Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
the more I look at that photo the more it looks like two separate faces joined down the middle.

mmm.. two faced, how ironic
 
jargon buster said:
Most scammers and conmen have flash lifestyles to show their success, in other words, look what my products/ideas offer.
You too can have what I have if you just put in the time and effort.
What does Menard have?
Nothing at all,he looks like a hobo and he bums around sleeping on other peoples floors and hitches rides everywhere???
How can anyone in their right mind* think this is something to aspire to?


* I know, I know :rolleyes:
Click to expand...



Well, everyone has different standards, after all!

But think about it, the idiots don't need all that much money to make it worthwhile, even if you won't be "flash". If he can find 500 people a year to send him $100, that's $50 000, cash in hand, and you know he doesn't pay taxes. That's a pretty decent middle-class salary for a single guy. I had my own apartment when I was making less than that per year, and I was paying taxes on top of that.

When you consider the world-wide reach of the Internet, it's not that hard to believe he might find that many suckers every year. If he can get them to send more than $100 each, he doesn't even need that many.

He's not raking in Alex Jones level money, but then, Menard has chosen to limit himself to the FoTL market, while Jones will go after almost any CT-based market.
 
If he can find 500 people a year to send him $100, that's $50 000, cash in hand,
Click to expand...

Nah...hes not getting anywhere near that, the WFS only has around 8-10 active posters on the forum and they dont even agree with him.
He may get the occasional nutbar like Lance Thatcher every once in a while but apart from that I would wager its pretty static.
It says on WFS there are over 6900 members, theres about 4000 without a single post (spambots) and a maximum of 50 posters who have had over 10 posts.

Anyone who has freeman tendancies tend to also have an aversion to parting with money so I think Robs pretty much on his arse.
 
jargon buster said:
Nah...hes not getting anywhere near that, the WFS only has around 8-10 active posters on the forum and they dont even agree with him.
He may get the occasional nutbar like Lance Thatcher every once in a while but apart from that I would wager its pretty static.
It says on WFS there are over 6900 members, theres about 4000 without a single post (spambots) and a maximum of 50 posters who have had over 10 posts.

Anyone who has freeman tendancies tend to also have an aversion to parting with money so I think Robs pretty much on his arse.
Click to expand...


Wait a minute. Isn't money an artifact of the state? By accepting money Rob has placed himself under contract with the state so he has to follow the law.


:confused:
 
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds share ideas."

Notice how much time is spent on this forum talking about people, and not their ideas?
 
tsig said:
Wait a minute. Isn't money an artifact of the state? By accepting money Rob has placed himself under contract with the state so he has to follow the law.


:confused:
Click to expand...

Well I don't know that I have ever read such nonsensical logic in my life.
We are in contract with a third party, merely because money was used as consideration in a private two party contract?

WOW....
 
Let me try and explain the difference to you: Rob is right. The government is a con trick. A few people are making money off the suffering of others. If, to get that message to the gullible, Rob has to violate the rules of the Law Society, I consider that a price worth paying.
Click to expand...

Rob can you address this nonsense that you have in your signature over on Ickes?

Can you just remind me when you last violated the rules of the law society since a court ruling told you not to?
 
We are in contract with a third party, merely because money was used as consideration in a private two party contract?
Click to expand...
That medium of exchange/money is a provision of the state, you should accept chickens or goats for your advice.
Maybe even a huge pile of horse manure in exchange, although thats just a straight swap isnt it
 
Notice how much time is spent on this forum talking about people, and not their ideas?
Click to expand...
Your ideas are not worth the effort, you on the other hand are a constant source of amusement.
 
If you're using something supplied by a third party, that surely makes them have some say over the deal.
Suppose Bill supplies me with a tractor so I can disk Tom's field, but tells me he doesn't want it taken into boggy areas.
Does that mean I can, in honor, take it into a boggy part of Tom's field, because that's what Tom wants done? After all, the work is between me and Tom.

Money is provided by the state as a convenient medium of exchange. Canadian money is different from American money which is different from Chinese money. And just like the use of the tractor, there are rules governing the use of money.
 
FreemanMenard said:
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds share ideas."

Notice how much time is spent on this forum talking about people, and not their ideas?
Click to expand...
We know all about your ideas. They are false, deceptive and utterly moronic. In the absence of any evidentiary support from you for your ideas and in light of the mountains of evidence against your ideas that we are all familiar with, what is there left to talk about it?

Of course, you could elevate the discussion by providing some evidence.

Waiting...
 
We are in contract with a third party, merely because money was used as consideration in a private two party contract?
Click to expand...

What is your "consideration" given to form the contract?
Is it your dodgy advice that remains untested and unproven?
 
