2 of 3
2
Furry Conspiracist Rant
Posted: 28 February 2011 07:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6930
Joined  2005-10-21

Still… the amount of delusion, and the claims they’ve made… *shakes head* Pure insanity..

I like the one person claiming that the US is somehow making ‘billions of dollars’ off *each* person who is a ‘corporate fake person’ because… they put the name in ALL CAPS on the driver’s license? WTF?!?

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2011 09:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2011-07-31

Hello, I’m the fox whose post you used here.

It must be a very easy life you have, when you can condemn a viewpoint - particularly a political viewpoint - offhand, and without researching it.

That doesn’t make you feel uncomfortable at all?  Particularly when you take someone else’s unpopular belief, remove the research they’d linked to which supports it, and deride it on a sideshow-entertainment-themed forum of so-called “hoaxes”?  Mocking someone’s perspective because (a) it’s unpopular, and (b) you don’t - and you actively refuse to - understand it, is a great way to undermine Free Speech in this country.  Whenever someone isn’t parroting the mainstream news, call them nuts.  It practically guarantees that you’ll never have popular support for what isn’t already condoned by those in power.  I must commend you, sir, for championing our freedoms like that.

I dismissed my current understanding of the law as well at first, because it seemed pretty out there.  Then I actually started to look it up.  Fortunately, unlike religion, legal and political stuff is right there to verify one way or the other.  It’s designed not to be a matter of individual opinion.  Which is a large part of why the modern mentality has been gradually altered to shun things like objective facts and verifiable research.  Fifteen years later, and I’ve just barely gotten able to wrap my head around what they’ve embedded in the structure of the laws.  These are politicians working along with attorneys - I’m sure you can rest assured by now that those are the people who are looking out for you in life.

Anyway, thanks for taking my work, copying and distributing it without my permission, and publicly mocking it while actively removing the relevant information that I’d provided along with it to support it.  Pretty classy stuff there.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2011 09:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2011-07-31
Robin Bobcat - 01 March 2011 12:41 AM

I like the one person claiming that the US is somehow making ‘billions of dollars’ off *each* person who is a ‘corporate fake person’ because… they put the name in ALL CAPS on the driver’s license? WTF?!?

The argument you’re describing is often misunderstood, even by those who are making the argument.  That’s because lots of people go in for sovereign citizenship demanding their rights, but don’t bother to learn what they’re actually talking about.  No demographic has a monopoly on Stupid, unfortunately.

When the People founded the country, we held it to be self-evident that men were endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator, not their government.  Because of that, unique among every country in the world, the People here were held to be above the government.  God made us, we made the government, and so it follows that each must serve the thing that created it.  Pretty basic.  As such, the government was created by us as our servant, to represent our will, and didn’t have any more authority than we chose to give it.  As Thomas Paine wrote, “All Power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.”

As such, under American Common Law you could do anything you liked, so long as you didn’t encroach on anyone else’s life, liberty or property, and so long as you honored all valid contracts you entered into.  No speed limits.  No victimless drug crime legislation.  Nothing.  Your ten year-old could even go down to the corner drugstore and pick you up some heroin for your headache, with no fuss whatsoever.  The People were sovereign over their government, as the Supreme Court keeps finding:

”[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, with none to govern but themselves.”  The Supreme Court, Chisholm v. Georgia

“People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belong to the King, by his prerogative.”  Lansing v. Smith

“The United States, as a whole, emanates from the people… The people, in their capacity as sovereigns, made and adopted the Constitution…” 4 Wheat 402

”...The governments are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not delegated to them. ...  The sovereignty in every state resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own pleasure.”  Luther v. Borden

This scenario didn’t please the politicians, who are naturally very interested in usurping authorities we never gave them.  So very gradually they started eroding our political system with a series of alterations.  In one, they created fictional corporate personas whose names very nearly matched ours, and got us to agree that we were the responsible parties.  Those lookalike corporate entities typically match your name, but are spelled in all Caps.  Because the government created those entities, the government stands in superior authority to them.  And when they convince you to equate yourself with them, in court, they can begin claiming superiority over you as well.  This sort of erosion has occurred gradually over generations, and they’ve managed to shift the collective mindset of the People to think that the sort of thing they do today is what our government had always been designed to do.

