From: proffsl on
"Harry K" <turnkey4...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> proffsl wrote:
> >
> > Either respond to the points, or put on your blinders
> > and go away without adding to the 560 heckels you
> > are betting on, or prove yourself to be a disrupter
>
> YOu have tried the same old arguments repeatedly in
> the past and been refuted every time.

You will either respond to the points I have made, or put on your
blinders and go away, or prove yourself to be a disrupting troll.


> The epitome of stupidity is trying the same thing
> repeatedly and expecting different results.

Personal insults does not respond to the points I have made, but more
tend to indicate that you are a disrupting troll.


> If you are so certain of your facts, try something new.
> Like putting a case through the courts and see if you
> can change their minds.

I'm not here seeking your advice. When dealing with liars, you don't
deal with them on their terms, or play their game. On their terms, in
their game, they'll LIE to you and everone else, if you know what I
mean. This is a problem that will have to be dealt with from a grass
roots prospective.

Now, if you are so confident that my reasoning is wrong, counter it
with something other than merely dismissing it, or by issuing personal
insults. You will either respond to the points I have made in a
reasonable fashon, or put on your blinders and go away, or prove
yourself to be a disrupting troll.

Our States are lying to us. Driving is not a privilege. Driving is a
Right. Our public streets were built on our property with our money
for the purpose of enhancing our Right of Liberty. But, the more our
public highways are made unusable by anything but the automobile, the
more this LIE that driving is a privilege makes us all prisoners of
privilege behind bars of blacktop.

A Rightful Republic may only derive it's Rightful Powers via the
Rightful Consent of the Citizens. If one does not have a Right to do
something, they can not give others, or government, their Rightful
Consent to do that thing. The individual has no authority to prohibit,
deny or obstruct others from doing things which do not violate the
Rights of others. Therefore, they can not give a Rightful Republic
their Rightful Consent to prohibit, deny or obstruct others from doing
things which do not violate the Rights of others.

When individuals form a collective, they bring into existence certain
behaviors that could not exist before, such as the behavior of
representing the collective. Therefore, only the collective has the
authority to give their Rightful Consent to such collective behaviors,
where no individual of that collective has such authority. But, under
no circumstances may the collective presume to bestow upon themselves,
or upon their representatives, the privilege to prohibit, deny,
obstruct, endanger or violate any Rights of any innocent others.

This is because Rightful Powers may only be derived by the Rightful
Consent of the Citizens. No Citizen has the authority to prohibit,
deny, obstruct, endanger or violate the Rights of any innocent others,
therefore they may not individually, or collectively, give their
Rightful Consent bestowing upon their representatives the privilege to
prohibit, deny, obstruct, endanger or violate the Rights of any
innocent others. It's just that simple.

Nor shall the collective, or it's representatives, presume to convert
individual behaviors into collective behaviors, as this is nothing
more than a deceptive manner of attempting to convert Rightful
individual behaviors into collective privileges. Neither the
collective, nor it's representatives, may presume to convert a Right
into a privilege.

Driving safely is not a collective behavior that only comes into
existence upon the forming of a collective. Driving safely is an
individual behavior. Therefore, the collective, or it's
representatives, may not presume to convert driving safely into a
collective behavior.

Therefore, driving safely can only be one of two remaining types of
behaviors. Driving safely is either a Rightful behavior, or a
Wrongful behavior. Driving safely is a Wrongful behavior if it
prohibits, denies, obstructs, endangers or violates the Rights of any
others. Otherwise, it is a Rightful behavior.

If driving safely is a Wrongful behavior, a behavior which prohibits,
denies, obstructs, endangers or violates the Rights of others, then
everybody should be prohibited from the behavior of driving safely,
and the collective may not presume to bestow upon any individual, or
representative, the privilege of driving safely.

Otherwise, if driving safely is a Rightful behavior, a behavior which
DOES NOT prohibit, deny, obstruct, endanger or violate the Rights of
any others, then no innocent individual should be prohibited from
driving safely. And, no collective, or their representatives, may
presume to convert this individual behavior of driving safely into a
collective behavior, thereby presuming to convert a Right into a
privilege.

Driving safely is an individual behavior, not a collective behavior.
Driving safely does not prohibit, deny, obstruct, endanger or violate
the Rights of any others. Therefore, Driving safely is a Right.

Our States ARE lying to us. Driving IS NOT a privilege. Driving IS a
Right.

Our public streets were built on our property with our money for the
purpose of enhancing our Right of Liberty, and we each have the Right
to use our public highways for personal travel in the ordinary way.

But, the more our public highways are made unusable by anything but
the automobile, the more this LIE that driving is a privilege makes us
all prisoners of privilege behind bars of blacktop.


From: k_flynn on

proffsl wrote:
> "Harry K" <turnkey4...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > proffsl wrote:
> > >
> > > Either respond to the points, or put on your blinders
> > > and go away without adding to the 560 heckels you
> > > are betting on, or prove yourself to be a disrupter
> >
> > YOu have tried the same old arguments repeatedly in
> > the past and been refuted every time.
>
> You will either respond to the points I have made, or put on your
> blinders and go away, or prove yourself to be a disrupting troll.

The only point you made is that you apparently got hold of some
dynamite weed this week to repost this disproven nonsense.

> > The epitome of stupidity is trying the same thing
> > repeatedly and expecting different results.
>
> Personal insults does not respond to the points I have made, but more
> tend to indicate that you are a disrupting troll.

Uh, Proffy, it wasn't a personal insult. It was an observation. If the
foo shits, wear it.

> > If you are so certain of your facts, try something new.
> > Like putting a case through the courts and see if you
> > can change their minds.
>
> I'm not here seeking your advice. When dealing with liars, you don't
> deal with them on their terms, or play their game.

That is so true. Like, last year, when in this very topic we proved
YOU to be the LIAR when you completely FABRICATED your own court case,
we didn't play that game at all. So yeah, you're right. And a liar.

> On their terms, in
> their game, they'll LIE to you and everone else, if you know what I
> mean.

Yes, we know. You did LIE to us and to everyone else and we DO know
what you mean!

> Now, if you are so confident that my reasoning is wrong, counter it
> with something other than merely dismissing it, or by issuing personal
> insults. You will either respond to the points I have made in a
> reasonable fashon, or put on your blinders and go away, or prove
> yourself to be a disrupting troll.

We already responded, last year from March through August over 1,700
posts. It is not our fault that you did not learn anything from it,
except try to be more careful this time when you FABRICATE your court
cases!! Bwahahahaaaaa!!

From: Chas on
<k_flynn(a)lycos.com> wrote
> Cite. For both points.

'Cite' what? Some stare decisis antagonistic to either government or the
Law?
how droll.

--
Chas
Do the Right Thing!
http://www.jacksandsaps.com/
(blackjacks, saps, massage tools, practice and conditioning tools)


From: Motorhead Lawyer on
On Mar 1, 11:29 pm, "Jason Pawloski" <jpawlo...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Who has the over/under for the number of posts this time around? I'm
> going to guess 560.

Here's a clue for ya, Jason. If nobody replies to the troll *today*,
the thread will be dead *tomorrow*.
--
C.R. Krieger
(That's all, folks!)

From: proffsl on
Pat O'Connell <gyp...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Proffsl, last year your same arguments were beaten
> > > > to pieces in hundreds of posts that showed the fallacy
> > > > of your arguments.
> > >
> > > My arguments were heckled by certain posters,
> >
> > Yes, they were. They were also *resoundingly* defeated
> > on the merits.
>
> Proffy is a troll,

Oh my! A personal insult. Something a Troll might resort to.


> and has been on my filter list for a long time. You
> know he's a troll, so why are you responding to
> him/her/it?

Makes one wonder who the TROLLS really are.