Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[sadhatter]

So when you get the bill for his treatment, are you just going to write your secret code phrase on it or are you going to send actual cash?

Rob comes in here and tells a possibly true story, to a group of folks he regards as enemies, and then gets all shocked when folks don't exactly treat him as a friend.

I can't shake the image of two gents in a barfight. One stands in a bowlegged pose, talking about how much it would hurt to get kicked in the stones, while talking **** about the other gent's mother. When the second gent finally kicks said stones, he cries foul that it was done.

Rob, if your father really is ill, that sucks, even if he shares your views, and advocates them with the fervor of a man possessed, i hope he gets better. That being said, your track record of used car salesman esque tactics, shady facts, and downright lies, makes me not willing to believe this is really the case without proof.

But on the flip side, you have a website brother, want sympathy? Write it up on there, coming here and flashing your stones around, is going to get them kicked. You have no reputation to speak of around here, and your posts are insulting, and demeaning to as large of an extent as you can make them ( DUH) without having them removed. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to realize that coming here with a sad story isn't going to do you any favors.

 

[SpitfireIX]

And these people you elect/hire/engage have powers you did not? How does that work?

See beren elections is how you appoint someone to act on your behalf. It does not give them powers you never had to give in the first place.

DUH.

Again with the fallacy of composition. You don't get to redefine the workings of democracy to suit your beliefs.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .

And before you start, "consent" means collective consent, not individual consent.

 

[jargon buster]

Rob, if your father really is ill, that sucks, even if he shares your views, and advocates them with the fervor of a man possessed, i hope he gets better. That being said, your track record of used car salesman esque tactics, shady facts, and downright lies, makes me not willing to believe this is really the case without proof.

The boy who cried wolf is just trying to stop people picking on him.
He perfected that in school when he was bullied.
He pretended they had broke his arm when they twisted it up his back to make them leave him alone.

 

[sadhatter]

+1
Menard knows how lucky he is to be able to live in such a beautiful country with some of the most lenient laws on the planet.

He doesn't really believe the nonsense he spouts, he knows that he is just spreading a lie to make money from gullible spongers who his waffle appeals to.

Its obvious. To think that this big evil government is going to just lay down when the appropriate words are said, is just... i want to say absurd, but its more than that. It is a direct and obvious fabrication designed to entice those that want to get something for nothing.

If one truly believed that the government was this corrupt, evil, and secretive, and said person had an average iq, they would see that the real solution is not going to be magic words, as even if one said them, the evil, corrupt agency would just laugh and have them hauled off. But armed, bloody, terrible revolution.

As always, Rob's FOTL crap, reminds me of D and D. In this case, all the paper tiger villains DMs have had to introduce to low level characters. The villain seems scary, has all kinds of wards, armor, minions, to thwart the heroes , but when it finally comes down to it, the solution to the problem is never all that hard. Problem is, this stretches the credibility of a pen and paper rpg, to try and say the same thing in real life, there just are not enough eyes to roll at the concept, to give it justice, even if we include potatoes into the mix.

 

[sadhatter]

The boy who cried wolf is just trying to stop people picking on him.
He perfected that in school when he was bullied.
He pretended they had broke his arm when they twisted it up his back to make them leave him alone.

I have no ( or rather, very, very little.) doubt that this is the case. No one with an ounce of sense comes into a place they purposely work up into a frenzy of eye rolling and exasperated sighs with news like that and expects anything other than the reaction he received.

I mean hell, i am no stranger to being in a hostile board. I hated the movie smokin aces enough that i went to boards for it, ( i wouldn't say trollin, but i would say a case could be made that i was if one was an excellent lawyer.) to try and get a handle on how folks could have enjoyed the film. And things got rather nasty there. What i didn't do was inform said boards that my uncle died during that time, because i knew the reaction i would get.

 

[FreemanMenard]

Again with the fallacy of composition. You don't get to redefine the workings of democracy to suit your beliefs.




And before you start, "consent" means collective consent, not individual consent.

How do they secure collective consent in a fashion provable in court?

I do know how they secure individual consent, with individuals signing applications and submissions.

But how do they prove they have collective consent, if they do not ask the individuals, and no one is signing for the collective?

 

[SpitfireIX]

What makes you think I do not pay my fair share of taxes?

I like every one else made a choice. I chose to not have a SIN. They chose to have one. They are now able to collect benefits I cannot, and they have burdens I do not.

Please cite a ruling by any British or Canadian court, or an act of either nation's parliament, that expressly allows you to avoid paying taxes simply by refusing to accept government services.

Just cause they chose in ignorance, failing to distinguish between 'Canada' a geographical area and 'CANADA' a legal entity does not generate obligations upon me to be just as ignorant or to bow to the rules of CANADA like they are the laws of Canada.

Please cite a ruling by any British or Canadian court, or an act of either nation's parliament, that expressly establishes any such distinction.

As for drawing upon the common wealth, that is my right. And there is no need for me to subject myself to anyone to do so. After all, I too own a part of this country.

First, your ownership is collective, not individual. Second, you personally don't get to define your rights as a Canadian citizen. Your elected representatives and the duly appointed judges of the Canadian judicial system do. And if enough of your fellow citizens don't think these officials are doing a good enough job of defining your rights, they can vote in a new government at the next election. Third, how is it that you refuse social insurance because you don't want to pay for it, yet you believe you can simply take money out of the treasury?

