Author Topic: PD  (Read 102 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,695
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
PD
« on: December 25, 2021, 04:50:02 PM »
Quote from: JM
This is so dumb. Only Democrats are this stupid.
Quote
Both sides are supporters of violence based extortion of the humans within their prisons... Er... Territories.
You Votards can now resume ignoring my posts.
Quote from: JN
Dale Eastman You’re saying nothing profound. Put the bong away.
Quote
Do I understand what you wrote? That both sides are violence based is not profound to YOU? Does this mean you are already aware that both sides want control of the government's violence machinery?
Quote from: JM
Dale Eastman Violence is burning and looting our cities many dozens of times since 2020. Violence is black violence committed against whites at a rate of 10 to 1 and Murder committed at a rate of 2 to 1. White supremacy is a lie promoted by the left wing to justify their own out of control stupid, hysterical violence inflicted upon our country.
Quote
Typical statist. You are blind to the violence government does to its people.
Quote from: JM
Dale Eastman Open my eyes to this violence. I’m listening.
Quote
The Truth of Government On Protecting Real Estate
How does Eminent Domain protect the property of the people? For those not familiar with Eminent Domain, Eminent Domain is when private property is taken for "public use".
In Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005); The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City of New London taking Susette Kelo's land and giving it to the private New London Development Corporation. The reason stated for the taking; to further economic development; an event that eleven years later still did not happen.
Suzette Kelo and 15 other property owners had their property taken.
Ten years ago today, [June 23, 2015] the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision upholding the City of New London, Connecticut’s “right” to condemn Connecticut homeowners’ properties, transfer them to a state-created entity called the New London Development Corporation, which would then transfer those properties to a private developer of a planned mixed-use redevelopment project aimed at supporting an adjacent Pfizer research facility.
Competitive Enterprise Institute.org
For those who would argue the property owner gets "just compensation" I point out that the owner doesn't really get any say as to what just compensation is. Judges decide what is just compensation and the property owner is stuck with whatever the judge decides. And I also point out that judges are merely men and woman who call themselves 'government' and are paid by 'government' funds.
The properties are still vacant as of the writing of this web page.
Quote
The Truth of Government On Protecting Personal Property
Incredible as it sounds, civil asset forfeiture laws allow the government to seize property without charging anyone with a crime. Police can seize property first and hold it pending trial, which could be four to six years later. The government’s case for forfeiture can be based on allegations of illegal activity of someone other than the property owner. At trial the owner has to prove innocence – the government does not have to prove the property owner was guilty. Many forfeiture victims don’t have enough assets left after the seizure to hire counsel, yet the procedures are too complicated for property owners to successfully defend themselves.
Forfeiture Endangers American Rights Foundation.org
Quote
The Truth of Government On Protecting Life
Capital Punishment doesn't happen unless Capital Punishment Laws are on the books. Any 'government' that executes people premeditates murder.
'Government' murder is not limited to executing prisoners. Do a web search for “Ruby Ridge” and you will find articles such as the one this excerpt was taken from:
During the night, FBI snipers took positions around the Weaver cabin. There is no dispute about the fact that the snipers were given illegal "shoot to kill" orders. Under the law, police agents can use deadly force to defend themselves and others from imminent attack, but these snipers were instructed to shoot any adult who was armed and outside the cabin, regardless of whether the adult posed a threat or not. The next morning, an FBI agent shot and wounded Randy Weaver. A few moments later, the same agent shot Weaver's wife in the head as she was standing in the doorway of her home holding a baby in her arms. The FBI snipers had not yet announced their presence and had not given the Weavers an opportunity to peacefully surrender.
By Timothy Lynch, published in National Review Online, Aug. 21, 2002.
Cato Institute
Likewise, a web search for "Waco Tragedy" will find articles such as the one this excerpt was taken from:
Independent filmmaker Michael McNulty came upon some evidence that appeared damaging to the government. He found a shell casing from a certain type of tear gas round that could start a fire - a device the Justice Department had denied using for more than six years - publicly and to Congress.
"Congress was mislead on this; there is no question about it," says Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Johnston, the top justice department official in Waco. He worries that someone in the Justice Department hid the truth.
For several weeks Johnston wrote to his superiors warning them that the new evidence contradicted what they had been saying. But the Justice Department did not change its story until August, when Attorney General Janet Reno was forced to admit that the tear gas round had been used.
Investigators have concluded that two of these devices were used. Though credible experts still overwhelmingly believe the Davidians started the fire, the damage had been done. The FBI was caught in a lie.
CBS News
The FBI is part of 'government'. Those who call themselves government are liars.
How many people have been killed by 'government' armies?
Betcha it's many, many more than the number of people killed by the Manson, Dahmer, Bundy, Gacy, and Berkowitz personalities of the world. There are many more serial killers and their body count doesn't come anywhere near the numbers killed by government.
Quote
The Truth of Government On Police Protection
Do a web search for “Hope Steffey” and you will find an online video of her rape by the Stark County, Ohio sheriff‘s department. Forcibly stripping a handcuffed woman who called 911 for help IS rape. No penetration was required as you will find out when you view the video. WARNING: The video is extremely disturbing. View in a new window.
While looking for an active link for the above video, I found another video of another strip search of a woman by the thugs police.
View in a new window.
Why do you suppose you have the belief that the purpose of the police is to protect you? Could it be that the liars that call themselves government don't want you to know that truth, until you try to sue them for not protecting you?
This video is a 40 second clip of the police protecting a person's life.
View in a new window.
When you learn the truth about police protection, you're not going to want to fund the police.
Police Brutality Videos as found on DuckDuckGo.
Quote
Dale Eastman Republicans can act stupid. Democrats can’t help doing it nonstop.



Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,695
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: PD
« Reply #1 on: December 25, 2021, 04:50:45 PM »
Quote
Quote from: PD
Dale Eastman The most insufferable person is a leftist who is in love with collectivism and talks in boneheaded bumper sticker phrases with no ability to defend their position. Close second is a libertarian with no anchor to reality and a complete inability to build consensus (or move it in that direction) and can’t win one inch of concession or compromise and thereby never achieving anything but a never ending screeching whine
Quote
So am I correct in assuming you think I belong in either one of those two pigeon holes?
Quote from: PD
Dale Eastman let’s see if you have any grip on reality. Based on what I said, which one of those do I think you fit in perfectly?
Quote
I just wanted to double check that you are fitting the statist mold; the statist pigeon hole that most members of this group belong in.
So you're calling me a "libertarian". Please tell me, exactly, what that means to you.
Does this definition have anything to do with the concept of liberty?
Quote from: PD
Dale Eastman it has everything to do with liberty. But wake me up when you’ve moved past the basics. It’s so boring. Plus with your track record, it usually goes in circles to make a nonpoint
Quote
(1) YDOM! You don't own me!
(2) You do not have a "right to control" me.
(3) You do not have "authority" over me.
(4) My body; my life; my labor; the results of my labor; property received in exchange for my labor, are all my property.
(5) My rights are my property.
(6) My right to make my own choices is my property.
(7) You do not have a "right to control" my property.
(8 ) I have the highest "right to control" in regard to any of my property.
(9) Concurrent with my "right to control" my property is my right to protect, defend, and secure my property from any entity that caused harm, attempted to cause harm, or intends to cause harm.
(10) Any attempt to take my property against my will or without my permission, whether by force or by fraud, is an intent to cause harm.
(11) Any attempt to damage my property is an intent to cause harm.
(12) This highest "right to control" is the same for every human.
(13) These are the equal rights addressed in the United States' Declaration of Independence.
(14) No human can delegate a "right to control" that they do not have.
(15) Voting can not delegate a "right to control" that the voter does not have.
(16) Governments are always comprised of humans.
(17) Humans that comprise "government" do not own me; do not have a "right to control" me; do not have a right to make rules I must allegedly obey; do not have a right to violate another human's rights.
(18) Humans that comprise "government" do not have a "right to control" me just because they occupy a government office.
(19) Humans that comprise "government" can not delegate a "right to control" (that they do not have) to the reified entity called "government".
(20) YDOM means there can not be any rulers with a "right to control" any other human.

Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,695
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: PD
« Reply #2 on: December 25, 2021, 05:29:41 PM »
Quote from: PD
Dale Eastman Agree. 100%. The devil in the details is how you work your way to that from the shit system we have right now. If you come off like a frothy shitstirrer who can’t do anything but turn off everyone around him/her and you never move an inch cause your attitude is aggressively nip at everyone 1° off of your position. I like effectiveness. I can’t sign on to an approach that includes dropping napalm on your own position and your brothers in arms every so often.
Quote
Agree. 100%.

That just changed my opinion of you, 180º.

The devil in the details is how you work your way to that from the shit system we have right now.

I don't see a "there" described. I see a description that "government" does NOT have a "right to control" me; government does NOT have a "right to rule" me; government does NOT have any non-bogus authority over me... Nor you, nor anybody.

The exception being those who have been tricked into believing they have consented to be ruled. And I have my response for those idiots that claim that I, Dale Eastman, have consented to be ruled. You'll find it in the attached comment card (image) with a link to my other treatise on YDOMism.

As the sole author of those 20 points, I did not describe where people should go, or what they should do with knowledge of the bogosity of government in that treatise. (That treatise is part of a greater work in progress.)

If you come off like a frothy shitstirrer...

If the shoe fits... And it certainly does for me in this group... My crude candidate001 image above is exactly what/who the majority argue over in this group. Red/blue bullshit. So I don't have much respect for anybody legitimizing the fraud by voting.

who can’t do anything

<shrug> Meh... Your opinion.

My words have been copied to at least two other websites. So those website owners aren't put off by my attitude... They're sharing my words.

I can’t sign on to an approach that includes dropping napalm on your own position and your brothers in arms every so often.

I have been accused of being an anarchist purist. I agree with that assessment. Yet I am not as purist as the admin/owner of this group:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/881516898664245/

One of four pages/groups this person has. In fact, he, and one other, used to be in this group and left because the statist shit was so high, they had to leave so they could breath.

I am a purist because either one is for liberty or one is for slavery. So I can understand why an asshole like me is off-putting. If one is for government, one is for slavery.



Natural Law Matters