I've got evidence drinking milk gave me allergies. Maby of the world's chemists and doctors disagree with many of the dairy industry whores.
The milk you are talking about is probably mass-produced, pasturized, full of chemicals and hormones, like rBGH/BHG, puss/blood from utter infections caused by innoculations of those chemicals and hormones, and antibiotics from corrective measures taken against said infections, unless you are specifically talking about whole, natural, raw milk. This is about whole, natural, raw milk. Some scientists, usually of the high profile variety that takes money from those with an agenda, will do/say what someone pays them to do/say, or whatever gives them attention. All you have to do is look at past controversies like depletion of the Ozone layer hoax, probably before you were born so you may not remember it, man-made global warming hoax, aliens/ufos, the roots of the enviromental movement, and now the big one is wildlife, nature and biodiversity coming out of the globalist agenda. From birth we are meant to drink mothers milk, admittedly not milk form cows, however milk does contain needed nutrients. We have choices in what we eat and drink to get those nutrients. Some prefer milk, raw milk untainted by multi-national franken-food producers/scientists like Cargil, Monstanto, or Archer-Daniels Midland. I dont really like milk, except for chocolate milk once in a while. |
|
|
|
Gotta evolve someday.
Also giving raw milk to kids is awful, it's an easy way to get them horribly sick.
Just eat more protein and fat, and less cards or "low-fat" shit, and a few veggies. The perfect diet.
I think the people and their kids kids who drink raw milk and are much healthier for it disagrees with your uneducated opinion. |
|
|
|
Do you have opinions on any of this stuff or are you just a link posting machine?
I believe the government spies on us. |
|
|
|
A cop has no more or less rights than you and I, especially when they act unlawfully. Remember equal protection under the law ? When a cop acts unlawfully, are they still a cop ? Of course not. They are a criminal, whether they realize it or not. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The supreme court agrees vis-a-vis John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529 and many other cases if you look around, but we are a fearful people. We have been taught to listen to authority and do/go/say/think/feel what we are told by authority. To be good little worker bees and feed the system. They make it so expensive, time consuming, frustrating, and problematic to question authority. |
|
|
|
If you find more security problems with SMF, tell me and I'll fix it. SMF's security record doesn't seem any worse than other popular software, so I don't believe it's worth the trouble to switch if I can't get at least most of my wishlist implemented. Few of the "facts" in these videos are accurate. Here's the problem though... the forum software you want doesn't exist, it will have to be written from scratch or modified extensively from other software. Great, that's a fine plan, but that plan takes a lot of time. On top of the time, introducing either new software or so extensively modified software is going to have lots and lots of bugs. Lots of security issues - it won't have been vetted through millions of users and billions of posts like off the shelf software. Additionally, if that software ever saw the light of day, which is a dubious proposition at this point, the maintenance on it is going to be horrendous. Who's going to maintain it when security or bug fixes are required? Who's going to add new features? There's a reason vBulletin et al has a whole TEAM of developers working on the software and not just one or two guys in a back room handling problems. These two issues alone should be enough to send you screaming from the room, but regardless... until this software is created, switching to a more robust, updated software is not unreasonable. Yes, it's a pain in the ass, but you can find a lot of what you're looking for in vBulletin + plugins. In fact, I would say vBulletin + custom plugins to add the functionality you want is the way to go. That way you don't have to maintain the core forum software and can strictly maintain the plugins. You can pay someone to develop these plugins as well. The plugin system for vBulletin is pretty much in a class by itself in so far as robustness and number of plugins available. Switching to stock vBulletin now and then developing the Plugins as time permits is a far, far better solution than waiting for an undetermined amount of time for a whole set of software from scratch or the heavy modifications required from existing software. It allows stepwise upgrades and refinement, which is invariably a better development cycle than a monolithic change like you are suggesting. vbilletin is about the best out there. you ask anywhere about features, stability and security and vb tops every list. I think theymos just doesnt want to pay for it. |
|
|
|
Bind, you are kidding yourself. There has never and will never be a legal system where you can opt out of obeying the law.
I understand your stance on things. I simply disagree. What binds us to those statutes ? Give me something ... anything other than, "because big bad men with guns said so", or "thats what you are supposed to do", or "because thats how it is". I can not accept those. There has to be something somewhere stating we must give up our rights and freedom for benefits and privilages, especially when the very law you worship is lying when it says all the stuff to the contrary. The only possible excuse is that our entire existance is a complete illusion, that we truly have no freedom or liberty at all, its a huge Matrix of lies and deceipt meant only to give us the appearance of freedom and liberty, and we are no different than the slaves and subjects of old. I refuse to accept that without anything ... even one line of writing somewhere canceling out the declaration of independance, the constitution/bill of rights, the maixims of law, the universal declaration of human rights, etc. |
|
|
|
Let me get this straight. You are using the propaganda arm of the world zionist movement to solidify your negative theory about the Freemen ? Go do some historical research on the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Did you research the cases listed or are you taking the ADL's word for it ? I will be the first to admit most Freemen dont do things right. The biggest problem they have is not disolving existing and past contracts they have/had with government, the existance of which gives the consent to govern them and make statutes apply to them. If you got a social security number, you are taxable. A social security number is voluntary and you can get it severed from your identity. The tax code states its a voluntary tax. I would bet every one of those cases, if they are real and if they are indeed Freemen, either didnt follow proper proceedure (even though substance is SUPPOSED to rule over form), or had existing contracts with government that allowed them jurisdiction over them. I'll check them out in the next few days though. Thanks for posting it. By the way, if you do things right you are no longer a citizen of the corporation of the United States of America. You would be a free sovereign man on the land. |
|
|
|
Acknowledging reality is the first step to changing it. Its interesting that you give up when I ask you to suggest an alternative to accepting that your nationality and citizenship something you are born into; you give up and retreat into ad hominem.
