Just like the Christian science deniers, you don't understand what a scientific theory is. Theory does not mean "hypothesis." A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of something in the natural world that is repeatedly tested and confirmed. Saying the theory of evolution is not a fact is just as ridiculous as saying the theory of gravity is not a fact. Unless you deny gravity too? |
|
|
|
When you post garabage about your common law fantasy, you look even sillier than when you're trying to keep all your religious nonsense straight.
Is this related to that "Freeman on the Land" garbage I've seen when people make complete fools of themselves in court and post it on YouTube as a win? Possibly. BADecker is on some thing about how all you have to do is challenge the jurisdiction of the court by telling them to define certain magic words and then you COMMON LAW VICTORY WIN or something wholly ridiculous. (While I am intentionally making it sound dumb, ask him for the official logic of it, and then you'll see my intentional misrepresentation isn't actually more absurd, and has the added benefit of humor, whereas the people who believe they have discovered a magic 'get out of jail free card' are entirely serious.) There are many common law wins and defeats (obviously, if somebody wins, somebody else loses). Many small claims court "trials" are common law, because they are person to person. If a Judge makes the decision, then his decision is based on the evidences and facts that the people bring in their claims at the Small "CLAIMS" Court. Wake up and see that the position of government official can't do anything without a man holding that position, or subordinate positions. Thus, if the government official position harms or injures you, it wasn't the position (governmental office) that harmed or injured you. It was the man who did it. Now this guy who harmed you, does he put his pants on right leg or left leg first? That is, is he a man or a god? And if he is a god, you are a god just as much as he, because you have the right to put your pants on any way you want. If the guy harms you, and if you don't deserve the harm he did to you, and especially if he does that harm in ways that his governmental position says he is not supposed to do, then honorably sue the biggest bucks out of him as you can.  I'm going to say this as plainly as possibly so maybe you can understand it: Common law does not mean person to person. "Common law" refers to laws that come into effect through the judiciary rather than the legislature. That has nothing to do with any of the nonsense you post, because you're not using the term properly. |
|
|
|
Isn't the plaintiff in this case THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
"Your honor, I, the defendant, require the plaintiff to get on the stand under oath so that I can question him regarding the charges against me."
Some attorney or law enforcement person takes the oath and gets on the stand.
"Are you THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?"
No!
"Dismissed.
In BADecker's fantasy, a case is automatically dismissed if you can get someone to take the stand and admit they are not the United States of America, and apparently everyone in that fantasy also thinks this is relevant.  |
|
|
|
Without the Americans and their weapons supply, Middle East would be a peaceful place. Look at Syria. Before the Americans armed the Islamist FSA to wage war against the Assad government there, it was a peaceful country, where Alawites, Sunni Arabs, Sunni Kurds, Yazidis, Christians and Turkmen lived in complete harmony. The Americans messed it up.
Yeah, there was never war in the Middle East before America brought all the hate and weapons, ruining the rainbows and multi-ethnic harmony for everyone! |
|
|
|
What is it that causes this great and eternal love between the U.S. and Saudi regimes? Apart from both always being manned by certifiable fruitcakes of course. Or maybe that´s just it. It can´t be just oil.
There's no other reason to be interested in the area. Oil is the only asset they have which interests the US. Our interest in the Middle East really can be that simple. |
|
|
|
I am trying to understand what is going on? can anyone understand his point?
BADecker is an attention seeking troll. Nothing to see here. Quite right. Ask him about chemtrails or common law if you need some fun reading.  Btw, the first time I saw this thread title, I thought it said "Helicopters are a government decepticon" and I thought, "now that's going to be an entertaining thread!" In retrospect, that thread might have made more sense than this one.  |
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm glad to see how much positive action (toward less surveillance) has ben generated by Snowden's whistle-blowing actions. He has a lot to risk, good job with a fat paycheck, comfortable living, the only burden he'd have is living with this information of knowing the big government was doing things he felt morally wrong. What a huge sacrifice to follow his morals, stay true to his beliefs. Imagine what the world would be like if we ALL did that?!
