yourself care about you.

Governments are the evolution of tribal warfare, just now on a global scale, it will continue until we go extinct, or some crazy supernatural metaphysical spiritual awakening occures

it should have been obvious in my previous answer, but I do not believe that governments in their dealings of justice are perfect and more than not they are unjust.

and you do not have to accept this 'social contract' that you agree to by living in a given society, as you can always go live elsewhere where no police or government interferes with your life.

you can go live in the desert far away from any society or civilization, what's stopping you?

if you want to live in a given society, however, you bind yourself to said social contract.

it's pretty simple.

 

[Suspect]

looks like the social programming has had an affect on some.
Free will is the right to do whatever you want without breaking another one's free will.

 

[dagnabit]

and when one does violate another's free will either with malicious intent or without who is the arbiter of recompense?
what if that violation is one where there is malicious intent and there is no possibility of recompense?
who decides upon penalties?
are we left to our own devices? i like the idea but then again im a sociopath(just ask bombadil)
sounds like freedom is great for the man with a gun and a flexible morality.

 

[TheArchitect]

so what does "freedom" mean to you?
define the term?
should i be free to take from my neighbor without government intervention?

Dag, I'm playing devils advocate, and really, anyone accepting welfare from government, aside from what they were forced to pay in would be theft in my book, but then I don't pay taxes so, let them eat welfare cheese!

We both know government doesn't prevent criminals and their actions, but we've let the criminals now have legal monopoly on violence to coerce their victims.

If we could operate as a proper republic and hand back the power to local communities I think that would be good progress.

 

[HidingInTheHaze]

Al Gore acknowledged and explained CHEMTRAILS on the Ellen Degeneres Show the other day.

He said they are spraying sulfur dioxide to block out the sun, the clip is available on youtube, sorry I dont like posting links

 

[HempKat]

word architect.

thats what I'm after Bombadil. The leeching elite has got to go.
Our minds are overloaded with irrelevant stuff, forced into survival mode on a large scale.

You're not really thinking it through rationally. I don't mean that as an insult to you but if you take a step back and look at it in a less reactionary way you should be able to see where your stance wouldn't work. The only way to enforce it is to become worse monsters then you see them as. The elite aren't just going to leave, they're not going to just say, okay now we're all equal, kum ba yah. So to have them go you'd have to remove them by force and either kill them or imprison/enslave them. Not the philisophical enslavement of a job either but actually putting them in a cell. For what? Because you didn't like how successful they got and then how they learned to make money playing the system? Like everyone else is so morally superior they'd resist the corruption of wealth and the power it brings? It would be meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

[HempKat]

I'll let someone else respond for me.





You've been duped to believe other people than yourself care about you.

Governments are the evolution of tribal warfare, just now on a global scale, it will continue until we go extinct, or some crazy supernatural metaphysical spiritual awakening occures

So just because a 19th Century Lawyer and Writer say they think that's how it actually is then you accept it? I mean sure they state their cases eloquently and it all makes sense, especially if your personal opinion leans that way. Why is their opinion so much more accurate then anyone else's Why is it then that the best of man only can come out when there is no threat of government law? Government law does not prevent people from being good. Why is it that people should feel that it's okay to benefit from the good things government brings but not have to pay their share in taxation? Nobody ever escapes it not even those who don't have to file tax returns. In fact the poor arguably end up paying more percentage wise versus income because not filing means they don't have any loopholes, can't use tax credits, etc. All their taxes are paid in consumption. If their was no law then there would be kaos and anarchy and all the good things accomplished under social contract would be lost.

 

[HempKat]

looks like the social programming has had an affect on some.
Free will is the right to do whatever you want without breaking another one's free will.

Yeah but if I'm a business and I have something you want really badly but I won't sell it to you at a price easy for you to bear, then in your view you could argue I'm breaking your free will of wanting that thing by exercising my free will to charge an outrageous amount.

So you think you should have the right to just take that thing from me or force me to accept a price much lower then I want? Why not instead exercise your free will to buy that thing somewhere else? Now if you can agree with that, then take it and apply it on a bigger scale. Don't like your job? Get a different job. Don't like the laws of the country, go to a different country. Like I've said all along, we all got freedom, it's not always easy though and it's not always ideal. To take a job you like could mean you make less money but if job satisfaction is important you'll accept that you make less and find a way to live in your means. If what you want requires more though and having what you want is more important you'll take the better paying job even if you hate it.

 

[Suspect]

"So you think you should have the right to just take that thing from me or force me to accept a price much lower then I want?" Isn't that breaking your free will, we should compomise then perhaps?

What do we need to survive, a job that pays or food that feeds? IMHO there are plenty of professions that exist only because we have a system like the current.
Not everyone wants to work throughout their whole life, even a dreamjob.

 

[dagnabit]

i don't wanna work.
i dont want to do shit. i want to get head and smoke weed all day.

freedom=not ever having to do anything you dont want to?

 

[Suspect]

NO NO and NO,

This is what happens when you fill the blanks and make assumptions.

 

[itisme]

If there is a more complete version of the speech that still supports your claim then why not post it?

