Comment: The spinners (liars) Union?

(See in situ)


The spinners (liars) Union?

Do you guys get paid or is this strictly done for fun (no monetary profit)?

"Josf is a Lysander Spooner purveor..."

What does that mean?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purveyor

1
: one that purveys
2
: victualler, caterer

First off: Leave me out of it please. Moving off the topic and moving onto me, my motives imagined, or any other topic, off the topic, onto me personally, is not nice. Why do it?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purveys

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peddle

intransitive verb
1
: to travel about with wares for sale; broadly : sell
2
: to be busy with trifles : piddle
transitive verb
1
: to sell or offer for sale from place to place : hawk; broadly : sell
2
: to deal out or seek to disseminate
3
: to offer or promote as valuable

OK, so now I am someone selling Lysander Spooner?

What happened to the topic?

"I haven't read every word written in this thread by Josf or yourself. So, please forgive me if I've missed something important. I would be happy to reply further if I have."

Despite the initial move onto me personally, your words inspire deep thought.

This:

"The Constitution was not signed by everyone and therefore should not be legally binding with any respect to traditional common laws regarding contracts."

Here is where the actual reality of the situation, not what I think, or you, or what Lysander Spooner thought, works itself out. There are Gangs of New York, and Gangs of New Jersey, and Gangs of Utah still doing what Gangs do, and they all still agree, all the Leaders of all the Gangs, agree that the biggest Gang around is the biggest Gang around, so they, all those separate Gangs, they, they, those Gang leaders, all, lick the boots of the Money Monopoly Power.

"The Constitution was not signed by everyone and therefore should not be legally binding with any respect to traditional common laws regarding contracts."

I think that the viewpoint expressed in those words is a superficial viewpoint at best, and at worst a dangerous one.

The power struggle is exactly what it is at any given moment and it is not otherwise something imagined, and in cases where someone is proceeding to engage in the power struggle, directed by falsehood, then that is a weakness, not a strength, unless that person, that individual, is incredibly lucky.

The concept of Mob Rule, for example, is superficial, and demonstrably false, from many angles, depending upon how that concept is measured by the person infected with that falsehood.

The people I call Legal Criminals, or the people who other people call Despots, same people, different name, and my label is more accurate, competitively more accurate, but the point is that the same people fear any power that may be more powerful than their power.

They, not us, fear the Mob Rule that they fear, and therefore it is in their best interest, in the best interest of the Legal Criminals, to convince, by fraud, The People (targets/tax payers/marks/victims), that "we" fear Mob Rule.

To put this in more precise terms, what the Legal Criminals fear, and what the Legal Criminals call MOB RULE is, for one very good example, 12 people on a jury.

12 people on a Jury, in Common Law, a real Trial by Jury, is what Legal Criminals fear, and if Legal Criminals can convince all those people who potentially empower themselves by sitting on a Common Law Trial by Jury into a false belief that "we" (all of us not just the criminals) fear Mob Rule, then something happens, as a result of that falsehood.

What happens as a result of the lie that says that we fear Mob Rule so named?

The proof is in the pudding.

Joe