Quit Electing Lawyers...

daybrown · Post by **daybrown** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 6:54 am

Lawyers run legislative bodies. They will not, therefore, pass any law which reduces the income of their brothers at the bar in the home constituency.

Forget simplifying the IRS code. Lawyers and their CPA friends make way too much money handling taxes.

Forget legalizing drugs. As it is now, the assets of dealers can be seized for the benefit of local law enforcement, and there are often auctions of seized property. I remember a case of an octegenarian couple, still on the farm, had their land seized cause someone was growing pot on the back 40.

Friends of the sheriff's and asssessor's offices, if they notice real estate that is not watched over regularly arrange for growers to put marijiuanna on it, then seize the land for the benefit of the friends who know when it will be auctioned off.

If drugs were legalized, then the families of users could sue the dealers for the cost of drug treatment. But as it is, all the assets of the dealers are seized by the legal system, or paid to the defense attorneys. And it is the friends of those lawyers who get elected to legislative office.

The legal system is not designed to provide justice, but to milk injustice. I have been saying this online for over 20 years without, so far as I can see, any effect whatever. This is for your own personal benefit, a warning. Historically, the cost of justice keeps on increasing while the quality of the product declines until there is a revolution with anarchy and/or tyranny used to rebalance the books.

Given modern telecommunications such a break down could begin at any time and spread uncontrollably over nite over the whole world. However, never has mass media been so adept at manipulation the minds and passions of the masses, so despite how corrupt and incompetent it looks to us, most people dont see that. Its the playoffs now, and the Superbowl is coming. The people are busy.

Faust · Post by **Faust** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:19 am

If you legalize drugs police can't fuck you over.

Ron Paul's a physician, wants to abolish IRS, end war on drugs, legalize drugs, et al. Iowa is full of intellectual imbeciles.

daybrown · Post by **daybrown** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:38 am

Faust13 wrote:If you legalize drugs police can't fuck you over.

Ron Paul's a physician, wants to abolish IRS, end war on drugs, legalize drugs, et al. Iowa is full of intellectual imbeciles.

Well that's nice, but even if he became president, he still needs congress to pass the laws. Congress is dominated by lawyers. So, Ron Paul gets a free ride. He can be against all these things in the effort to get the vote, but never hasta actually deliver on them cause he dont control congress.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:29 am

Besides, R. Paul is a nobody. He's not part of the club, therefore cannot get elected. I know lots of people -- personally, and public folk -- who make more sense than Geo Bush, f'rinstance. Think it matters how smart, practical, or ethical one is? Look at our recently electeds -- and those currently front-running -- and think again.

hsandman · Post by **hsandman** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:51 pm

Carl G wrote:Besides, R. Paul is a nobody. He's not part of the club, therefore cannot get elected. I know lots of people -- personally, and public folk -- who make more sense than Geo Bush, f'rinstance. Think it matters how smart, practical, or ethical one is? Look at our recently electeds -- and those currently front-running -- and think again.

True, if you study genealogy of the US presidents, you will find that ALLof them are related to British royalty. (They are all cousins)

The first exception to rule of being US Prez is:

a)Woman
b)Black
c)Not of Royal blood line

Tomas · Post by **Tomas** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:47 pm

hsandman wrote:
Carl G wrote:Besides, R. Paul is a nobody. He's not part of the club, therefore cannot get elected. I know lots of people -- personally, and public folk -- who make more sense than Geo Bush, f'rinstance. Think it matters how smart, practical, or ethical one is? Look at our recently electeds -- and those currently front-running -- and think again.
True, if you study genealogy of the US presidents, you will find that ALLof them are related to British royalty. (They are all cousins)

The first exception to rule of being US Prez is:

a)Woman
b)Black
c)Not of Royal blood line

Hillary's father (Rodham) is a cousin to the Queen. And wouldn't you know they hail from... Cicero County = Mob Capital of Illinois.

Barak's (white) mother from Kansas, is a cousin to the Queen.

Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason

.

hsandman · Post by **hsandman** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:59 pm

Tomas wrote:
Hillary's father (Rodham) is a cousin to the Queen. And wouldn't you know they hail from... Cicero County = Mob Capital of Illinois.

Barak's (white) mother from Kansas, is a cousin to the Queen.

Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason

.

New England Historical Genealogical Society and Burkes Peerage, have shown that 33 of the 42 presidents to Clinton are related to Charlemagne and 19 are related to England's Edward III, both of whom are of this bloodline. A spokesman for Burkes Peerage, the bible of royal and aristocratic genealogy based in London, has said that every presidential election since and including George Washington in 1789 has been won by the candidate with the most royal genes. Now we can see how and why. United States presidents are not chosen by ballot, they are chosen by blood!

