If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Police departments receive training in dealing with 'sovereign citizens'. Regicide?   (latimes.com) divider line 378
    More: Interesting, sovereign citizens, Contra Costa County, Santa Rosa County, oaths of office, finches, money orders, West Memphis, monarchs  
•       •       •

9539 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Apr 2013 at 11:53 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



378 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-06 01:48:26 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: pedrop357: There is no social contract.  No one has ever presented one to be signed or agreed upon, nor can a contract be so easily changed and one sided and still claim any semblance of legitimicay.  The concept of a social contract largely seems to exist to compel every person to do what they're told and pay what is demanded of them regardless of how far they try to stay away from 'society' as well as forbidding anyone to ever leave society.  It also seems to be used a rhetorical tool to advocate never reducing or restraining society's power over people.

Behold the Spoiled American Sociopath in all his mighty self-gloried supremacy.

What's the over/under on how long he lasts in Somalia or rural Afghanistan? 48 hours?


About the same as how long you would last there, believing in the social contract.
 
2013-04-06 01:48:46 PM
Anyone want to make a Venn diagram with the overlap between sort of old traditional hippies and more modern incarnations (occupy, etc) vs  soverieign citizen and various traditional individualists.
 
2013-04-06 01:49:48 PM

atomicmask: Intolerance of assholes, until they are being assholes to people you dislike, then they are wonderful little enforcers of your will...


Awww, look at how smug you are. Isn't it great we live in such a prosperous nation in such an advanced age where you can shake your tiny fists of impotent rage safely ensconced in your white male American cocoon, instead of, y'know, actually living life in the anarchist state you desire so much?
 
2013-04-06 01:51:04 PM

BullBearMS: atomicmask: Looming on the horizon? Its here...A cop can stop you while walking and demand to see identification if the thinks a crime has happened. no proof, no call ins, no victims, just "suspects" you may be a criminal.

During a legislative debate in 2010 over the Police Department's use of stop-and-frisk encounters, the police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, met with the governor at the time, David A. Paterson, to defend the tactic's importance as a crime-fighting tool.

According to a state senator, Eric Adams, who was at the meeting at the governor's office in Midtown Manhattan, the commissioner said that young black and Hispanic men were the focus of the stops because "he wanted to instill fear in them, every time they leave their home they could be stopped by the police."

Senator Adams, a Brooklyn Democrat who is a former captain in the New York Police Department, recalled the meeting as he testified in Federal District Court in Manhattan on Monday, as a trial over the constitutionality of the department's use of the tactic entered its third week.

Respect my Authoratah indeed.


That is exactly what I am talking about, its bullshiat. Happening to a minority or one of these sovereign citizens. People shouldn't celebrate police abuse and new labels the cops come up with, if they apply to angry isolationist whites or blacks and latinos just walking down the street. fark that, they have enough authority as it is to uphold the law, they don't need new labels to make things more easy to abuse people.
 
2013-04-06 01:51:17 PM

pedrop357: The result is that the line blurs between standing up for one's rights and being one of those violent sovereign whatevers. The police will get a nice big pass from all he lefty "civil rights" groups as long as they claim that they thought they were dealing with "one of those anti-government people that kills cops."


It's an issue of where to draw the line... I mean, I want the police to be able to "stop and frisk" poor brown people in the innter cities, but I can't have them infringing on my rights!
 
2013-04-06 01:51:19 PM

Farking Canuck: It is very simple. Ask them if they are a citizen.

If they say yes then inform them that the must follow the laws of the land.


If you ask any federal prosecutor, and he's honest with you, he'll tell you that we're all criminals. Each and every one of us commits at least one (probably several) federal felonies every day. Read The Clean Water Act and its associated case law. There's no question that we all violate that one almost daily. And, before you say that you don't violate it, be advised that those tasked with enforcing the law can't agree on what constitutes a violation, the courts that hear the cases can't agree on what constitutes a violation, and the Supreme Court seems to just flip a coin when presented with a CWA case, so don't tell me you know that you don't violate it. The CWA aside, there are thousands of criminal laws and ten thousand regulations with criminal penalties, and that most of these "crimes" are victimless; if you're minding your own business and not bothering anybody in the slightest, that's no guarantee that you are acting legally.
 
2013-04-06 01:51:24 PM

atomicmask: FarkinHostile: atomicmask: Also, a cop IS just a guy in a halloween costume, it is the peoples authority and belief in that costume that gives him any power.