the alternative is forcing authority to acknowledge your human rights as a free sovereign flesh and blood man or woman. you are contracted onto the "Citizen Ship". your parents contracted you onto it by using their own "Guardian Ship" over you and application for a birth certificate and a social insurance/security number/card, which is voluntary (read the legislation), and you took it over in your teens because you have never disputed it (Maxims of Law in the context of presumption, which states "He who does not deny, admits." and "A presumption will stand good until the contrary is proved.". so, remove those presumptions, thus removing their presumed authority over you. You are sovereign and the supreme authority over youself, your property, and who you are guardian over. "... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ..." - Declaration of Independencerevoke, rescind, and disolve all contracts (consent) with the state if you want to be free. and remember some other consent-related Maxims of Law: - He who is silent appears to consent.
- No one is obliged to accept a benefit against his consent.
- Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.
- Consent makes the law: the terms of a contract, lawful in its purpose, constitute the law as between the parties.
- To him consenting no injury is done.
- He who consents cannot receive an injury.
- Consent removes or obviates a mistake.
- He who mistakes is not considered as consenting.
- Every consent involves a submission; but a mere submission does not necessarily involve consent.
- The contract makes the law.
- Agreements give the law to the contract.
- They who consent to an act, and they who do it, shall be visited with equal punishment.
- Acting and consenting parties are liable to the same punishment.
- What is mine cannot be taken away without my consent.
- It is better to suffer every wrong or ill, than to consent to it.
otherwise, bow to the Kings, kiss their feet, do what they tell you when they tell you, pay what they tell when they tell you, and never complain about it, because you agreed to it all, and most of all, enjoy your enslavement. |
|
|
|
If bail were a contract, the prisoner would be able to breach it any time he wants and get his surety back simply by saying "I was under duress."
You can not get out of a contract by simply claiming duress. You need to prove duress to the court by "a preponderance of evidence". Bail agreements have been around for hundreds of years and I know of no cases where duress was sucessfully used to disolve that agreement. |
|
|
|
Its the duress means there CANNOT be a contract.
ok so I am sitting in jail. my attorney comes in with some paperwork for my divorce preceedings ... a contract. I am under duress from being in jail, does that make my contract I just signed for something else entirely, void because of the duress ?? thats what you are saying. where is the compulsion by threat, force or coercion ? let me quote the facts for you again. You might feel that you under duress, but you have the free choice of whether or not you enter into a bail contract. There is no "compulsion by threat, force, coercion, restraint nor constraint" applied to you for the purpose of entering into that contract. You are in custody because the state has accused you of doing soemthing illegal. You are not in custody for refusing to enter into a bail contract, even though you remain in custody if you do not.
The court could care less if you enter into a bail contract. Either way they get their pound of flesh. Most likely they prefer you not enter into a bail contract because thats more money for the state, more prisoners, more lobbying for more public funds to pay for more corrections infrastructure, services, supplies, and personel.
One point is that you are in custody.
The other point is that you have the FREE CHOICE to get out of custody or stay in custody until the preceedings ocurr. Ergo, no duress, coercion, or force concerning the contract.
The situation of being IN CUSTODY is what what would be causing the duress you speak of.
Now if they threatened, coerced, or held you in prison specifically because you refused to enter into a bail contract, and/or until you did enter into a bail contract for the sole purpose of entering into a bail contract, THEN that would be duress and an unlawful contract/action, because that would be forcing you to enter into contract. You have every right to sit in jail instead of entering into a bail contract.
please ... just call the courthouse information office ... or a bail bond agent. I will give you one out .. I will admit that a contract might be unenforceable if someone was under enough mental anguish and could be found to be mentally incapable of entering into a contract, if proven by a competent medical professional. But that wouldnt relate to bail I am affraid... unless you admit being in jail was the better alternative. You would be argueing TO be put back into jail. |
|
|
|
Not quite, son, but nice try at trying to divert attention away from yourself. we already went through this... ...snip...
right, because police never unlawfully intimidate.
for all we know this guy is being intimidated ... the police cant even answer the question of what he';s being charge with or for. For all we know this sovereign never rescinded, severed, or removed himself from existing contracts with the state that allows them to hold statute over his head ... we just do not know. Not enough information to do anything but guess. I see a rational calm man being oppressed and telling the cops they are acting unlawfully.
http://www.enniscorthyguardian.ie/news/bobby-of-the-family-sludds-may-be-jailed-2875189.htmlHe was charged with driving without insurance. He was convicted of it and paid a fine to avoid jail. You really should read the article. yea i posted in the wrong place and deleted my post. I thought this was the thread where they cops were intimidating the sovereign in another thread  Now your reply makes more sense. and you know it ... or did you forget your acknowlegement ? it was about another thread entirely. I have been ramming home bail is a contract for days now. the question remains .... well, if there is no bail contract then how could there be duress that you failed at using to defend your uneducated opinion ?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