Do you own homework lazy ass and don't pawn your ignorance off as mine.

Conspiracy theorist

Is a derogatory term whether you are ignorant to that fact or not. You see ignorance is not bliss, it's ignorance.

The difference is I'm not going around trying to brow beat people into accepting my opinion as fact.

LMAO! You are calling people that don't agree with you conspiracy theorists and tin foil hat wearers ans the such.....Define browbeating?

I ASKED YOUR OPINION ON WHAT UN AGENDA 21 REALLY IS? WHERE IS IT? You posted their manual That is not your thoughts or maybe the are your thoughts but only because you take it at face value. I don't!
If I am so crazy why did the STATE OF ALABAMA OUTLAW UN AGENDA 21? Is the entire state conspiracy theorist in tinfoil hats?

How your community is implementing AGENDA 21
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEHWsdimVO4

Alabama Adopts First Official State Ban on UN Agenda 21
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...opts-first-official-state-ban-on-un-agenda-21

The simple fact is you resort to name calling is because you are ill equipped to carry on a real conversation about such intense subjects.

 

[itisme]

Hempcat quote

Problem being I was quoting wikipedia and no where in my quote did I state how I felt about what I posted. Here is the wikipedia link:

Yeah, i asked for your opinion and you posted that! LMAO...U acusing me of thread highjack because you can't argue a point is priceless! It appears calling an entire state a tin foil hat state is a little browbeating to me......Since it is only your opinion!

Alabama Adopts First Official State Ban on UN Agenda 21

Alabama became the first state to adopt a tough law protecting private property and due process by prohibiting any government involvement with or participation in a controversial United Nations scheme known as Agenda 21. Activists from across the political spectrum celebrated the measure’s approval as a significant victory against the UN “sustainability” plot, expressing hope that similar sovereignty-preserving measures would be adopted in other states as the nationwide battle heats up.

The Alabama Senate Bill (SB) 477 legislation, known unofficially among some supporters as the “Due Process for Property Rights” Act, was approved unanimously by both the state House and Senate. After hesitating for a few days, late last month Republican Governor Robert Bentley finally signed into law the wildly popular measure — but only after heavy pressure from activists forced his hand.

Virtually no mention of the law was made in the establishment press. But analysts said the measure was likely the strongest protection against the UN scheme passed anywhere in America so far. The law, aimed at protecting private property rights, specifically prevents all state agencies and local governments in Alabama from participating in the global scheme in any way.

"The State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to 'Agenda 21,' " the law states, adding a brief background on the UN plan hatched at the 1992 “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro.

The people of Alabama acting through their elected representatives — not UN bureaucrats — have the authority to develop the state’s environmental and development policies, the official synopsis of the law explains. Therefore, infringements on the property rights of citizens linked to “any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Alabama” are also prohibited under the new measure.

Of course, as the law points out, the UN has enlisted a broad array of non-governmental and inter-governmental organizations in its effort to foist Agenda 21 on the world — most notably a Germany-based group called ICLEI, formerly known as the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives. But the new measure takes direct aim at that problem, too: “the State of Alabama and all political subdivisions may not enter into any agreement, expend any sum of money, or receive funds contracting services, or giving financial aid to or from” any such entities, as defined in Agenda 21 documents.

“This bill, that would bar the state from taking over private property without due process, is intended to shelter Alabamians from the United Nations Agenda 21, a sustainable development initiative that some conservatives see as a precursor for the creation of a world government,” explained Alabama GOP Executive Director T.J. Maloney when announcing that it had been signed into law. The Republican National Committee (RNC) adopted a resolution earlier this year blasting the global scheme and urging policy makers to oppose it, and state parties have followed suit.

Public support for the Alabama law was overwhelming and bipartisan as citizens who had been terrorized by Agenda 21-linked schemes targeting their private property spoke out. But according to analysts and state Republican Party officials cited in press reports, Gov. Bentley was originally hesitant to sign the bill — almost certainly due to concerns over the potential loss of some federal funding.

The U.S. Senate, of course, has never formally ratified Agenda 21. But the executive branch — in conjunction with accomplices at the international, state, and local levels — has for two decades been quietly attempting to impose the plan on Americans by stealth, mostly using deceptive terms like “Smart Growth” and “Green.” And proponents of the global scheme consistently threaten that states seeking to protect citizens from the UN plot could end up losing some federal funds.

“Every time you take a dollar of federal money, there’s strings attached,” explained Ken Freeman, chairman of the Alabama-based group Alliance for Citizens Rights (ACR), an organization that fought hard to ensure that the Governor signed the bill into law. “We were originally walking soft on this issue, to tell you the truth, because when things were going our way, why change anything?”

But when Gov. Bentley did not immediately approve the bill, Freeman told a reporter, ACR turned the activism up a notch, urging citizens to contact the Governor’s office and express their support for the measure. The grassroots pressure paid off: Alabama became the first state to be officially shielded by law from UN-linked anti-property rights scheming.

“It seems that Agenda 21 does actually bring people together in communities — just not in the way the U.N. had hoped for,” remarked Justice Gilpin-Green in a column for the conservative site Townhall, citing Freeman and other instrumental supporters of the effort. “Hopefully other states can mirror Alabama’s determined nature in passing their anti-Agenda 21 legislation. It was citizen awareness and direct action that finally brought about the needed changes last week and that same awareness and action will be needed for the future of every other state.”

Legislative analysts said the bill, sponsored by GOP state Sen. Gerald Dial, was extremely well crafted: protecting citizens and individual rights from UN decrees in a simple, straightforward manner that Agenda 21 advocates would have a hard time criticizing. Liberty-minded organizations and lawmakers are already examining the measure for potential use as a model in other states currently struggling to expel the global scheme and its myriad tentacles.

“Alabama House Bill 618 [SB 477] is a large step towards protecting Alabamians against UN meddling. It protects the due process rights of Alabamians. It keeps Constitutional Law above International Law,” noted Jason Baker, a Montgomery-based conservative pundit with the Examiner. “Now state after state awakens to the threat it poses to freedom and sovereignty.”

Across America, Tea Party groups, liberty-minded Democrats, libertarians, and a broad coalition of activists have been turning up the heat on Agenda 21. Tennessee, for example, adopted a bipartisan state resolution slamming the UN scheme as an “insidious” and “socialist” plot that is completely at odds with American traditions of limited government, individual freedom, private property, and self-governance under the Constitution. Numerous other states are pursuing similar measures.

A bill similar to Alabama’s seeking a complete ban on Agenda 21 and unconstitutional UN “sustainability” efforts in Arizona was approved overwhelmingly in the state Senate. The legislation died in the state House even after clearing several hurdles, however, when the legislative session ended before a final vote could be taken. New Hampshire is reportedly working on a bill to ban Agenda 21 that sailed through the state House last month.

Meanwhile, local governments across America — under intense pressure from citizens and activist groups — are slowly awakening to what critics call the “dangers” of the UN scheme. Dozens of cities and counties have withdrawn from ICLEI in recent years, and as awareness continues to grow, that trend is expected to accelerate.

The UN, however, is doubling down on its controversial plan. In June, governments from all over the world will be meeting in Rio de Janeiro for the so-called “Conference on Sustainable Development” — known as Rio+20 for short. According to official documents released by the global body, the summit, headed by Chinese Communist Sha Zukang, will be seeking to dramatically transform human civilization under the guise of environmentalism.

Production, education, consumption, individual rights, and even people’s thoughts will all be targeted under the global plan to create a so-called “green economy,” the UN admitted. But with the tidal wave of opposition in America growing stronger every single day, analysts expect fierce U.S. opposition — if not from the Obama administration, at least from the increasingly outraged citizenry.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...opts-first-official-state-ban-on-un-agenda-21

 

[trichrider]

Gore: “Well, some of them are seriously proposing, and I think it’s completely nuts [laughter], you know, you put another kind of pollution, sulfur dioxide, up to orbit…cover the atmosphere, the sky won’t be really blue in the way it is now anymore, but it would block out some of the sun’s heat so that we wouldn’t have to take the difficult steps to stop spewing all this global warming pollution into the atmosphere.”

http://www.infowars.com/al-gore-talks-about-chemtrails-on-ellen-show/

disingenuity is strong with this one.

HOW WAS AL TO KNOW WHAT POLLUTANT CHEMTRAILS CONSIST OF?

 

[itisme]

That's not what happened in operation Fast And Furious. In operation Fast and Furious ATF allowed illegal buyers to come into the country and buy guns from legal licensed dealers so they could follow the buyer back into Mexico and then hopefully arrest the cartel members recieving the guns and thereby dismantel the cartels. Unfortunately the ATF failed to track about 2/3rds of the guns all the way back to where they ended up.

Hempcat the problem is that is the story THEY told....but you stick to it like it is total truth......Some of us don't believe it as easily as you do...If you look at other evidence you might be able to open your mind up some.

Fast and Furious was not done in total secret, it was a program that was known, maybe not as widely as now, but it was known before the thing that made it common knowledge, that being those same guns been used on American citizens. That's what put it in the news and made it common knowledge.

Your argument to claim my logic is flawed, is made up.

This is funny as hell.....Fast and Furious was not an open knowledge exercise of running guns to drug dealers! Total Secret? WTF is that? The agents carrying out the black ops knew.

I guess it is mere coincidence that Eric Holder said he wanted to "BRAINWASH AMERICANS" into thinking guns are not cool...It is merely circumstantial that he was in charge or running the guns to the drug lords. He ended up at AG for his views and he admits here what he wants to do. He tried like hell not to say brainwash but it came out. HE says use TV, NEW, Schools, PRIME TIME TV to BRAINWASH US! That is not my conspiracy theory that is right out of the MFers own mouth.

Holder says people need to be brainwashed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYyqBxD-3xw

 

[trichrider]

http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2013/02...trails-a-bigger-disaster-than-carbon-dioxide/

 

[trichrider]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo7Pf37tMpw&feature=player_embedded#!