Perhaps you are forgetting the gun, baton, tazer, pepper spray....

Force is power.

Not forgetting it, just telling the part that goes from criminal to cop. Its the people that give him authority to carry that and use it for anything other then self defense. We give him the right to be the aggressor in situations, thats it. Otherwise he is gang member with strange bling.


True, but it's the biggest, best armed gang. When it comes right down to it, might makes "right". A 16 year old inner city punk pointing a gun at me is in charge, at least till I can get more force than he has, and no one has given him any authority.

Just sayin'.
 
2013-04-06 01:52:13 PM

atomicmask: About the same as how long you would last there, believing in the social contract.


So you're admitting your smug sociopathic view on society is propped up by the rest of us keeping society running. You could have at least said 'thanks'.
 
2013-04-06 01:52:28 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: pedrop357: There is no social contract.  No one has ever presented one to be signed or agreed upon, nor can a contract be so easily changed and one sided and still claim any semblance of legitimicay.  The concept of a social contract largely seems to exist to compel every person to do what they're told and pay what is demanded of them regardless of how far they try to stay away from 'society' as well as forbidding anyone to ever leave society.  It also seems to be used a rhetorical tool to advocate never reducing or restraining society's power over people.

Behold the Spoiled American Sociopath in all his mighty self-gloried supremacy.

What's the over/under on how long he lasts in Somalia or rural Afghanistan? 48 hours?


Yep, not subscribing to the idea that society is whatever 50.001% of people say it is and that people have rights and powers that society cannot interfere with is sociopathic.  This is in contrast to the concept of jailing, hurting, or killing people who do not conform to societies (sometimes very finicky) demands and claiming authority over people because they paid to use a service the government provides.
 
2013-04-06 01:53:07 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: atomicmask: Intolerance of assholes, until they are being assholes to people you dislike, then they are wonderful little enforcers of your will...

Awww, look at how smug you are. Isn't it great we live in such a prosperous nation in such an advanced age where you can shake your tiny fists of impotent rage safely ensconced in your white male American cocoon, instead of, y'know, actually living life in the anarchist state you desire so much?


Aww look at how stupid you are, tossing labels and assumptions around in an attempt to shoehorn a victory over a concept you barely understand and cant justify believing in. Equality is a hard concept for you I guess.
 
2013-04-06 01:54:33 PM

atomicmask: lostcat: atomicmask: bighairyguy: I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.
Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!
Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Officer: Your license and registration please.
Repeat as necessary.

Cool, I guess you are ok with the following situation too?

Officer: Papers citizen
Regular person: I was simply walking down the sidewalk, I did nothing wrong!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZZZZZE
Person: AAAHHHHHHH!
officer: papers now citizen!
repeat necessary

And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.

Looming on the horizon? Its here...A cop can stop you while walking and demand to see identification if the thinks a crime has happened. no proof, no call ins, no victims, just "suspects" you may be a criminal.


When was the last time this happened to you, and how is this any different from how things have been historically? I don't remember a time when a cop didn't have the right to stop someone and ask to see identification in the investigation of a crime.

The last time it happened to me was 20 years ago when I was in college, living in a home with rented rooms. One of the tenets was wanted on a warrant, so the cop came to the house and asked to check the ids of all the men present. It didn't bother me one bit. If the guy was wanted, why shouldn't the cops question the people who live at his address and verify that none of the people there are him?
 
2013-04-06 01:54:42 PM

FarkinHostile: True, but it's the biggest, best armed gang. When it comes right down to it, might makes "right". A 16 year old inner city punk pointing a gun at me is in charge, at least till I can get more force than he has, and no one has given him any authority.

Just sayin'.


Which is why we decided to make the biggest best armed gang of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's not perfect, but to borrow a phrase from Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
 
2013-04-06 01:56:36 PM

lostcat: atomicmask: lostcat: atomicmask: bighairyguy: I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.
Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!
Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Officer: Your license and registration please.
Repeat as necessary.

Cool, I guess you are ok with the following situation too?

Officer: Papers citizen
Regular person: I was simply walking down the sidewalk, I did nothing wrong!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZZZZZE
Person: AAAHHHHHHH!
officer: papers now citizen!
repeat necessary

And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.

Looming on the horizon? Its here...A cop can stop you while walking and demand to see identification if the thinks a crime has happened. no proof, no call ins, no victims, just "suspects" you may be a criminal.