It's great that The People responded with discontent for the government and that the government finally took action to change. The problem is that when general elections come around The People tend to lose their interest and focus instead on sports, movies, reality tv and anything else that's easy to understand and low-impact to deal with.
How do we get people to act more regularly?
This is what happens when the population is informed, which is why the government fought so hard to keep it secret. As for getting people to act more regularly, I don't think that's quite the issue. People don't lose interest to sports and movies or what not as much as they lose focus to the spin both parties campaign on. Democrats and Republicans get so caught up in convincing you that the other side will bring about the end of America that the fact that they both act nearly identically on major issues like domestic spying and foreign policy gets completely lost. And we keep refusing to hold them responsible for bad policies by continuing to vote within the two party system, despite every indication that doing so is what allows them to continue to not take seriously reform the public indicates that it wants, no matter the topic. The issue to me is getting people not to act more regularly, but more rationally. This two party system is a shell game, but neither has the coin, and they're both perfectly happy to let us continue thinking that at least one of them does. The two-party political system is surely part of the problem. The hype and spin causes confusion and frustration. It leads voters to tune out the noise of arguing politicians, when really they should be weeding out the bullshit candidates from those who can deliver upon good ideas. I do think there's a good portion of the American population who truly don't care about politics. They'll bitch and moan about how things are but do nothing to fix it or even understand why the laws are established they way they are. It's easy to come home from work, turn on the tv and zone out. And it's so destructive to our society... The "Rock the Vote" campaigns over the last 15 years have helped get younger people to the polls, but it's not enough. The irony is that the poor or disenfranchized people complain that the system is stacked against them, but if they all went out and voted they'd have a system that supports them directly. There are far more poor in the US than there are rich. All they have to do is show up and vote and they'd start seeing politicians and ideas that benefit them, that cater to them. Getting younger voters to the poll is worthless if all it does is entrench the two-party system. People stopping voting would have more of an impact on politicians than more people voting, because anything that threatens their claim to be legitimately ruling with majority consent and not perpetrating a travesty of "democracy" by giving us only two choices would be itself a threat to their power. |
|
|
|
You're comparing a guy who was acquitted of his charges to a guy who was convicted. This is a pathetic argument. Everyone knew that OJ was guilty. He murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in cold blood and never got the deserved punishment. He walked free, as he was rich and influential. In the United States, rich people who commit murder very rarely go to prison. The same happened with OJ as well. I guess 'everyone knew he was guilty' except the jury. So again, you're comparing a guy who was acquitted of his charges to a guy who was convicted. The analogy is as worthless now as the first time you said it because you're trying to draw a conclusion about how one guy got punished by society for his crimes vs. a guy who society decided committed no crime. I'm also certain OJ committed murder, but it doesn't make the analogy any more relevant, because you're not comparing two like things. |
|
|
|
Rape and sex at will is different. Also the exact age is unknown, however, it is said to be between 9 amd 12. It is also known that sex was after she reached puberty. Please don't mix rape here.