 

[beren]

And these people you elect/hire/engage have powers you did not? How does that work?

See beren elections is how you appoint someone to act on your behalf. It does not give them powers you never had to give in the first place.

DUH.

It works because more than one person votes. Duh.

Elections are how we choose people to GOVERN us. Duh.

 

[SpitfireIX]

How do they secure collective consent in a fashion provable in court?

Begging the question of whether such consent needs to be proven in court.

But how do they prove they have collective consent, if they do not ask the individuals, and no one is signing for the collective?

The individuals are asked at every election. Further,

. . . [W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[Mojo]

And these people you elect/hire/engage have powers you did not? How does that work?

See beren elections is how you appoint someone to act on your behalf. It does not give them powers you never had to give in the first place.

Yes, it does. See the Canadian constitution.

 

[solzhenitsyn]

How do they secure collective consent in a fashion provable in court?

I do know how they secure individual consent, with individuals signing applications and submissions.

But how do they prove they have collective consent, if they do not ask the individuals, and no one is signing for the collective?

Provable in court? Good grief. The nonsense in that question is staggering. For instance, if a government were required to prove in court that they had the consent of the governed, the instant the court found that the government lacked the consent of the governed and therefore had no legal authority, that court would instantly lose its legla authority, and its decision would instantly become a nullity (which would paradoxically restore the government's legal authority?)

BTW, as has been suggested to you already many, many times, the proof that the government of Canada has the consent of the governed is that there is no revolution raging in the streets.

 

[Hektor]

So, according to Rob, I have the exact same powers of the government because a government cannot have more powers than the people it is comprised of. Aright, I think I am going to impose a tariff on wheat imports, appoint my brother as ambassador to France and give him thus diplomatic immunity in case the night life gets too rowdy and declare war on that guy whose house I like.

 

[abaddon]

So, according to Rob, I have the exact same powers of the government because a government cannot have more powers than the people it is comprised of. Aright, I think I am going to impose a tariff on wheat imports, appoint my brother as ambassador to France and give him thus diplomatic immunity in case the night life gets too rowdy and declare war on that guy whose house I like.

Oh dear.

I have a treaty with that guy (to which I consented) which will therefore require me to declare war on you.

BTW I do not recognise your ambassador to France, as I do not consent to the right for France to exist, and furthermore, I do not consent to your declaration of war, nor your wheat tariff.

Where are we now? I'm confused.

 

[Jon.]

I never said YOU can claim the inflated powers exercised by the government. I said their powers cannot be inflated past what you could give them.

Unfortunately, Rob, this is simply not true, and has not been true ever, in the history of governments. If it were true, we would have anarchy. Is that really what you want?

 

[Bishop]

Sure but since I have answered so many and you refuse to maybe you can answer mine first.

If you do not personally have the right or power to govern me without my consent, how can you hire or appoint or elect someone to do so for you?

Thanks!

Okay, Rob, the question's been answered. Want to answer mine now?

 

[Hektor]

Oh gee sorry Rob. I'm just glad that you came along to point out to the governments that they have no right to the powers they have been exercising since civilization began. Now all we have to settle is those pesky boundary issues. I mean, if World War II was illegal (oh sorry unlawful), then parts of Germany that are now Poland should revert I guess, but then we have to factor in the Napoleonic Wars and what if the Prussians don't consent? It is a pickle...

 

[tsig]

It's what you thought. Maybe, just maybe what you thought was wrong from the get go?

What I abandoned was being a child of the sate.

When a child leaves the family he no longer is supported by the family.

 

[tsig]

Oh dear.

I have a treaty with that guy (to which I consented) which will therefore require me to declare war on you.

BTW I do not recognise your ambassador to France, as I do not consent to the right for France to exist, and furthermore, I do not consent to your declaration of war, nor your wheat tariff.

Where are we now? I'm confused.

War to the knife and knife to the death just like all freeman quarrels.

 

[Horatius]

Asked, answered, and, as expected, ignored months ago.

Asked, answered, and ignored, yet again.

 

[arayder]

We have covered this ground countless times, Bobby boy.

You insist on avoiding any acknowledgment of the certainty of law by over and over employing the same childish debate trick.

You insist on pretending that your debunkers are arguing that the law’s authority is gained by one individual seeking to rule another. This presumptuous ploy of assuming an unproven premise avoids the eventual destruction of your argument and attempts to feed the freeman’s mistaken belief that the source of all law is contractual.

One more time, Bobby. . . the limited authority of western democracies to make binding law is granted to their governments by the body politic referred to as “the people“.

Your individual consent to, or approval of, the limited powers of democratic government is not required.

One is well aware that this fact of law and history is an affront your megalomaniacal tendencies and robs your mindless minions/marks of the delusion that they are beating the system.

Your decade long register of in and out of court failures is testament to the painful reality that you aren’t bursting any bubbles.

It is somewhat understandable that you no more want to talk about your need to pretend that society must bend to your rules than you are willing to talk about the responsibility you should bear for the trail of freeman wannabes deceived and damaged by the badly borrowed theories you foisted as freedom for your personal, psychological gain.

From a purely psychological stand point your denial is understandable. Should you ever realize that you have been tilting windmills for the last ten years then the Bobby-centered world would come crashing down on you.

And there ain’t enough booze in the world for you to self-medicate that pain.