When was the last time this happened to you, and how is this any different from how things have been historically? I don't remember a time when a cop didn't have the right to stop someone and ask to see identification in the investigation of a crime.

The last time it happened to me was 20 years ago when I was in college, living in a home with rented rooms. One of the tenets was wanted on a warrant, so the cop came to the house and asked to check the ids of all the men present. It didn't bother me one bit. If the guy was wanted, why shouldn't the cops question the people who live at his address and verify that none of the people there are him?


You do know the difference between "searching for a criminal" and "see a man walking and assume hes a criminal" right?
 
2013-04-06 01:56:46 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: FarkinHostile: True, but it's the biggest, best armed gang. When it comes right down to it, might makes "right". A 16 year old inner city punk pointing a gun at me is in charge, at least till I can get more force than he has, and no one has given him any authority.

Just sayin'.

Which is why we decided to make the biggest best armed gang of the people, by the people, and for the people. It's not perfect, but to borrow a phrase from Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."


Indeed.

But we are not a democracy. Thank god.
 
2013-04-06 01:58:42 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: atomicmask: About the same as how long you would last there, believing in the social contract.

So you're admitting your smug sociopathic view on society is propped up by the rest of us keeping society running. You could have at least said 'thanks'.


No, retard.  The social contract is worthless without good people, and with good people it's irrelevant.  You can have all the "contracts" you want, but people who don't care about non-existent contracts will kill you and take what you have.  Even just decent people don't need the same "contract" in order to not harm or rob you.

The "social contract" as used by others always seems to come up as a grant of power of "society" or government over people far beyond anything necessary for a society to function and serves to largely coerce and compel all people to completely participate in, and by extension, be completely ruled by that society.  In short, any talk of "off the grid" or similar concepts always results in someone brandishing this non-existent contract to justify nearly every incursion, regulation, rule, tax, etc. applied to that person.

A caveman who lives 50 miles from the nearest town over 100 people will still be ruled and regulated (or at least they will attempt it) no differently than the person in the center of a large metropolitan area.  The justification will be this "societal contract" and various attenuation(s) and contortions will be engaged in to justify subjecting him to numerous laws that barely make sense in a dense urban area.
 
2013-04-06 01:59:03 PM
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote

FARK is a bunch of earth worms calling the sheep names because he owns a gun and doesn't wanna be eaten, cheering the wolves as they devour the white sheep while booing the wolves when they ate the black one.
 
2013-04-06 01:59:56 PM

pedrop357: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: pedrop357: There is no social contract.  No one has ever presented one to be signed or agreed upon, nor can a contract be so easily changed and one sided and still claim any semblance of legitimicay.  The concept of a social contract largely seems to exist to compel every person to do what they're told and pay what is demanded of them regardless of how far they try to stay away from 'society' as well as forbidding anyone to ever leave society.  It also seems to be used a rhetorical tool to advocate never reducing or restraining society's power over people.

Behold the Spoiled American Sociopath in all his mighty self-gloried supremacy.

What's the over/under on how long he lasts in Somalia or rural Afghanistan? 48 hours?

Yep, not subscribing to the idea that society is whatever 50.001% of people say it is and that people have rights and powers that society cannot interfere with is sociopathic.  This is in contrast to the concept of jailing, hurting, or killing people who do not conform to societies (sometimes very finicky) demands and claiming authority over people because they paid to use a service the government provides.


Society is exactly what 50.001% of the people say it is. That's how society is defined. But, let's be honest, it's never that low. Society is what more like 80% of people say it is, the rest of the squabbling is politics, not societal norms.

People who don't want to be "oppressed" by the society into which they were born are free to move to an uninhabited island somewhere (there's plenty of them in Palau). But you better be prepared to be self-sufficient and produce some goods or services that you can trade for what you don't have.

The United States was founded on the idea of a society served and represented by an elected government, not a bunch of individuals acting as their own governments.
 
2013-04-06 02:00:53 PM

atomicmask: Aww look at how stupid you are, tossing labels and assumptions around in an attempt to shoehorn a victory over a concept you barely understand and cant justify believing in. Equality is a hard concept for you I guess.


No, it took me a good few years, but I'm pretty sure I've got a pretty good understanding now of your kind. For starters, the smug self-proclaimed intellectual superiority is no surprise at all.

Oh, and equality goes out the window the instant there's no higher institution to maintain minority rights. Just thought you'd like to know that.
 