Now you're just being an apologist and you are also ignoring the commonly accepted fact in Islam that he married Aisha when she was 6 years old and had sex with her at 9. That it has to be said he waited until she was 9 years old before he 'consummated' the marriage, as though that somehow makes it any less repugnant, is still a tacit acknowledgement that he is a child rapist. An adult having sex with a child is raping them because a child is incapable of informed consent, even if a child has been conditioned to believe that it is something they want to happen it is still an adult abusing their position of trust to care for and nurture a child in order to satisfy their own selfish and grotesque sexual urges. Child rape is about power and control and no sexual act by an adult to a child can be described as anything else other than a gross abuse of the significant power the adult has over a child. Stop trying to down-play the reality that your religion celebrates a middle-aged man who had sex with a little girl who was 9 years old. Stop trying to down-play the reality that your religion celebrates a middle-aged man who had sex with a little girl who was 9 years old. There, I have written it twice so you know not to simply ignore what I am saying to you. A hand-wavy, "yeah, well, she was probably at least 11 or 12 so, you know, totallyokbecausehewastheultimateprophetright? You are missing two points - Sex is not rape if it both is willing to do. - A human is a child when he/she is under the age puberty. Once a female child is mature, she can give birth to a child. I understand you are talking in general but it is not a fact. You are missing one point here: You cannot consent to sex if you do not have the mental capacity to do so, and if you cannot consent, it is rape. It seems the only people who believe that a 12 year old (and I'm using the highest age range to give you the maximum benefit of the doubt) can consent are Muslims. It has nothing to do with physical characteristics, so puberty is irrelevant. Knowing what we know now about cognitive development, nobody today can make a credible case that a 12 year old has the mental capacity to consent to sex. You cannot defend this, the more you try the more Islam looks like a backwards religion. You're unwilling to admit that 1500 years ago, your prophet did things that are unacceptable today. You're stuck trying to justify it, and you're only point (that she reached puberty) is irrelevant. The longer Islam tries to justify child rape, the longer it will be rightly viewed as being stuck in the dark ages. I would clarify, attitudes toward children have changed over the millennia. Just one example, consider ancient Greeks and young boys and sex. But we're not going to go and defend ancient wrong ideas today. That's just plain stupid. Yes, I agree with you. We have to judge actions based on the norms of the time. We can not say he was acting immorally in his time, but we sure can hold his apologists responsible for maintaining that his actions today would be OK. |
|
|
|
Rape and sex at will is different. Also the exact age is unknown, however, it is said to be between 9 amd 12. It is also known that sex was after she reached puberty. Please don't mix rape here.
Now you're just being an apologist and you are also ignoring the commonly accepted fact in Islam that he married Aisha when she was 6 years old and had sex with her at 9. That it has to be said he waited until she was 9 years old before he 'consummated' the marriage, as though that somehow makes it any less repugnant, is still a tacit acknowledgement that he is a child rapist. An adult having sex with a child is raping them because a child is incapable of informed consent, even if a child has been conditioned to believe that it is something they want to happen it is still an adult abusing their position of trust to care for and nurture a child in order to satisfy their own selfish and grotesque sexual urges. Child rape is about power and control and no sexual act by an adult to a child can be described as anything else other than a gross abuse of the significant power the adult has over a child. Stop trying to down-play the reality that your religion celebrates a middle-aged man who had sex with a little girl who was 9 years old. Stop trying to down-play the reality that your religion celebrates a middle-aged man who had sex with a little girl who was 9 years old. There, I have written it twice so you know not to simply ignore what I am saying to you. A hand-wavy, "yeah, well, she was probably at least 11 or 12 so, you know, totallyokbecausehewastheultimateprophetright? You are missing two points - Sex is not rape if it both is willing to do. - A human is a child when he/she is under the age puberty. Once a female child is mature, she can give birth to a child. I understand you are talking in general but it is not a fact. You are missing one point here: You cannot consent to sex if you do not have the mental capacity to do so, and if you cannot consent, it is rape. It seems the only people who believe that a 12 year old (and I'm using the highest age range to give you the maximum benefit of the doubt) can consent are Muslims. It has nothing to do with physical characteristics, so puberty is irrelevant. Knowing what we know now about cognitive development, nobody today can make a credible case that a 12 year old has the mental capacity to consent to sex. You cannot defend this, the more you try the more Islam looks like a backwards religion. You're unwilling to admit that 1500 years ago, your prophet did things that are unacceptable today. You're stuck trying to justify it, and you're only point (that she reached puberty) is irrelevant. The longer Islam tries to justify child rape, the longer it will be rightly viewed as being stuck in the dark ages. What I am saying is that *all* girls who reached puberty aren't the same. Some girls' can mature at that time and some don't. It doesn't mean *all*. 'Aisha has shown characteristics of a matured girl and prophet won't be a pedophile because of many reasons. I understand what you're saying, but it's not relevant. It's not relevant because 1500 years ago, the idea that kids couldn't consent to sex was not a notion people held. The only thing they based it on was whether someone had begun puberty or not, and we know now this is not appropriate. Your assertion that not all girls attain puberty at the same time has no bearing on cognitive development, and cognitive development, not puberty is what grants someone the ability to consent to sex. Again, there is no correlation between puberty and cognitive development, so your assertion she was "mature" is based on nothing but an uncorrelated coincidence. So you essentially have nothing to conclude she was "mature" except the writings of the guy who has a vested interest in convincing everyone he was not raping a child. Because the notion that consent comes from cognitive ability and not puberty, there's no way Mohammad or any other Muslim looked at her intelligence or maturity and made the educated conclusion that she was cognitively developed enough to consent. They looked at her and said 'Well, she has shown some signs of beginning puberty. She's legal now.' All your arguments about her intelligence are after-the fact arguments that have been developed recently and in hindsight to counter criticism that your great prophet diddled a child. And if any thing else was the case, you would not be trying to justify his actions with the puberty defense anymore, because it's immoral to make that defense. |
|
|
|
Rape and sex at will is different. Also the exact age is unknown, however, it is said to be between 9 amd 12. It is also known that sex was after she reached puberty. Please don't mix rape here.