The money the federal government supposedly makes off these fictitious personas enters into it when you research that the Federal Reserve Notes are no longer backed in gold.  What are they backed with?  The government’s own description is that they’re backed by “the full faith and credit of the people”.  The phrase appears to be empty, but they mean precisely what they’ve said.  The full belief of the American people - much like people who’ve invested their savings in junk bonds - and the peoples’ full credit as well.  What federal citizens supposedly own is actually mortgaged to back the Federal Reserve Notes.  This is why you no longer buy anything, but merely “purchase” it.  To purchase something is to be allowed to use it for a while based on the promise to actually pay someone for it at a later date.  That’s particularly relevant, because Federal Reserve Notes are “promissory notes” - in other words, they’re IOU’s.  And you obvious can’t pay someone with an IOU.  So it becomes pretty appropriate that, as I write this, the federal government is publicly admitting that it can no longer pay its bills.  Of course it can’t.  It’s known that since 1933 when they adopted their current IOU system.  What they’re beginning to determine now is that it’s reaching a point where its assets will have to be collectively repossessed.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2011 11:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6930
Joined  2005-10-21

By all means, we welcome open discussions about conspiracies here.

As for ‘stripping out’ your links, it’s because I just did a copy-paste, which copied the link titles, not the links themselves. In the interest of fairness, here they are:

http://www.gemworld.com/USAvsUS.htm
http://restoretheconstitution.org/2008/02/15/state-vs-federal-citizenship-whats-it-mean-pt-1/
http://teamlaw.org/
http://famguardian.org/

Better?

Anyway, you posted in a PUBLIC forum, so no whining about that while at the same time complaining your First Amendment rights were somehow harmed.

Anyway, if you want to post corrections and refinements to your point of views here, by all means feel free. This is an open forum and we welcome such. Just be aware that folks WILL dissect your point of view carefully and without mercy, so no complaining when it happens. If you wish to enter into a valid, reasonable debate, however, you’ll find none finer than those here.

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2011 02:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5147
Joined  2005-01-27

Right!

*makes note to check back here in 4 months*

 Signature 


“By the sweat on our brows, and the strengths of our backs…Gentlemen. Hoist the Colours! And you, madam, I warn you, I know the entire Geneva Convention by heart!”
Trust me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2011 11:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2011-07-31
Robin Bobcat - 01 August 2011 03:23 AM

By all means, we welcome open discussions about conspiracies here.

As for ‘stripping out’ your links, it’s because I just did a copy-paste, which copied the link titles, not the links themselves. In the interest of fairness, here they are:

http://www.gemworld.com/USAvsUS.htm
http://restoretheconstitution.org/2008/02/15/state-vs-federal-citizenship-whats-it-mean-pt-1/
http://teamlaw.org/
http://famguardian.org/

Better?

Certainly.

Your original motives still concern me, though.  Your signature derides people for not being open-minded, yet you don’t seem to be yourself.

Something you disagree with is described as “insanity”.  Assertiveness is described as “whining”.  Opinion-based dialogue, coupled with what appears to be a disinclination to follow it up with research.  Not good signs.

Anyway, you posted in a PUBLIC forum, so no whining about that while at the same time complaining your First Amendment rights were somehow harmed.

You reposted my original work without even asking for permission first.  Let’s not attempt to reinvent how rights work, please.

First Amendment free speech is one matter.  Copying someone’s original work is another.  There’s no need to conflate the two in an effort to indemnify yourself.

Anyway, if you want to post corrections and refinements to your point of views here, by all means feel free. This is an open forum and we welcome such. Just be aware that folks WILL dissect your point of view carefully and without mercy, so no complaining when it happens.

I always take exception to rude or abusive behavior, and won’t stand for it.  Which is probably why I won’t be here long, but wanted to at least provide better information on the subject, which always seems odd to people at first.

If you wish to enter into a valid, reasonable debate, however, you’ll find none finer than those here.

I’d like to believe so, but I’m unconvinced.  Can you support your assertion of a valid debate here rather than an arrogant witch-hunt, bread-and-circuses style?  What I’ve encountered so far, including the site’s theme itself, doesn’t lend much support to it.

I don’t have much of a need to proselytize.  I just felt a public smearing, minus the research information, needed some addressing.