Hillary is going to be next, no doubt about it.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:18 pm

I'm always a little skeptical of conspiracies, if you read up on American History, America fought a brutal civil war to break away from Britain, so that they could be a free nation, and not be burdened by Britain's influence and taxes, so I find it unlikely that they would allow themselves to be influenced to this day. And I researched Hillary's father Hugh Ellsworth Rodham, and according to Wikipedia, the guy is a nobody - he came from "English immigrants who descended from a line of Welsh coal miners" and it also says that he was a "staunch supporter of Barry Goldwaterâ€™s 1964 presidential campaign and remained a committed Republican until his death." And so I find his support for Goldwater rather odd considering he is supposed to be part of some elite bloodline conspiracy....

Tomas · Post by **Tomas** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:20 pm

hsandman wrote:
Tomas wrote:
Hillary's father (Rodham) is a cousin to the Queen. And wouldn't you know they hail from... Cicero County = Mob Capital of Illinois.

Barak's (white) mother from Kansas, is a cousin to the Queen.

Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason

.
New England Historical Genealogical Society and Burkes Peerage, have shown that 33 of the 42 presidents to Clinton are related to Charlemagne and 19 are related to England's Edward III, both of whom are of this bloodline. A spokesman for Burkes Peerage, the bible of royal and aristocratic genealogy based in London, has said that every presidential election since and including George Washington in 1789 has been won by the candidate with the most royal genes. Now we can see how and why. United States presidents are not chosen by ballot, they are chosen by blood!

Hillary is going to be next, no doubt about it.

I may have (probably 100%) mis-spoke about Hillary related to the Queen, she may just be a commoner...

Here's her astrology chart:
http://www.astrodatabank.com/NM/ClintonHillary.htm

And Bills: (very strange aligned houses)
http://www.astrodatabank.com/NM/ClintonBill.htm

.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:30 pm

Tomas,

So what are all those geometric shapes and symbols supposed to tell you anyway? Do you realize that astrology is pseudoscience?

Faust wrote:

Iowa is full of intellectual imbeciles.

AKA: Evangelicals.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 3:17 pm

Ryan Rudolph wrote:I'm always a little skeptical of conspiracies, if you read up on American History, America fought a brutal civil war to break away from Britain, so that they could be a free nation, and not be burdened by Britain's influence and taxes, so I find it unlikely that they would allow themselves to be influenced to this day. And I researched Hillary's father Hugh Ellsworth Rodham, and according to Wikipedia, the guy is a nobody - he came from "English immigrants who descended from a line of Welsh coal miners" and it also says that he was a "staunch supporter of Barry Goldwaterâ€™s 1964 presidential campaign and remained a committed Republican until his death." And so I find his support for Goldwater rather odd considering he is supposed to be part of some elite bloodline conspiracy....

Ryan, your naivetÃ© is sort of charming, in this day and age. For one thing, Britain more or less let the Colonies win, and, according to many reports still more or less owns America. Or, rather, certain parties who control Britain also control the certain parties who run America. I don't mean political parties, of course. I am speaking of the world fascist economic club, the manipulating One Worlders.

daybrown · Post by **daybrown** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:09 pm

Well dont we admit that charisma & intelligence are genetic traits? So wouldnt we expect leaders to have some remote genetic links among the noblity of Europe who've run things for millennia? it dont need any conspiracy; Darwin would do.

hsandman · Post by **hsandman** » Sat Jan 05, 2008 4:11 pm

Ryan, your naivetÃ© is sort of charming, in this day and age. For one thing, Britain more or less let the Colonies win, and, according to many reports still more or less owns America. Or, rather, certain parties who control Britain also control the certain parties who run America. I don't mean political parties, of course. I am speaking of the world fascist economic club, the manipulating One Worlders

Damn, he is right about the Hillary though... she has no royal blood as far as I can see, and unless they are changing hundreds of years of tradition... she is not going to win! O_o

Obama has royal blood in him. Still a first.. a black prez.