Now you're just being an apologist and you are also ignoring the commonly accepted fact in Islam that he married Aisha when she was 6 years old and had sex with her at 9. That it has to be said he waited until she was 9 years old before he 'consummated' the marriage, as though that somehow makes it any less repugnant, is still a tacit acknowledgement that he is a child rapist. An adult having sex with a child is raping them because a child is incapable of informed consent, even if a child has been conditioned to believe that it is something they want to happen it is still an adult abusing their position of trust to care for and nurture a child in order to satisfy their own selfish and grotesque sexual urges. Child rape is about power and control and no sexual act by an adult to a child can be described as anything else other than a gross abuse of the significant power the adult has over a child. Stop trying to down-play the reality that your religion celebrates a middle-aged man who had sex with a little girl who was 9 years old. Stop trying to down-play the reality that your religion celebrates a middle-aged man who had sex with a little girl who was 9 years old. There, I have written it twice so you know not to simply ignore what I am saying to you. A hand-wavy, "yeah, well, she was probably at least 11 or 12 so, you know, totallyokbecausehewastheultimateprophetright? You are missing two points - Sex is not rape if it both is willing to do. - A human is a child when he/she is under the age puberty. Once a female child is mature, she can give birth to a child. I understand you are talking in general but it is not a fact. You are missing one point here: You cannot consent to sex if you do not have the mental capacity to do so, and if you cannot consent, it is rape. It seems the only people who believe that a 12 year old (and I'm using the highest age range to give you the maximum benefit of the doubt) can consent are Muslims. It has nothing to do with physical characteristics, so puberty is irrelevant. Knowing what we know now about cognitive development, nobody today can make a credible case that a 12 year old has the mental capacity to consent to sex. You cannot defend this, the more you try the more Islam looks like a backwards religion. You're unwilling to admit that 1500 years ago, your prophet did things that are unacceptable today. You're stuck trying to justify it, and you're only point (that she reached puberty) is irrelevant. The longer Islam tries to justify child rape, the longer it will be rightly viewed as being stuck in the dark ages. |
|
|
|
I've fallen a bit behind on this thread, but this is a great list of bad sentiments I've seen in this thread that some are propagating to explain why Islam isn't violent, or to justify when it is, or just to obfuscate the issue by trying to cast blame on other religions: “If Islam were a violent religion, then all Muslims would be violent.”
“Other religions kill, too.”
Muhammad preached 'no compulsion in religion' (Qur'an: 2:256)
The Crusades
“Muhammad never killed anyone.”
The Qur'an Teaches that all Life is Sacred (Qur'an 5:32)
"Muslims only kill in self-defense.”
The million dollar wager that "Holy War" isn't in the Qur'an.
"Verses of violence are taken out of context."
"Islam must be true, because it is the world’s fastest growing religion."