Be well,

- Limbo Fox

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2011 06:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

I’m a fox who’s attended FC for several years. I’m also a sovereign California citizen. I am not a federal citizen, because the federal government was created to be limited to Washington D.C. except in certain special cases, and while it’s not common knowledge federal citizens are only supposed to be residents and employees of Washington D.C.. Nor am I a citizen of STATE OF CALIFORNIA, which is actually a Johnny-come-lately name under which the federal government does business unlawfully outside of D.C.. They’ve managed to convince most citizens that its various STATE OF _______’s are the original states of the Union, but I’ve done my research and know better now. As such, not only would it be inappropriate for me to get a STATE OF CALIFORNIA I.D. card or to opt into the Social Security federal benefits program, it would make me a party to treason. I literally do not have, nor can I lawfully obtain, a “state-issued” photo ID. The lawful California doesn’t issue many I.D. cards these days, as its’ governance is now defunct due to a public fraud. Its’ lawful courts, for instance adjourned sine die (“without [citing a future] day [to reconvene]”) when no provisions were made for it in the STATE OF CALIFORNIA constitution, which at the time was assumed by everyone to be the new revision of the lawful California’s constitution. Widespread fraud systematized by politicians and the guild of attorneys has essentially destroyed California’s lawful government, and replaced it with a lookalike. This has been the case in most of the states, although Texas has pulled itself together enough to form its lawful government once again, and there are now two Texas governments that operate simultaneously: the lawful Republic of Texas government, and the federal STATE OF TEXAS business name. . . .

For those to whom sovereign citizenship is an unfamiliar topic, Team Law and FamGuardian are both good, if somewhat outdated, sites presenting the research.


Be well,

anonyfox


No, Limbo Fox.  What you’ve done is to basically look at a few sentences or phrases in various documents (such at the U.S. Constitution) in isolation and give them your own interpretation, while totally ignoring all the rest of what is said in those documents.  It doesn’t work that way.  Those documents aren’t just collections of loose words and phrases floating around.  They’re complete documents.  If you take part of it, you take all of it.

The very first seven words of the U.S. Constitution state it quite plainly:

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2011 06:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14

So, every state is a part of the federal republic.  All of them.  That’s why there was this little thing you might have heard of in the mid-1800’s, called the American Civil War.  Both sides of the war acknowledged that the individual states were held together under the overall national government.  That’s why the Confederacy had to secede.  There would have been nothing to secede from if there wasn’t an overall government.

And since every state is also a part of the nation, then a citizen of a state is automatically also a citizen of the country.  If you’re not a United States citizen, then you’re an alien and you don’t get full rights and privileges that citizenship grants at national or state level.

So, the federal government was from the very start authorised to operate throughout the entire nation, and being a citizen of the federal government isn’t limited to just Washington, D.C.  People in Washington, D.C., have only federal citizenship and no state citizenship, but they’re not the only people who have federal citizenship.  It’s just that most people get to have both federal and state simultaneously.

As for your linked webpages, they’re wrong.  When they say things such as,

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2011 06:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6930
Joined  2005-10-21

Point by point:

My opinion of your mental state and world views are mine to share, and frankly, the fact that you have decided to stalk one of your detractors to another forum and hound them for daring to contradict your world view does little to change that. I could offer greater detail on my opinion, but you appear to be thin-skinned and unable to handle insults.

Again, you posted in a PUBLIC forum, and your remarks were credited to you, the source noted, and totally un-edited.  You have not posted copyright to your works. You have not requested they be off the record or not be reposted. Totally within fair use. If you would like for them to be removed, I will do so, but I can still link to the FurCon forums.

If you cannot handle people being critical of your ideas, then perhaps the internet is not for you. This section of this forum is for discussion of Conspiracy Theories, which your idea of a sovereign state of California and ‘fictional corporate entities’ falls into. If you feel that this is perhaps unfair, then by all means start offering a contrary position rather than attacking me personally.

If you do not think you will recieve a fair treatement of your position, then by all means, the door is over there.

Now then.. since you have brought up my signature, let us discuss the points therein in detail:

1: You have not provided ANY proof that has not been countered extensively by multiple sources. I am going to, in fact, assert that you have not provided any proof at all, and have instead been simply parroting the incorrect statements and wishful viewpoints of others. If you would care to offer up something concrete and solid that states that the United States Government does not own the state of California, or that they are somehow profiting from ‘fictional corporate entities’, then I will give it due consideration. You have not provided any information that has NOT been a deliberate misinterpretation of facts or even an outright fabrication by others seeking to further their own agenda.

If you make outlandish claims, you had better have something serious to back them up.

