PDA

View Full Version : US Election Dilemma



ozmirage
14th April 2016, 16:07
Which candidate supports a benevolent totalitarian police state, requiring universal ID (internal passports), registration, regulation, and taxation in order to live, work, travel, own, buy, sell, fish, hunt, build a house, marry, and / or own a dog?

ALL OF THEM.

D'Oh!

ozmirage
10th May 2016, 02:39
If you wish to protest government, but stay anonymous, consider the tactic of the MIDNIGHT FLUSH. At midnight, flush your toilets. When enough protest, the rush of water into the sewers and treatment plants will remind government of our low opinion of their antics and behavior.

ozmirage
12th June 2016, 04:42
TEST YOUR PARTISANSHIP I.Q.
- - - - -
Which of the following are [A] left wing, [B] right wing, or [C] non-partisan?

1. Endowed rights
2. Natural liberty
3. Personal liberty
4. Absolute ownership of private property
5. Compulsory charity
6. Expropriation of property for the benefit of another
7. Private creation of money
8. Voluntary charity
9. Wealth redistribution
10. Prosperity by productiveness
11. Constitutional rights
12. Civil liberty
13. Social justice
14. Political liberty
15. Taxation of privileges
16. Protection of endowed rights
17. Mandatory civic duties
18. Limited liability
19. Usury
20. Collective ownership
:
:
:
ANSWERS: 1.C; 2.C; 3.C; 4.C; 5.A; 6.A; 7.C; 8.C; 9.A; 10.C; 11.B; 12.B; 13.A; 14.B; 15.B; 16.C; 17.B; 18.B; 19.B; 20.A

ozmirage
17th June 2016, 14:00
Wong Wing

Contrary to popular belief (and pervasive propaganda) the partisan spectrum is not just “left” versus “right,” nor is it “neoliberal” versus “conservative.”
. . .
Neither the “left” nor the “right” support the republican form of government, Creator endowed rights, liberties, and absolute ownership, nor do they wish American governments to be intolerant of predators.
. . .
The so called “left” want “social justice” which boils down to compulsory charity and expropriation of property by government. In other words, slavery and theft by government. That is certainly anathema to “securing endowed rights.”
The so called “right” want banks, underwriters, and corporations to be untaxed and unregulated, while they prey upon owners - the true capitalists - via usury, gambling and limited liability.

But true capitalism is merely the private ownership of the means of production and the absolute right to the fruits of one’s labor - as an endowed right - not a government granted privilege (and subject to taxation and regulation).

Being tricked into taking sides, the American is misled to enter a fight between secret allies who are staging mock conflicts while both wings rob us blind.

ozmirage
12th July 2016, 00:16
INEXPLICABLE EXPLICATION
==\\\==\\\==
EXPLICATE - To make clear the meaning of; explain.
EXPLICATION - A comprehensive exposition or description.
INEXPLICABLE - Difficult or impossible to explain or account for.

What is difficult or impossible to make clear or describe?

Explain how one can be born equal before the law, endowed by our Creator with inherent rights to life, to liberty, and to absolutely own... yet be born a subject citizen, with mandatory civic duties, that abrogate endowed rights to life, liberty and absolute ownership?

Explain how one can be a sovereign without subjects, yet be born subject to a sovereign government, that is servant to the sovereign people?

Explain how one can have the natural rights to life, natural and personal liberties, and yet must get permission (license) and/or pay a tax to live, work, trade, buy, sell, travel, trade in medicine, treat sick people, hunt, fish, drive, fly, operate a business, marry, and or own a dog?

Inexplicable!

Yet we're led to believe our only option is to VOTE for our task masters, as if they were our servants and not our tormentors.

ozmirage
19th July 2016, 03:01
Camp pain sound bites
>>|\\|<<
In place of the vapid political platforms of the partisan parties who are stooging for the “tax and bribe” perpetually bankrupt benevolent totalitarian police state socialist democracy, let us insist upon a different set of conditions.

All honorable elected officials are oath bound to
[] Secure rights endowed by our Creator
[] Never abolish precious liberty
[] The republican form of government, guaranteed!
[] Defend against predators, foreign or domestic
[] Respect absolute ownership of private property as a right
[] Respect the right to life and to defend that life by any means
[] Oppose collectivism and compulsory charity (abominations)
[] Recognize private liberty money (i.e., promissory notes) as lawful tender
[] Deny the protections of law to felons, counterfeitors, predators, parasites, gamblers and plunderers

genevieve
19th July 2016, 17:49
Excellent idea!