"The Qur'an can only be understood in Arabic."
|
|
|
|
this trouble with this is it encourages underage kids to fornicate and says dont get pregnant or aids when they do it, this is not good enough
It doesn't. And what's the alternative? Not tell them anything and let them just work it out for themselves? Ignorance will only lead to ignorance and unwanted pregnancies. Plenty of evidence to back this up already. States with abstinence only programs, instead of comprehensive sex education, have the highest rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies in the country. Comprehensive sex education does a better job of achieving the goals of abstinence only programs than those programs do. South Carolina ... is part of the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) grouping of states consistently boasting the highest rates of STDs, including chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis. The states with the highest STD rates are also those with largely abstinence-only programs. This is not a coincidence: Young people who receive only abstinence-only education tend to engage in riskier sexual health behaviors once becoming sexually active. Southern states report the highest percentage of students having had sexual intercourse prior to age 13; the highest percentage of students who have had intercourse with four or more partners; and the highest incidence of sexual activity without barriers or contraception.
http://news.yahoo.com/abstinence-only-sex-ed-driving-std-rates-203137849.htmlYou are reciting propaganda. The very idea that in an Internet+20 years era, government programming in government schools would affect teenager behavior on sex is so absurd. I mean, really. Schools are possibly capable of teaching math, physics, chemistry, English grammar, and the like. To actually believe they can teach sex is just plain stupid. The kids know this stuff. What they don't know they can find out in about 2 minutes on their phones. I mean, REALLY? You are going to have to actually defend the premise that 10 year old kids don't know that if they have unprotected sex they could have babies or get diseases. REALLY? This is 2015, not 1935. The part that's utter nonsense is the "government will help you with this" and the "government will help you with that." I couldn't help but notice the total lack of anything to substantiate your opinion in your response. That's because all the stats back me up; all the data supports the conclusion that schools that don't teach comprehensive sex education have higher incidences of STDs and unintentional pregnancies. Whine about it all you want, it's not helping anything. You didn't counter with anything other than a hypothesis that 'it's the internet age, man, information is out there and stuff.' And yet, the reality remains the reality. |
|
|
|
No, amazon4u is making an argument that people like Ross should are more likely to be rehabilated or be more useful to society which is bullshit.
Oh.. yeah... a highly educated guy like Ross Ullbricht should remain imprisoned for the rest of his life for merely putting up a website, while people like OJ Simpson should be released in to the wild, as he is more useful to the society when compared to Ross. Which news channels do you watch? I think that you got brainwashed by watching too much CNBC and MSNBC. You're comparing a guy who was acquitted of his charges to a guy who was convicted. Not a valid analogy because in the eyes of the law, OJ was not guilty; he wasn't released in spite of his convicted crimes as would need to be true for your analogy to be relevant. Also, Ulbricht did a lot more than "merely putting up a website." That's an understatement if there ever was one! |
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm glad to see how much positive action (toward less surveillance) has ben generated by Snowden's whistle-blowing actions. He has a lot to risk, good job with a fat paycheck, comfortable living, the only burden he'd have is living with this information of knowing the big government was doing things he felt morally wrong. What a huge sacrifice to follow his morals, stay true to his beliefs. Imagine what the world would be like if we ALL did that?!
It's great that The People responded with discontent for the government and that the government finally took action to change. The problem is that when general elections come around The People tend to lose their interest and focus instead on sports, movies, reality tv and anything else that's easy to understand and low-impact to deal with.
How do we get people to act more regularly?
This is what happens when the population is informed, which is why the government fought so hard to keep it secret. As for getting people to act more regularly, I don't think that's quite the issue. People don't lose interest to sports and movies or what not as much as they lose focus to the spin both parties campaign on. Democrats and Republicans get so caught up in convincing you that the other side will bring about the end of America that the fact that they both act nearly identically on major issues like domestic spying and foreign policy gets completely lost. And we keep refusing to hold them responsible for bad policies by continuing to vote within the two party system, despite every indication that doing so is what allows them to continue to not take seriously reform the public indicates that it wants, no matter the topic. The issue to me is getting people not to act more regularly, but more rationally. This two party system is a shell game, but neither has the coin, and they're both perfectly happy to let us continue thinking that at least one of them does. |
|
|
|
I get your point. You are using made up numbers to support your bias.