It sure would be an awkward family reunion. But, believe it or not, Barack Obama is related to both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

OK, distantly related: Obama and Bush are 11th cousins

(Source)
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/o ... 09.article

Hmm... how though?
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

Edit: Ahh, a clifhanger! Racial minorities are going to beat feminists by a nose... Great Idea! O_o

funny 1 min vid :^)

Visual Proof That Illuminati Bloodlines Control The Planet!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyN1O-GwALI

Edit2:

In 2004, genealogists discovered that U.S. Presidential candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry shared a common ancestral couple in the 1500s. It was reported that the two men are sixteenth cousins, three times removed.[1] However, the two are in fact ninth cousins, two times removed.[2] (Source = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin )

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:14 am

Carl,

Ryan, your naivetÃ© is sort of charming, in this day and age. For one thing, Britain more or less let the Colonies win, and, according to many reports still more or less owns America. Or, rather, certain parties who control Britain also control the certain parties who run America. I don't mean political parties, of course. I am speaking of the world fascist economic club, the manipulating One Worlders.

You oversimplify reality with your conspiracies, there are hundreds or even thousands of powerful agencies that lobby the US federal government annually as a means to push their agendas. For instance: The fortune 500 companies, and other big players from each industry lobby every year, not to mention charity groups, special interest groups and all the rest of it. Basically, the groups with the most money are the ones that are heard by the federal government, and therefore they have the most power to sway US policy and financial handouts. So based on all these influences, how much power do you really think a senile old British woman has in the mix?

That is another reason why I donâ€™t buy the other big conspiracy that is talked about on here â€“ the 9/11 Conspiracy, mainly because it is so oversimplified and illogical. For instance: In the last century, the US government with the help of the CIA and military have assassinated whoever they wanted, and invaded whatever countries they wanted if it served their economic interests, and NEVER did they have to resort to orchestrating an elaborate terrorist conspiracy against the people. So why now?

Moreover, usually they just lie or exaggerate the urgency of the threat to push their agenda. There has ever been a need to destroy American life in a secret plot to push US foreign policy, as America has always used easier manipulative psychological tactics, and done whatever they wanted as a result, this is why I believe the 9/11 conspiracy is such an outlandish proposition.

In the academic community, it is pretty well common knowledge that the US military presence on holy sites in Saudi Arabia is what caused moral indignation by Islamic extremists and lead to the second bombing on the wtc by Osama bin laden and his goons, the first attempt took place in 1993 on the wtc.

basically, you guys kill me with your conspiracies...so oversimplifed!

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:25 am

Ryan,

That is another reason why I donâ€™t buy the other big conspiracy that is talked about on here â€“ the 9/11 Conspiracy, mainly because it is so oversimplified and illogical.

It is your own mind which is "oversimplified and illogical."

For instance: In the last century, the US government with the help of the CIA and military have assassinated whoever they wanted, and invaded whatever countries they wanted if it served their economic interests, and NEVER did they have to resort to orchestrating an elaborate terrorist conspiracy against the people. So why now?

What about Pearl Harbor?

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:42 am

Carl,

What about Pearl Harbor?

Are you saying that you believe the Japanese didnâ€™t attack Pearl Harbor? And if so, explain your reasoning.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:04 am

They were led to it and provoked into it.

Better read up in order to get another layer down into history and social engineering.

Or not, if you prefer to continue living by myth.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:39 am

Carl,

If you study history at all, and not just spam conspiracy web pages, you would have learned that during the mid 1930s, Japan (ruled by an emperor who thought he was a living god) was involved in an aggressive war with mainland China, and America disapproved of that war for many reasons.

First of all, the US was dependent on China for trade, and the Japanese invasion was interfering with US economic interests, and so the US president cut off oil supplies to Japan as a means to starve the Japanese war machine, and it worked. Only it worked too well because it stifled the Japanese economy as well, and Japan was forced to Attack Pearl Harbor out of economic desperation.

So youâ€™re correct when you say that the Japanese were provoked by America, but you're reasoning is incorrect. To suggest that the US administration intentionally planned to lose most of their pacific naval fleet at Pearl Harbor is laughable, as that attack devastated their strategic position in the pacific, leaving them very vulnerable to an invasion.

So to recap, America cut off Japan's oil supplies because of their aggressive war with mainland China, which interfered with American economic interests, and not because of some planned conspiracy to trick the the American people into a war.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:37 am

Your simplistic history lesson aside, my point remains as an invitation for you to go to the next level in your own studies, to see the manipulation for what it is. Germany was also led into war. Nearly all wars -- and by extension nearly all politics -- are engineered into being by the controlling class, for their own interests. I'm sorry if you wish to remain captive to your own limited thinking. Without seeing deeper to how things really are, how will you ever become wise in other respects?

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:06 am

Carl G wrote:Your simplistic history lesson aside, my point remains as an invitation for you to go to the next level in your own studies

Do you have any links or books to recommend?

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:14 am

Carl,

Your simplistic history lesson aside, my point remains as an invitation for you to go to the next level in your own studies, to see the manipulation for what it is. Germany was also led into war. Nearly all wars -- and by extension nearly all politics -- are engineered into being by the controlling class, for their own interests. I'm sorry if you wish to remain captive to your own limited thinking. Without seeing deeper to how things really are, how will you ever become wise in other respects?

Carl, your mistake is that you demonize the â€˜controlling classesâ€™ as if they are always the evil force that sabotages the world, but Iâ€™m afraid these activities are much more complicated than you'd like to admit. Many times, both forces that are interacting are at fault, as both parties are trying to control. And usually the reasons for the conflicts are complicated, as both parties are in the wrong. The causal web of influences stretches back into infinity, and I think it is naive of you to simply label the 'controlling class' as the universal malign force here.

Basically, my major problem with your short posts is that you generalize matters way too much in a vague sort of way, without ever explaining anything in detail. Wars are fought for many different reasons, whether it be a controlling elite, or two parties that clash over limited natural resources, or a conflict over political or religious ideologies, or over race/territory, or if one country picks on the ally of another countryâ€¦and so on, and so forth...

you have to admit that you are overgeneralizing a very complicated issue.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:18 am

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Carl, your mistake is that you demonize the â€˜controlling classesâ€™

Yes, they are demonic.

as if they are always the evil force that sabotages the world, but Iâ€™m afraid these activities are much more complicated than you'd like to admit. Many times, both forces that are interacting are at fault, as both parties are trying to control.

Yes, under it all "both parties" are often actually one and the same. It just appears as two; example: U.S. Democrats and Republicans. So-called Democracy vs. Socialism (the Cold War), same thing. Seeming opposition is a game. Of course, there is some genuine rivalry of some sort, too. It's like between sports teams, fighting it out while playing for the same league. The public gets a show, and foots the enormous bill.

And usually the reasons for the conflicts are complicated, as both parties are in the wrong.

This doesn't mean situations are not contrived and events manipulated. They are.

The causal web of influences stretches back into infinity, and I think it is naive of you to simply label the 'controlling class' as the universal malign force here.

What if I agree that it is caused to do what it does?

Basically, my major problem with your short posts is that you generalize matters way too much in a vague sort of way, without ever explaining anything in detail.

I'm just trying to give you a heads up, mate. I haven't time for detail. Do some googling. Commit to learning, if interested. Can't happen in one thread or overnight.

Wars are fought for many different reasons, whether it be a controlling elite, or two parties that clash over limited natural resources, or a conflict over political or religious ideologies, or over race/territory, or if one country picks on the ally of another countryâ€¦and so on, and so forth...

And I say most wars are a set up of the ruling class.

Name some wars you think were instigated, financed, and led by common folk? Even if they appear so, what were the true underlying forces?

you have to admit that you are overgeneralizing a very complicated issue.

I think you are the one oversimplifying.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:29 am

Cory Duchesne wrote:
Carl G wrote:Your simplistic history lesson aside, my point remains as an invitation for you to go to the next level in your own studies
Do you have any links or books to recommend?

All sources are corrupt, so the key is developing one's own ability to sift the wheat from the chaff. Or, I like to liken it to eating very bony fish -- the skill is learning to separate what is valuable from what is potentially damaging (to the cause -- in this case piecing together the truth).

Furthermore, the key is more developing one's ability to see, than it is gleaning knowledge from outside sources. For instance, learning that the U.S. media has over the years fallen into fewer and fewer hands is not as important as seeing for oneself, unequivocally, how the media is used to control minds through conditioning and programming of very specific sorts.

Lastly, yes, corroboration for what one sees, consistently and over time, and therefore comes to know, is indeed important, and books and links can be a good source for this. I myself do not regularly consult any of these currently, but if pressed could probably dig up something of a starting point for you. Again with the proviso that all sources are tainted with misinformation, so, surely proceed with the scholar's scientific investigative mind. It is challenging material, and not something for idle curiosity Private message me, if interested.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 11:59 am

Carl,

Name some wars you think were instigated, financed, and led by common folk? Even if they appear so, what were the true underlying forces?