2: What proof could I offer to you that your viewpoints are incorrect? What would it take? Could I point to some aspect of constitutional law, or a series of events in a history book that would make you nod and say ‘Oh, I have made a mistake, you are correct’. I will heartily welcome any verifiable information that supports your claim, but all I have found boils down to ‘there is no proof, because there is a conspiracy to keep the truth from us’. Circular reasoning at its most transparent. Still, if you had such a proof, it would be ground-shaking in its implications, and I would most certainly support the validity of your claims then.

Being ‘open-minded’ works both ways, you know.

3: You should EXPECT skepticism with your claims, and it is YOUR job to provide proof to counter it. Stating that a position is invalid because someone did not ‘research’ your claim is not the way it works. You are taking a very defensive yet accusatory position, which does not work for someone attempting to convince another of the validity of their words. Again, if you cannot handle criticism, I reccomend not going to places where you are already being criticised.

Put up or shut up.

Anyway, I have given this all the effort I am willing to put into it today. I do still think you need to re-think your position on the matter, as it is clearly causing you a great deal of hardship and unnecessary conflict.

Also: Are you sure the that the conspiracy is on the GOVERNMENT side of things? I am seeing a group of people, trying to rally support to declare the government invalid so that they can take over and be in control. That sounds like a REAL conspiracy if you ask me….

 Signature 

1: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If it does what it says, you should have no problem with this.
2: What proof will you accept that you are wrong? You ask us to change our mind, but we cannot change yours?
3: It is not our responsability to disprove your claims, but rather your responsability to prove them.
4. Personal testamonials are not proof.

What part of ‘meow’ don’t you understand?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 August 2011 08:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5147
Joined  2005-01-27

*grin*

Let

 Signature 


“By the sweat on our brows, and the strengths of our backs…Gentlemen. Hoist the Colours! And you, madam, I warn you, I know the entire Geneva Convention by heart!”
Trust me.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2011 01:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2011-07-31

Robin,

Your post demonstrates clearly why I won’t continue this conversation.  You’ve misrepresented copyright information (works are copyrighted automatically, with the notice a convenience), continued your abusive manner towards me, appear to have deflected my criticism with counter-criticisms as your alternative to correcting or even addressing some of your own behavior, and evidently you suppose that I’ll continue engaging with you for - what, exactly?  The opportunity to change your mind about something.  Oh happy day.  You miscategorize slander against someone’s character as being a part of your freedom to express your opinion.  I did a Google search the other day for “furcon treason” in order to locate my original thread, and found your re-post.  But never mind that, you’ve used the opportunity to libel me as a stalker.  And you further suggest that if someone doesn’t like abusive behavior, the internet may not be right for them.  Buck-passing.  The rationale appears to be, “I am not accountable for my actions.  If you don’t like it, that’s a privately-held disagreement you seem to have - and how strange, by the way - rather than anything objective and concrete, and you should leave.  I’m not going to correct my behavior.”  I think it was John Lennon who sang, “Imagine a world of people / Trampling over one another with complete disregard”.  The mentality is barbaric, and is hardly a substitute for civilization.  You’re insulting and rather abusive, and while that’s your position there’s hardly open debate possible.  Nor am I beholden to subject myself to it either.  Pearls.  Swine.

In the midst of several intensive projects, I’ve been taking the time to form a comprehensive reply to Accipiter‘s posts here.  I don’t think I’ll opt to finish it, as nothing obligates me to tolerate this kind of behavior.  Rather than a valid debate attempting to establish something, this venue appears to be the equivalent of a boxing ring for egos.  Contestants pride themselves on their intellectualism, and direct it towards a sort of Sheen-esque “WINNING” mentality.  The result glorifies the sense of ego on the part of the participants, but doesn’t offer much in terms of reasoned evaluation.  It doesn’t appear to be what this forum is for.  We both have better things to do with our lives than this; the only difference is that I know it.  There isn’t much risk of anyone confusing this format with a valid interchange of ideas, so there’s no concern that others who happen across this thread will misinterpret it.

I don’t think anyone’s intrinsically a bad person, Robin.  You’re a lot better than your behavior has been.  Someone’s true nature doesn’t vary, but their behavior can be wildly at variance with it.  I know from experience that attempting to change someone who isn’t yet willing is a lost cause, so all I can do is maintain my standards and pray for you in the meantime.  I hope things go better for you in your life.


Be well,

- Limbo Fox

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2