2013-04-06 02:01:24 PM

JesseL: You really think 1 in every 1000 of the people in this country is a terrorist?


Not necessarily. I think sovereign citizens are terrorists. How many of them are there? IDGAF. It's kind of up to them whether they choose to self label, intentionally break the law, and shoot at cops when they get called out on their bullshiat.
 
2013-04-06 02:01:59 PM

pedrop357: tillerman35: The agency calls sovereigns - who number between 100,000 and 300,000 - a "domestic terrorist movement."

I highly doubt there are that many truly committed whackjobs out there.  Plenty of whackjobs, sure.  But whackjobs willing to live the lifestyle instead of just raging against the machine in online chat rooms?  Probably only a small percentage.

These nutcases existed 80 years ago too- it's just that we were much more rural and could afford to let crazy old Charlie stay up in his cabin and stew.  Nowadays, it seems like we have a collective need to poke 'em with a stick to see how angry they get.

That's the problem.  If someone wants to live 'away' from society, or limit the interactions and influence of society, they have to be harassed, abused, and/or forcefully pulled back in.

The attitude of some seems to be "let's mess with them until they push back, then we can justify why we were pushing them."

People always talk about how if someone doesn't like some aspect of society, they should "go live off the grid" or some other nonsense, THEN we have this issue where it's basically proven that there's no such thing as allowing people to live even slightly off the grid.

The biggest issue a lot of people seem to have with these people is that they don't want to participate 100% in everything that society does.  Without getting into whether all of those things are just or not, doesn't it seem a bit sinister and proving of their point for the government to get so upset when some try to distance themselves?


No, people who want to live away from society do so.  Plenty of people here in Wyoming who do.  These dick knuckles say they want to and then go about being pains in the ass at every turn, because, in reality, they are just another type of attention whore.  I knew people who were part of the Free Men movement in Montana back in the 90s.  They were attention whores, pure and simple.  They blabbed on and on about wanting to be left alone, but would make spectacles of themselves in public every chance they got.  Attention whores, pure and simple, that is what these dumbasses are.
 
2013-04-06 02:02:03 PM

atomicmask: lostcat: atomicmask: lostcat: atomicmask: bighairyguy: I'd like to propose the following procedure for law enforcement:

Officer: Your license and registration please.
Sovereign Citizen: I'm a sovereign citizen and you have no authority over me!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZE!
Sovereign Citizen: EEEEEEAAAAAYYYYYAAAAAAAHHHHHH!
Officer: Your license and registration please.
Repeat as necessary.

Cool, I guess you are ok with the following situation too?

Officer: Papers citizen
Regular person: I was simply walking down the sidewalk, I did nothing wrong!
Officer: TAZZZZZZZZZZZE
Person: AAAHHHHHHH!
officer: papers now citizen!
repeat necessary

And you honestly see this as something we have looming on the horizon?

There's two.

Looming on the horizon? Its here...A cop can stop you while walking and demand to see identification if the thinks a crime has happened. no proof, no call ins, no victims, just "suspects" you may be a criminal.

When was the last time this happened to you, and how is this any different from how things have been historically? I don't remember a time when a cop didn't have the right to stop someone and ask to see identification in the investigation of a crime.

The last time it happened to me was 20 years ago when I was in college, living in a home with rented rooms. One of the tenets was wanted on a warrant, so the cop came to the house and asked to check the ids of all the men present. It didn't bother me one bit. If the guy was wanted, why shouldn't the cops question the people who live at his address and verify that none of the people there are him?

You do know the difference between "searching for a criminal" and "see a man walking and assume hes a criminal" right?


I honestly don't. You have to assume that someone could be a criminal before you decide to question him in your search. Now, if he does something stupid like refuse to show you his ID, or flees, or pulls a gun, then you probably just had your suspicions confirmed. If not for the crime in question, then for some other boneheaded idea that the person thinks they don't have to cooperate with a police investigation because they are special.
 
2013-04-06 02:03:32 PM

atomicmask: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote

FARK is a bunch of earth worms calling the sheep names because he owns a gun and doesn't wanna be eaten, cheering the wolves as they devour the white sheep while booing the wolves when they ate the black one.


No, sheep don't have the dexterity to operate firearms.
 
2013-04-06 02:04:17 PM

atomicmask: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote.