Take the cold war for instance. America believed that the Soviet Union was a threat to Western Democracy because of its promotion of socialism around the world, and so it waged wars indirectly through supporting rebel groups that fought back against the Russian expansion, and here are the questions raised -

Did the views of the common folk reflect the actions the state took against the Soviet Union? Because ideally, the military is supposed to be an extension of the common folkâ€™s views. Moreover, if the common folk disagree with a war, then eventually the steam runs out for the war. And the ideal purpose of a military is to protect the common folk from other ruling classes that may want to conquer, rape, steal, expand, or restrict liberty through imposing ideology. And so the only way a defense can be performed is by the the state (another ruling class).

So when an evil action is taken, (an attack) the defense is also aggressive and destroys life, but it is necessary as a means to preserve superior values and quality of life. So a war can only be instigated by a state, but ideally the common folk should agree that there is a reason to defend against a threat.

However, the problem with the United States is that they believe they are a moral authority around the world, and they believe that the international laws do not apply to them, and so they go to war when there is no immediate danger to the state. They go to war to protect economic interests and so on. You see how it is a slippery slope, how if a state is given the power to protect the common folk from other ruling classes, how it can easily evolve to include economic threats as well? not just immediate military threats as the military was first designed to do...

hsandman · Post by **hsandman** » Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:05 pm

Ryan... spend at least 10 min watching Alex Jones' latest film that covers in detail the PROVEN, DOCUMENTED history of government sponsored terrorism. I find pictures are more effective than text.

Alex Jones - Terror Storm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7579389947

Edit: Wow, you realy belive in all this? O_o Damn...

Ryan wrote:you're reasoning is incorrect. To suggest that the US administration intentionally planned to lose most of their pacific naval fleet at Pearl Harbor is laughable, as that attack devastated their strategic position in the pacific, leaving them very vulnerable to an invasion.

<Look it up, it's now declassified info, history books were writen before that :D >

So to recap, America cut off Japan's oil supplies because of their aggressive war with mainland China, which interfered with American economic interests, and not because of some planned conspiracy to trick the the American people into a war.

< No, England/America tricked the Japan into war with America, thus bringing America into WWII. Realy.. look it up, it's not a conspiracy theory.. it's a documented, declassified fact :-S>

Carl, your mistake is that you demonize the â€˜controlling classesâ€™ as if they are always the evil force that sabotages the world, but Iâ€™m afraid these activities are much more complicated than you'd like to admit.

< Raw Human nature and drives are not that complicated >

it is naive of you to simply label the 'controlling class' as the universal malign force here.

Wars are fought for many different reasons, whether it be a controlling elite, or two parties that clash over limited natural resources, or a conflict over political or religious ideologies, or over race/territory, or if one country picks on the ally of another countryâ€¦and so on, and so forth...

you have to admit that you are overgeneralizing a very complicated issue.

Take the cold war for instance. America believed that the Soviet Union was a threat to Western Democracy because of its promotion of socialism around the world, and so it waged wars indirectly through supporting rebel groups that fought back against the Russian expansion.

the military is supposed to be an extension of the common folkâ€™s views.

purpose of a military is to protect the common folk from other ruling classes that may want to conquer, rape, steal, expand, or restrict liberty through imposing ideology

So when an evil action is taken, (an attack) the defense is also aggressive and destroys life, but it is necessary as a means to preserve superior values and quality of life.

However, the problem with the United States is that they believe they are a moral authority around the world, and they believe that the international laws do not apply to them, and so they go to war when there is no immediate danger to the state. They go to war to protect economic interests and so on.

if a state is given the power to protect the common folk from other ruling classes, how it can easily evolve to include economic threats as well?

LOL! Here is reality in a nutshell ->
2X2hr documentaries of the best on the web.

Forming The Archetype
Forming The Archetype 2

GENIUS FORUMS

Quit Electing Lawyers...

Quit Electing Lawyers...

Re: Quit Electing Lawyers...

Re: Quit Electing Lawyers...

Re: Quit Electing Lawyers...

Re: Quit Electing Lawyers...

Keep Electing Bluebloods :-(

Re: So it goes.

Re: Quit Electing Lawyers...

Re: So it goes.

Re: Quit Electing Lawyers...

Re: Quit Electing Lawyers...

Re: Quit Electing Lawyers...

Re: Quit Electing Lawyers...

Re: Quit Electing Lawyers...

Re: Quit Electing Lawyers...

Re: Quit Electing Lawyers...

Re: Quit Electing Lawyers...

Re: Quit Electing Lawyers...

Re: Quit Electing Lawyers...

Re: Quit Electing Lawyers...

Re: Quit Electing Lawyers...

Re: Quit Electing Lawyers...

Re: Quit Electing Lawyers...

Re: Quit Electing Lawyers...

Re: Quit Electing Lawyers...