Gee, why didn't someone think of this before? :ROFL:


Peace Love Joy & Harmony,
genevieve

ozmirage
25th July 2016, 00:53
Without Your Consent, Government Cannot . . .
__ Compel you to labor for the benefit of another
__ Confiscate your private property without just compensation
__ Punish you for violating rules absent an injured party
__ Require you to get permission (license) to exercise rights and liberties
__ Demand that you train, fight and die, on their command
__ Compel you to violate your conscience and/or religious beliefs
__ Tax you, your labor, or your private property, even in times of war
__ Compel you to fund, trade with, or support those that you find disreputable, repugnant, disgusting or otherwise unacceptable
__ Violate your endowment of inherent / sacred / inalienable rights.

Isn’t it about time you asked your public servants to fully explain how you consented to be governed?

turiya
25th July 2016, 04:08
Isn't it time that you understand what a desiring mind will get you? And what it will deliver to you?
Frustration... frustration... and more frustration, and nothing else.
One has to, above all, understand that one has, from the get-go, been compeletly brainwashed - completely.

For example, the notion that one can possess private property, is utter nonsense.
Consider the notion of 'why would someone want to own property'?
The whole idea is utter foolishness.
At best one will pay rent (not to make a pun) to 'buy' into the idea that one can 'think' that they can own some piece of property... or some object, some other living being.
Try to take what you think you 'own' with you when you exit this world.
You will only be leaving with empty hands.

Now, 'Conscience' is different from what can be called 'Consciousness'.
Understand that having a so-called 'Conscience' is that which has been given to you by the society in which you live - conscience is given to you by the State, therefore it is not yours, until you accept it as yours, but bottomline - it is that which is given to you by the State. Thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shall not murder, thou shall not steal, thou shall not fornicate in public, etc.

One does not pop out of mother's womb & suddenly know... what money is - how to get some & what it will do for you when you have it, what it means to share what you have, and what it means to be greedy... These ideas about such things are given to you by the society in which you live. It is what makes up your 'conscience'. Conscience comes from society - it benefits society & the State for you to have a conscience - its part of your programming.

On the otherhand, Consciousness comes from one's own being... it grows from within oneself. It is a process of becoming more aware. It is not part of a programming scheme. It benefits oneself to be more consciously aware.

So, if you want to get down to the 'brass tacks' of it - to "violate your 'conscience'" is to go against the brainwashing that society has given to you, what the State has imposed on you. So, "violating your conscience" is, in effect, not such a bad thing.

Now, look a little deeper into exactly what are your 'religous beliefs'. This too, is nothing more than another form of brainwashing! 'Belief(s)' in something, is nothing more than a desire for something to be true that has NOT been experienced to be true. It is a kind of wishing & hoping for something that is not a reality. If it is in your reality, then it would not be a belief - it would be the truth. Beliefs are ideas, notions, concepts, borrowed from others. Beliefs are an idea that one has picked up from others, from a source outside of one's own being. Belief is not something that comes out from your own life experience, but borrowed (intellectually) from reading about it, or hearing about it from another or others.

Belief in a 'god' that has given you something... like an inalienable right... is, at the same time, accepting a low esteem of oneself... because, the notion that one is dependent on some entity that is greater than oneself, means that one considers oneself to be under someone else - subjugated to another... "do you understand?" -- whether it is asked inside or outside of a courtroom.

ozmirage
25th July 2016, 20:32
Isn't it time that you understand what a desiring mind will get you? And what it will deliver to you?
Frustration... frustration... and more frustration, and nothing else.

For example, the notion that one can possess private property, is utter nonsense.
Consider the notion of 'why would someone want to own property'?
The whole idea is utter foolishness.
At best one will pay rent (not to make a pun) to 'buy' into the idea that one can 'think' that they can own some piece of property... or some object, some other living being.
Try to take what you think you 'own' with you when you exit this world.
You will only be leaving with empty hands.
Since the title of this thread is with respect to elections in a democracy, your reply is absurd, since it is arguing religious and metaphysical principles that have nothing to do with an indirect democracy nor a republican form of government.

As to your "example" that absolute ownership of private property and the related authority to EXCLUDE others from it is foolish, please tell us your solution to the problem of multiple claims and uses of the same patch of land?

Despite your opinions to the contrary, one cannot simultaneously build and occupy a shelter, raise animals, farm, transport vehicles, hunt, gather, etc, upon the same parcel of land.
And if you deny the owner his right to exclude, then no one who farmed the land can 'claim' the harvest in the face of herders who trespassed upon it and fed their animals with his harvest. Or the hunter / gatherers who trespassed upon it and took the crops for themselves.

In such a world, most if not all will be swiftly exiting, due to the brutish conditions of such a noble philosophy. [sarcasm flag off]

ozmirage
25th July 2016, 20:37
"It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or of any number of men, at the entering into society to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights, when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are life, liberty, and property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up an essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right of freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave."
- - - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists (1772)