The number of people that admit to being gay is closer to 10% and that's ignoring those who are closeted/bisexual.
As I had posted earlier, either give me the source / reference for your claims, or I am going to ignore them completely. Even in the Los Angeles, considered to be the homo capital of the world, gays consist only around 4% of the total population. And from where you got the 10% figure? Most of the studies and surveys put the figure at 1%. Really? You're going with LA as the 'homo capital of the world?' There are waaaaay gayer cities, both in terms of number of gays and percentage of population that is gay. Post your sources when you cite stats, because they're almost always wrong. You undercut the percentage of gays in LA by 40% (1.6 percentage points, 5.6% vs. 4%), and there's definitely no basis to support LA as being the 'homo capital of the world' considering this list:  |
|
|
|
The US has been 'out of money' since 1835. Hasn't stopped the war machine.
Fiat $$ is easy to make. Why are we on a bitcoin forum again? Oh yeah... The shortage of money will have its effect. If the central bank prints tons and tons of banknotes, then the value of the United States Dollar will go down against the other currencies, such as the Euro, UK Pound and CNY. It will discourage the Americans from blatantly attacking other sovereign nations, without any provocation. The US created three trillion dollars out of thin air through quantitative easing. Didn't cause inflation because the money just sits in banks and doesn't make it into the economy. So your conclusion isn't proving out at the moment. (Not that that can't change, but the things you say should be happening currently aren't.) |
|
|
|
Even w/ the all the ISIS propaganda and past finance of them hasn't gotten Americans as a whole to want to get deeply involved despite the major economic interests are so gun-ho in favor of intervention. Many in the GOP have been juiced up by non-stop Fox coverage of ISIS for intervening somehow and w/o Rand Paul saying his piece, this number would be even larger. I hardly doubt Americans will give a crap about what's going on over in the southeast Asian territories if they are even aware of what is going on. Of course, the government usually does what it does in spite of the populace at times so who knows.
Don't underestimate the role of propaganda to vilify the 'enemy' and have the populace rally around the cause. Even so, the general public is quite ignorant on most of the foreign policy stuff and that doesn't stop anything us from getting involved. Containing China is of strategic importance because it's the only country with the economy that could support a navy large enough to rival ours. Unparalleled control of the seas has been the biggest military and economic advantage America has had in the last 70 years. If it becomes necessary, you'll see the government's push to rally the public around 'protecting our allies.' |
|
|
|
this trouble with this is it encourages underage kids to fornicate and says dont get pregnant or aids when they do it, this is not good enough
It doesn't. And what's the alternative? Not tell them anything and let them just work it out for themselves? Ignorance will only lead to ignorance and unwanted pregnancies. Plenty of evidence to back this up already. States with abstinence only programs, instead of comprehensive sex education, have the highest rates of STDs and unwanted pregnancies in the country. Comprehensive sex education does a better job of achieving the goals of abstinence only programs than those programs do. South Carolina ... is part of the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) grouping of states consistently boasting the highest rates of STDs, including chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis. The states with the highest STD rates are also those with largely abstinence-only programs. This is not a coincidence: Young people who receive only abstinence-only education tend to engage in riskier sexual health behaviors once becoming sexually active. Southern states report the highest percentage of students having had sexual intercourse prior to age 13; the highest percentage of students who have had intercourse with four or more partners; and the highest incidence of sexual activity without barriers or contraception.
http://news.yahoo.com/abstinence-only-sex-ed-driving-std-rates-203137849.html |
|
|
|
Drugs addict, i believe this 2 bandits need money for drugs.They never think about 10 years in prison for their crime, they only think how to get money fast and easy. They chose someone who is inexperienced, and less likely to report the crime to the cops. That didn't work out so well since he reported it to the cops. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