And when the well-armed wolves outgun the sheep and start holding them in sheds by the meat-packing plant?

lostcat: The United States was founded on the idea of a society served and represented by an elected government, not a bunch of individuals acting as their own governments.


"Government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Smart man said that once.
 
2013-04-06 02:04:23 PM

atomicmask: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote

FARK is a bunch of earth worms calling the sheep names because he owns a gun and doesn't wanna be eaten, cheering the wolves as they devour the white sheep while booing the wolves when they ate the black one.


That is so deep and clever...and naive.
 
2013-04-06 02:05:04 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: atomicmask: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote.

And when the well-armed wolves outgun the sheep and start holding them in sheds by the meat-packing plant?

lostcat: The United States was founded on the idea of a society served and represented by an elected government, not a bunch of individuals acting as their own governments.

"Government of the people, by the people, and for the people." Smart man said that once.


Exactly. Not "as many governments as there are people."
 
2013-04-06 02:06:02 PM

lostcat: atomicmask: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote

FARK is a bunch of earth worms calling the sheep names because he owns a gun and doesn't wanna be eaten, cheering the wolves as they devour the white sheep while booing the wolves when they ate the black one.

That is so deep and clever...and naive.


You left out right also.
 
2013-04-06 02:07:35 PM

atomicmask: FARK is a bunch of earth worms calling the sheep names because he owns a gun and doesn't wanna be eaten, cheering the wolves as they devour the white sheep while booing the wolves when they ate the black one.


Amazing how its all about how superior you absolutely have to feel to the rest of us plebes. Just another disenfranchised authoritarian.
 
2013-04-06 02:07:53 PM

atomicmask: lostcat: atomicmask: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote

FARK is a bunch of earth worms calling the sheep names because he owns a gun and doesn't wanna be eaten, cheering the wolves as they devour the white sheep while booing the wolves when they ate the black one.

That is so deep and clever...and naive.

You left out right also.


Oh, you noticed that, did you?
 
2013-04-06 02:08:48 PM

pedrop357: sweet-daddy-2: While I agree these " sovereign " citizens are wrong in their basic thinking, it's the police training that concerns me. At what point does a cop make the distinction between a law abiding citizen, standing on his or her 4th amendment rights, and a law breaking sovereign? Or will he?

That's the point.

These people are 3rd and 4th rate troublemakers, but wow do they do a great job in stirring the left wing authoritarians up.

Groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center consider these guys on par with the 1950s KKK, and the ACLU whips up fury about right wing radical groups.

All the police have to do is slowly conflate standing up for one's rights with "sovereign citizen" and all the previously opposed lefty groups will be quiet when the police abuse someone who dares to talk about constitutional rights or, even worse, "spouts legal doctrine the way anti-government extremists do".  The officer, fearing for his safety...


People scoff ( or may be afraid ) at the idea of our country becoming a police state or under military law.
They seem to think that the USA is to great to fall and have forgotten world history. The bigger you are.....
When Russian troops train on public streets with Chicago PD in crowd control tactics, I have to wonder.
When Tennessee authorities run Police for Profit Patrols, I have to wonder.
When the DHS sets up ID checkpoints 100 miles inland from our borders, I have to wonder.
I rarely post like this because of all the snide haters who come out. Oh well,let them come.
 
2013-04-06 02:08:52 PM

atomicmask: lostcat: atomicmask: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote

FARK is a bunch of earth worms calling the sheep names because he owns a gun and doesn't wanna be eaten, cheering the wolves as they devour the white sheep while booing the wolves when they ate the black one.

That is so deep and clever...and naive.

You left out right also.


Right and Naive are not mutually exclusive.
 
2013-04-06 02:11:02 PM
pedrop is deeply and foully oppressed by being expected to obey the hideous, satanic laws set forth in this document.

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-04-06 02:13:00 PM

iaazathot: No, people who want to live away from society do so. Plenty of people here in Wyoming who do. These dick knuckles say they want to and then go about being pains in the ass at every turn, because, in reality, they are just another type of attention whore. I knew people who were part of the Free Men movement in Montana back in the 90s. They were attention whores, pure and simple. They blabbed on and on about wanting to be left alone, but would make spectacles of themselves in public every chance they got. Attention whores, pure and simple, that is what these dumbasses are.


You're talking to trolls/idiots who think that we should reform society and government every time anyone is born because otherwise it's not fair because that person never had a chance to decide what the laws/rules currently are.

And specifically, you're talking to someone who's convinced that THE LIBERALS are going to take all his guns ANY SECOND NOW.
 
2013-04-06 02:13:12 PM

Kittypie070: pedrop is deeply and foully oppressed by being expected to obey the hideous, satanic laws set forth in this document.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x432]


0/10  Kittypoop

Keep those doggies trollin, Rawhide!
 
2013-04-06 02:13:12 PM

Kittypie070: pedrop is deeply and foully oppressed by being expected to obey the hideous, satanic laws set forth in this document.

[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x432]


I wonder if there are those who see 'We The People' and think of the royal 'We.'

\I personally see it as the Adam We
 
2013-04-06 02:13:42 PM
Shiat, what happened to my damn image??
 
2013-04-06 02:13:55 PM

Satanic_Hamster: And specifically, you're talking to someone who's convinced that THE LIBERALS are going to take all his guns ANY SECOND NOW.


Citation please.
 
2013-04-06 02:14:15 PM
SC's arguing on the internet about how bad the government is, when there wouldn't even be internet without government.
 
2013-04-06 02:14:26 PM

sheep snorter: ...

///Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.


Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.

Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.
 
2013-04-06 02:15:44 PM

sirgrim: SC's arguing on the internet about how bad the government is, when there wouldn't even be internet without government.


Yes there would.  Companies were working on their own inter-networking solutions, and it was private companies that developed and expanded the technology far beyond what it was to what we have today.
 
2013-04-06 02:16:08 PM

atomicmask: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote

FARK is a bunch of earth worms calling the sheep names because he owns a gun and doesn't wanna be eaten, cheering the wolves as they devour the white sheep while booing the wolves when they ate the black one.


You certainly are oppressed. I can only hope that one day, you will overcome this tyranny.
 
2013-04-06 02:16:51 PM

BullBearMS: LOL... Should have read a couple more paragraphs before posting

TFA: "Your antennae should immediately go up," he tells officers. "They refuse to recognize your authority, and that creates a dangerous situation."


More evidence that cops are alien overlords.
 
2013-04-06 02:18:42 PM

pedrop357: Yes there would. Companies were working on their own inter-networking solutions, and it was private companies that developed and expanded the technology far beyond what it was to what we have today.


To interconnect devices invented entirely to support government functions.
 
2013-04-06 02:19:01 PM

Dwedit: You are infringing on my freedom of movement.


Take Ex-lax
 
2013-04-06 02:20:35 PM

GreatGlavinsGhost: Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.


That's not entirely fair, we also had militias under Bill Clinton.

pedrop357: Companies were working on their own inter-networking solutions


"Sorry, Bob, you're AT&T's internet and I'm on Microsoft's, our email isn't compatible."
 
2013-04-06 02:22:05 PM

atomicmask: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner.

Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting that vote


And the interesting irony of that statement is that the rightwing militia soverigns are well-armed wolves. And they occasionally like to "Timothy McVeigh" some unarmed sheep.
 
2013-04-06 02:22:26 PM
please pardon the repost

feedlol.com
 
2013-04-06 02:23:07 PM
pedrop357

You're talking about sovereign citizens like they just want keep to themselves and live in some cave in the wilderness. Where'd you get this impression?

Sovereign citizens are notorious for spurious litigation, making up they're own laws, driving without licenses/plates, fraud, and, bizarrely, thinking that government owes them millions in secret accounts. It seems they want to be "left alone" don't want to "leave alone."
 
2013-04-06 02:23:13 PM

Corn_Fed: And the interesting irony of that statement is that the rightwing militia soverigns are well-armed wolves.


Nonono, they're the sheep! Just listen to them! "Four legs good, two legs bad!"
 
2013-04-06 02:23:15 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: GreatGlavinsGhost: Sovereign = Teabagger under a blah President.

That's not entirely fair, we also had militias under Bill Clinton.

pedrop357: Companies were working on their own inter-networking solutions

"Sorry, Bob, you're AT&T's internet and I'm on Microsoft's, our email isn't compatible."


I know, companies never come up with interoperable protocols/standards on their own.

You can't connect an LG TV to a Samsung DVD player, and someone with Lotus Domino can't send email to someone with Exchange.
 
m00
2013-04-06 02:24:31 PM
To them, a police officer is just a man in a Halloween costume," Finch said

Well, people in Halloween costumes don't take your candy at gunpoint..
 
Displayed 50 of 378 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report