Etype wrote:Just because you 'opt' out of their system, their presumptions work on the fact that because you are in their place of business then you are guilty of whatever they want you to be guilty of !
And they applied to Roger. So logically, he must be a citizen.
Did our prehistoric ancestors have *these* rights, and if not, where did they come from?
It does not matter how you show up, willingly or forced there, their presumptions apply to you being there.
Comprehend how their presumptions work and what you have to do to opt out.
Last time I showed you proof in black and white that someone was lying to you and I wasn't, you still took their word over mine. You don't value evidence in the slightest.Etype wrote:I could say that about you! It would be no more or less accurate then your opinion. because that's all it is! An opinion, with nothing to back it up. Or would you like to show some empirical proof? Something tangible that any of us are under any obligations whatsoever?
I wasn't saying it to rubbish him, I was pointing out that even though he does not consent to statutes being enforced, they will be anyway. They do not require your consent.As for implying he has been to prison for his beliefs, as a way of rubbishing him. Nelson Mandela also went to prison for his beliefs, are you you going to rubbish him?
You're not "challenging the accepted view", you're just reading someone's blog and assuming the accepted view is wrong. Roger just makes a load of statements about laws and statutes and you assume he's correct, which is exactly what you want to criticise other people for doing with "the accepted view".It is necessary to challenge the accepted view and the so called authority of statutes. To bring corruption to light and make people think! Instead of just believing all the bullshit the government shovel on us on a daily basis!
Buzzwords...Reality and logic are just buzzwords you threw in to make it sound like you know what you are talking about. In truth your quote at the top of the page is just meaningless drivel and is only your own opinion. An opinion I do not share.
I have rejected my citizenship of the United Kingdom and withdrawn my consent to be governed by these greedy pigs with their noses in the trough.
Answer mine and I will have a go at answering yours.
It doesn't look like waffle to you because you want it to be true. It isn't a matter of what I believe you should adhere to, you can do whatever the fuck you like for all I care. It's a matter of whether or not your agreement with statutes will make the slightest bit of difference to you being convicted according to the rules described in them.enegiss wrote:i dont know where you dragged this statement from vanilla,doesnt look like empty waffle to me, and is more than comparable to your own meanderings on what you believe i and the majority on this site should adhere to (statutes)but it's just one more page of empty waffle.
That question doesn't even make any sense. If you mean "do I agree with the rules set out in every statute" then the answer is no. That doesn't mean that they do not, or will not, apply to me.do you yourself believe everything statutes tell you to do or not to do ?
You can get a very brief idea of what I believe from one of my previous posts (and the next post of mine after it).or do you believe that one should just Obey another because he has a higher ranking position than your own position and there is no equality for you worth having ?.
We obviously have very different opinions about what "rights" actually are.just compliance irrespective of your own right and freedom to live seems a little strange to me.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest