ComfySlippers
Banned
All very nice, but you are governed.
Just like you do have a SIN and your pretend status isn't recognised by anyone.
Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims
- Thread starter jargon buster
- Start date
- Status
All very nice, but you are governed.
Just like you do have a SIN and your pretend status isn't recognised by anyone.
jargon buster
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 4,773
Now you are getting it Robert, those who do not consent get treated exactly the same way as those that do, theres no difference.
Yet you still 'toe the line' whilst living a parasitic lifestyle on the back of the 'imaginary group'
Wake up Robert, its been said before, you ain't special.
Anyone would think he was speaking to people who understand simple English.
You might almost have got away with that, if you hadn't completely misused the term cognitive dissonance.
No, do you?
Please explain how the wishes of the vast majority should be overridden by the greed and selfishness of a few freeloaders.
Don't suppose you've got anything approaching evidence for your silly claims?
How's that working out for you? You could even type a short sentence before you'd destroyed your own argument.
So you're a lone individual, making your own way on your own...
...just in your own group.
Which is it, the majority or all of them, and how large is your group?
You're so funny, honey pie.
You want us to believe that a lawyer, who unlike you doesn’t have to fake a high I.Q., believes as do you and has dumped centuries of U.S. law?
That you foist this sort of BS on freeman wannabes is insulting to them. That so few buy that line may explain your reduced circumstances.
FreemanMenard
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 835
Maybe too simple?
Thank you for your opinion.
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind.” (Mill 1859, 20)
Plenty thanks. It is lost on the folks here though. You know, what with it relying upon logic and reason.
Working out fine thank you.
A lone individual with plenty of friends and supporters. Thanks again!
BIG group of non-consenting individuals, actually.
All of them. Bigger every day.
I know!
BazBear
Possible Suspect
Yeah, that was my plan, as being thrown in jail for fraud would tend to put a crimp in my real world freedoms, whether I consent or not. FOTL stands for Fruitcakes of the Loonybin, if you ask me.
FreemanMenard
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 835
I am governed by myself, unlike you who is governed by others.
If I have a SIN, YOU have a purple unicorn under your sofa, and I know it is true, just like you know I have a SIN. I am using YOUR logic. I said it was so, therefore it must be so. (Who do you think is better equipped to determine if I have a SIN? Me or YOU?)
My status is in fact recognized by many, and even if it wasn`t it is by ME. Thanks for your opinion though!
BazBear
Possible Suspect
Well if you ever grow pair and actually try to practice the rubbish you preach, you can try to explain this to the police and the judge. Your self deluded status isn't going to amount to fart in a hurricane to them.
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
As I have explained to you previously, "consent of the governed" refers to collective consent, rather than individual consent. This is well understood by virtually all legislators and judges in every democracy in the world. You may wish it were not so; you may feel that ethically it shouldn't be so, but the fact is that it is so, and no magic words that you might recite to a judge or to a law-enforcement officer will change that.
ComfySlippers
Banned
So you'll be returning to representing people in Court soon then?
Me. I don't live in fantasy land.
The fact that a handful of your marks believe in your make-believe status is irelevant.
That doesn't actually make any sense.
If you stopped desperately trying to be clever and spent some time thinking about your replies we might eventually get somewhere.
You believe you used the term correctly?
"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
John Stuart Mill
Ooh, look at that, I can quote Mill too.John Stuart Mill
Now, what makes you think you are being silenced in any way?
I see, the usual Menardian invisible evidence; constantly claimed but never forthcoming.
I see that logic and reason completely passed you by there.
Yes, making your way without imposing on anyone or relying on others.
I'm individual, and so are all these people who are just like me.
Bigger than what, why are you so reluctant to elaborate on your claims of a large movement?
FreemanMenard
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 835
I use my freedom all the time. Oh wait, you want a YouTube video, right? But now I am confused... is YouTube videos now accepted as proof here? I thought you lot rejected videos on YouTube as proof, or evidence.
If you ever decide to grow a pair, you too can govern yourself, instead of simply mindlessly following the dictates of others, cause they know best.
Do you think it takes more courage to follow your own heart contrary to the herd and their supposed masters, or just do as your told and keep your head down, and try to fit in? How much courage does it take to succumb to peer pressure?
In private while no one is watching.
Courage doesn't come into it because you just want to talk about freedom while retaining all the benefits of alleged slavery.
I don't know, how much?
FreemanMenard
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 835
Yes you have previously shared your opinion with me and asked I accept it as gospel truth, never to be questioned. However, individual consent is still secured by those in the government, they do not simply say `We have the majority therefore your consent is no longer required!`
I like how you seem to think you can speak for virtually EVERY legislator and judge, and share with us what they understand, and yet do not see that as questionable. I have never met one single politician who was willing to publicly claim they have the right to govern, their fellow man without the consent of their fellow man, because they have the consent of his neighbors. Not ONE! And I asked many... not a single one wanted to claim what you do. Of course, they are not hiding on the net, are they?
Now I know YOU may wish that individual consent was not required. I know YOU may wish to take the words `consent of the governed`and change it and huff and puff and claim it means something else, like consent of the majority of the governed, but all YOUR magic words do not change `consent of the governed`to `consent of the majority`.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
No, you are not.
Menard, your thinly constructed ruse attempting to misrepresent the President’s words is telling since it’s the sort of thing you do when you surf the web for something you can make into a freeman con job.
The first time the public heard about this sort of subterfuge on your part was when you tried to get out from under having Elizabeth Anne Elaine removed from your custody.
But, I suspect you have been doing this sort of word bending all your life.
If you were as smart as you say you are, you ‘d save your "go to" con job move for your scams.
The first time the public heard about this sort of subterfuge on your part was when you tried to get out from under having Elizabeth Anne Elaine removed from your custody.
But, I suspect you have been doing this sort of word bending all your life.
If you were as smart as you say you are, you ‘d save your "go to" con job move for your scams.
FreemanMenard
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 835
Wow your declarative statement is just so forceful. How can it possibly be incorrect? Thank you for correcting me. I now see the error of my ways.
Yes you have previously shared your opinion with me and asked I accept it as gospel truth, never to be questioned. However, individual consent is still secured by those in the government, they do not simply say `We have the majority therefore your consent is no longer required!`
I like how you seem to think you can speak for virtually EVERY legislator and judge, and share with us what they understand, and yet do not see that as questionable. I have never met one single politician who was willing to publicly claim they have the right to govern, their fellow man without the consent of their fellow man, because they have the consent of his neighbors. Not ONE! And I asked many... not a single one wanted to claim what you do. Of course, they are not hiding on the net, are they?
Now I know YOU may wish that individual consent was not required. I know YOU may wish to take the words `consent of the governed`and change it and huff and puff and claim it means something else, like consent of the majority of the governed, but all YOUR magic words do not change `consent of the governed`to `consent of the majority`.
Every U.S. legislator and judge has sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution . . . and the Constitution does not support your notion of the consent of the governed.
Edited by jhunter1163:
Edited for Rules 0 and 12.
Last edited by a moderator:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
Wow your declarative statement is just so forceful. How can it possibly be incorrect? Thank you for correcting me. I now see the error of my ways.
Because you are governed by the government of whichever country you happen to live in. Even a child can understand that, I didn't think that it needed any explanation.
- Status