TjW said:
If you're using something supplied by a third party, that surely makes them have some say over the deal.
Suppose Bill supplies me with a tractor so I can disk Tom's field, but tells me he doesn't want it taken into boggy areas.
Does that mean I can, in honor, take it into a boggy part of Tom's field, because that's what Tom wants done? After all, the work is between me and Tom.

Money is provided by the state as a convenient medium of exchange. Canadian money is different from American money which is different from Chinese money. And just like the use of the tractor, there are rules governing the use of money.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I am pretty sure you are incorrect. A court actually ruled on that very issue. Found that the provider of the medium of exchange had no rights to the exchange after they had provided the medium, and that people were free to use whatever they wanted.

If I wanted to buy a car with Canadian Tire Money, and the seller was agreeable to that offer, would Canadian Tire have any say or be able to claim restrictions on our transaction? Could they stop us from using their money for our transactions? Not according to the court. If we wanted to use sea shells as a medium of exchange, and we secured them from some guy who owns a beach, would he later have any control over what we did with them? NAY according to the court. (Wish I could remember the case, but it had to do, I think with a bar accepting Canadian Tire Money, and CT trying to stop them.) There was also another case where CRA tried to claim that they had a right to a portion of any transaction which used Canadian Money, because it was Canadian Money. NOT SO said the court. The money, once held by an individual, if lawfully secured, was in essence private property, and if two people wanted to use it to exchange, the party who created it had NO SAY NOR RIGHT TO A PORTION AT ALL.

I think it makes sense too, personally. It should be a medium of exchange, not a medium of controlling exchange.
 
yada,yada,yada..yet again.

Rob the point actually made was that you reject statute and government yet you wish to use money which is actually provided by that very government as a medium of exchange for its citizens.

Really , you just never see the obvious do you?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Sorry, but I am pretty sure you are incorrect. A court actually ruled on that very issue. Found that the provider of the medium of exchange had no rights to the exchange after they had provided the medium, and that people were free to use whatever they wanted.

If I wanted to buy a car with Canadian Tire Money, and the seller was agreeable to that offer, would Canadian Tire have any say or be able to claim restrictions on our transaction? Could they stop us from using their money for our transactions? Not according to the court. If we wanted to use sea shells as a medium of exchange, and we secured them from some guy who owns a beach, would he later have any control over what we did with them? NAY according to the court. (Wish I could remember the case, but it had to do, I think with a bar accepting Canadian Tire Money, and CT trying to stop them.) There was also another case where CRA tried to claim that they had a right to a portion of any transaction which used Canadian Money, because it was Canadian Money. NOT SO said the court. The money, once held by an individual, if lawfully secured, was in essence private property, and if two people wanted to use it to exchange, the party who created it had NO SAY NOR RIGHT TO A PORTION AT ALL.

I think it makes sense too, personally. It should be a medium of exchange, not a medium of controlling exchange.
Click to expand...

Nope. People may use whatever they like, between themselves, of course.
But there are still rules regarding the use of the money. There are trivial ones, such as a business not being required to accept large amounts of change, unlikely to get anyone in trouble, and more significant ones, requiring the reporting of large cash transactions, where failure to do so can wind up with significant jail time.

If you don't think you can use a tractor without following the rules set down by the entity supplying it, then, in honor, you should not not use it.

Ditto money. As you point out, there are many other things you could use. If you can't follow the rules, then in honor, you should not use it. Stick to seashells.
 
nb. Bad language is that of pigpot on WFS

World Freeman Society
That's what JREF do! Sick invasive bastards!
Click to expand...

And some more...
The whole David Icke Freeman-on-the-land forum is infested with shills and trolls and it even has moderators who support JREF! weeman, comfysloopers (comfyslippers), aulus agerius, rumpole, thoreau, rumpelstilzchen, the raging sea (possibly Jargon Buster) amongst others.

Seriously how does a site that promotes free-thinking (not any-thinking), promote a site where a moderator is a JREF'er and comfysloopers is on the JREF site as comfyslippers.
Click to expand...


Rob Menard is hounded there and Mary Gye was ran out and it just seems like a Turkey shoot now. WTF is going on!

At least this place runs the ****ers out of town quickly! Good stuff bmxninjaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Click to expand...


The JREFer's are cocks and they need to exposed as such and Rob is doing a valiant job in exposing them for what they are. The thing is as soon as one utters a word over there which "contravenes" forum "guidelines" one gets a ban so it hard to help people like Rob who put up the logical facts against JREF ********! Most people (other than themselves) wants them here or anywhere to be honest but they attract people and just like all cults they need to be exposed for what THEY are. Just that, a bunch of know all back-slappers who delight in praising one-another when they complete what their master has told them.
Click to expand...

As long as there people like pigpot in the world, Robert Arthur Menard is assured a market for his gibberish.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom