Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bosozoku said:
You're allowed to have whatever thoughts you want on SINs, and you have the right associate with like-minded people, however wrong you and those people may be on the subject. Likewise, the government can't tell you that you can't associate with people who think that the sky isn't blue, or that 2 plus 2 is 5.

But since an SIN is not a person, there is no freedom to associate with it or dis-associate from it.
Click to expand...

What I am doing is disassociating from the people who have a SIN and those who provide them, and those who provide benefits to only those with a SIN. Since they are people, I can choose to not associate with them right?
 
FreemanMenard said:
What I am doing is disassociating from the people who have a SIN and those who provide them, and those who provide benefits to only those with a SIN. Since they are people, I can choose to not associate with them right?
Click to expand...

You're certainly free to dissociate yourself from them so long as you exit the borders of the country. But then again, that'd entail being pinned with another number (not to mention the country of your choosing would probably insist on some similar identifying number for you.

Catch-22's a female dog, ain't it?

Fitz
 
FreemanMenard said:
Yes, and I believe it would be the first option. After I think it is 7 years of no use, I understand they retire it even if your intent was not to abandon it and you simply were not using it. And then you have to get a new one.
Click to expand...

Rob, you are pulling this out of your back passage.

As has been explained before, and the regulations/legislation shown to you - the SIN that was assigned to you is yours, and yours alone. No one else will ever have that number. The SIN that was assigned to my deceased Grandparents will never be reissued, nor will the one my now deceased mother in law had. Your understanding is wrong.
 
Boot2TheHead said:
*Cough*
Click to expand...

Talk about taking something out of context!
What was the preceding sentence?

Was it not in fact a challenge to prove a position, that being that I do have a SIN, and did I not ask for proof of assertion? Now you try to imply that asking for proof of the claim, that I support that claim.

You have a cat.
No I do not.
Yes you do.
If, I do, then what color is my cat?
You said my cat, that proves you have one!
:boggled:
 
Border Reiver said:
Rob, you are pulling this out of your back passage.

As has been explained before, and the regulations/legislation shown to you - the SIN that was assigned to you is yours, and yours alone. No one else will ever have that number. The SIN that was assigned to my deceased Grandparents will never be reissued, nor will the one my now deceased mother in law had. Your understanding is wrong.
Click to expand...

I do not care if they assign the same number to someone, or are saving it hoping and waiting for me to come back into their fold. They still can't force me to associate with it. I was born without one, and they cannot force me to associate with one.

Plus don't you realize, as you get it from Human Resources Canada, it is evidence of an employee/employer relationship between CANADA and whoever has one. Are you claiming that once so employed, one must forever remain thus employed? Are we slaves with no choice to decide for whom we work?

Funny how you guys are willing to make claims that the CRA lawyers will not, and contrary to the ones agreed to by Human Resources Canada. There is a group of people who have SIN's. I have chosen to not associate with them. Who is going to argue I do not have that right? If you are not forced to get one, who can force you to keep it?
 
Last edited:
Was it not in fact a challenge to prove a position, that being that I do have a SIN, and did I not ask for proof of assertion? Now you try to imply that asking for proof of the claim, that I support that claim.

You have a cat.
No I do not.
Yes you do.
If, I do, then what color is my cat?
You said my cat, that proves you have one!
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp

hahahahahahahahah.....
hahahahahahahahah....

DOES HE EVER THINK BEFORE POSTING.

thats was Robs argument for the reason the guy lost the court case by refering to the SIN as "my SIN"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8093762&postcount=5839
KEEP EM COMING ROB. :D
 
Last edited:
fitzgibbon said:
You're certainly free to dissociate yourself from them so long as you exit the borders of the country. But then again, that'd entail being pinned with another number (not to mention the country of your choosing would probably insist on some similar identifying number for you.

Catch-22's a female dog, ain't it?

Fitz
Click to expand...

Really? Says WHO? Who exactly is going to force me to leave Canada merely because I do not have a SIN? Don't you realize there are many who do not have one, and cannot be forced to leave? Since getting one in the first place is a choice, and refusing to do so does not result in ejection from the country, how is abandoning that number justification for the same?

:rolleyes:
 
really? Says who? Who exactly is going to force me to leave canada merely because i do not have a sin? Don't you realize there are many who do not have one, and cannot be forced to leave? Since getting one in the first place is a choice, and refusing to do so does not result in ejection from the country, how is abandoning that number justification for the same?
Click to expand...

you are trolling now, no one could be so stupid..

I WILL NOW PLAY ROB AT HIS OWN GAME
 
Last edited:
FreemanMenard said:
I do not care if they assign the same number to someone, or are saving it hoping and waiting for me to come back into their fold. They still can't force me to associate with it. I was born without one, and they cannot force me to associate with one.
Click to expand...

This isn't about freedom-of-association-freedom, Bob; that argument's reserved for relations between sentients.

By agreement of the people of Canada, they can compel you and that's the ipso facto of authority. Now if you choose to remove yourself from the borders of Canada, that argument loses its edge. However, that'd also include acquiring (however briefly) another damning and vexatious number to dissociate yourself from.

I believe your only course of action is to find an uncharted island somewhere not already claimed. And then of course, you'd have to defend your claim from all comers and that'd be an expensive process. However, your choice I guess

Fitz
 
FreemanMenard said:
Yes, and I believe it would be the first option. After I think it is 7 years of no use, I understand they retire it even if your intent was not to abandon it and you simply were not using it. And then you have to get a new one.
Click to expand...

This is totally false. I lived overseas for 12 years so did not use my sin at all in that period of time. I was very young at the time, got married, was a stay at home mom so did not work while overseas. Once I returned to Canada low and behold my old sin was reinstated to me. So your conclusion regarding it being retired after 7 years is false. I have now also not worked for the past 15 years nor have I ever received any form of benefits but I can inform you that my sin is still my sin whether I use it or not. Just as your is.

The pattern that I see happening here is that Rob is only trying to collect info for that famous new video that he is making. I am sure that it will all about the "my sin is not my sin" theory.
 
FreemanMenard said:
Sheesh dude do I really have to point this out?

Read that over and over again... until you see this part:

my Social Insurance Number
my Social Insurance Number

Did he or did he not claim to HAVE a Social Insurance Number?

Did he refer to it as 'my social insurance number?

I hereby revoke and forbid any usage of my Social Insurance number as a taxpayer number; and, void any contract such past usage of it as a taxpayer number may have implied.

KEY POINT:
I hereby revoke and forbid any usage of my Social Insurance number as a taxpayer number; and, void any contract such past usage of it as a taxpayer number may have implied.

He referred to a SIN as HIS.

And he paid for it.

I claim I do not have one, and do not refer to any such number as 'MY SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBER.

God the level of stupidity here, by people who claim to be able to read is astounding.

Just answer this: DID HE REFER TO A SIN AS IS NUMBER? YES or NO?

If yes you see where he messed up.

He claimed a number as his own.
I do not.

So different story, right?

Sol, either you can see he referred to a SIN as his, or you cannot. Can you?
Click to expand...

FreemanMenard said:
Talk about taking something out of context!
What was the preceding sentence?

Was it not in fact a challenge to prove a position, that being that I do have a SIN, and did I not ask for proof of assertion? Now you try to imply that asking for proof of the claim, that I support that claim.

You have a cat.
No I do not.
Yes you do.
If, I do, then what color is my cat?
You said my cat, that proves you have one!
:boggled:
Click to expand...

So, which is correct?
 
I am converted, I have seen the light.

I am now to be known as Jargon of the family Buster and my name is to be written thus Jargon:-Buster.

I am a freeman-on-the-land and I have revoked consent to statutory legislation both me and Rob are now brothers in arms and we are identical in every way, I have a letter somewhere amongst my belongings that proves my status but I refuse to spoon feed you.
I have abandoned my NIN (SIN) by burning my card, the act of burning the card is a ritual ceremony and automatically deletes my name and number from the data base.

Bring it on guys.

PS I will be knocking out copies of Bursting Bubbles without Robs consent as the copyright act doesnt apply to me and Rob.
 
Last edited:
And some poor person will try Rob's theory, doing all the faulty research Rob suggests (read none, I've seen a few of your short Youtube videos, and at no point do you actually advocate real research) and will end up in some real trouble with CRA, etc.
 
JB, will you be emulating Rob's fashion choices as well, or will you be attempting to use the persuasiveness of a decent set of clothes and professional appearance to convince folks to trust you?
 
FreemanMenard said:
Really? Says WHO? Who exactly is going to force me to leave Canada merely because I do not have a SIN? Don't you realize there are many who do not have one, and cannot be forced to leave? Since getting one in the first place is a choice, and refusing to do so does not result in ejection from the country, how is abandoning that number justification for the same?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I said "so long as you exit the borders of the country." :rolleyes: If you choose to stay, you're admitting being bound by the laws of the country.

It really isn't a difficult concept. It's binary in fact:

a) I choose to stay ergo I accept the laws that apply to those that here reside
or
b) I choose to go ergo I am not bound by the laws that apply to residents as I am not resident therein

Quite a simple concept. You see, even just being within the national boundaries you ARE making use of the fruits of the nation even on the unlikely premise that you never wander off your squat.

So, in short you aren't a Freeman On The Land; you're a Freeloader On The Land
 
Robs fashion?
No there is a point I draw the line.
I assume I wont have a choice but to dress like Rob at some point as I do expect to fall very quickly down the social pecking order in the quest to be free.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom