Thursday, January 22, 2009

Any Volunteers for National Service?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/708

8 comments:

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

Mary AbleDanger said:
January 22, 2009

Socrates Lipstick Fools Know Both Sides? Oink, Oink!!

Cain,

Like anything there are pro's and cons to all arguments and perspectives. No such thing as a free lunch.

Just more Bandaid to Braintumour 'Programs' going around in circles; and failing to address the root causes; cause solving silly easily solveable problems, will then remove those 'problems' from the paradigm meme landscape; and the change that could come, or be created by new ways of being (and I mean radically new ways of being, and the excitement and adventure of experimenting therewith, etc... but that's way too threatening for most people.

Anyway, on this 'national service' concept.

My thoughts: If I were President

Here my brief overview of Constitutional Republic National Service

Voluntary National Service Corps 'voluntary' meaning:

Two Tax Systems; One 'demockery' and one 'Republic'

All citizens who want to live in a Republic, demonstrate their commitment thereto, as follows:

National Service of 2 years: 1 year Police, 1 year Military, or vice versa. Military and Police focus is on training of Militia principles, and Constitutional Republic Investigating Skills.

Completion you must know what it means to be in a militia; and you must know how to do a Forensic Police Investigation.

Now comes the interesting Part:

Any corporation that hires you as an employee, gets a tax deduction, for the number of employees they employ who are 'Republic citizens'. Eg 40%, they get 40% tax deduction. In return therefore, these employees pledge to serve a maximum of 6 weeks a year in a Police, Border Patrol, or any kind of Investigative Type of Dept. that requires Part Time help on investigations or so. This helps to keep goverment Depts small as possible, and where 'overloaded' can immediately call up for 'temporary reinforcements' who are trained on basics.

Citizens honouring their service commitments, pay zero taxes, as an honourable 'constitutional republic citizen'.

'Citizens' who prefer to practice the 'Let George Do It' type of 'citizenship' are under no obligation to serve, they can simply go along with their current version of 'normal' oligarch demockery, and happily continue dreaming it's a 'democracy'... blah, blah, blah....

Oh yes, and if I become President, those who choose to 'Let George Do It' type citizenship, LOSE THEIR ABILITY TO VOTE. Just so you know, should you have wanted to vote for me. If you want to vote for me, you better make damn sure you know whatou voting for.. ;-) Capiche Amigo??? ;-)

Mary AbleDanger
ps: Just so you know, I only want one persons vote

Timothy said...

There are no pros and cons in all arguments and perspectives. For example, there are no pros in killing innocent human beings at all. It's immoral period. You seem to believe in moral relativism. I reject moral relativism completely. I believe in moral absolutes.

By Timothy

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

There are no pros and cons in all arguments and perspectives.

Okay, in your interpretation of reality; there arn't. In my interpretation of reality there are; however, when i choose between loving my interpretation of reality and loving you; my interpretation of reality ain't at the top of my priorities. Loving you is.

For example, there are no pros in killing innocent human beings at all.

What about if Jon wanted to see what it was like to kill an innocent person, so put an ad in the newspaper, saying exactly that. Jon2 answers the ad, cause he is sick to death of life, wants to see what it will be like to die, by someone who is willing to give him a train ticket bullet to the next trip in his journey.

So Jon discusses with Jon2 that he really wants to do this; and then they do it.

You would be surprised what some people 'want' to 'experiment' with in this life. Now my view is who the fuck do I think I am to tell any two people who consensually agree to any behaviour together, and do so in their own privacy, that they should not do so?

If Hannibal the cannibal finds Joe Jops who wants to play a much more active conscious role in the food chain, and wants to be remembered as Hannibals prime steak chops; and asks Hannibal to be on his menu; and it occurs according to Hannibal and Joe Jops consensual agreement; I am quite okay; with cannibalism. It is their lives, and their choices.

If little boys want to go to war, and experience what going to 'war' is, fine. I always thought if I was President of the NWO, I'd designate a large piece of land, say Australia, or Africa, or wherever, and the little boys who want to go and play at being deceitful, deceptive murderers, and see who was the best soldiers, blah, blah, could go to 'Soldier land' and go and play soldier.

Sorta like going to a Real Adventure Park, but you may not get out. But you went there cause you wanted to; kind of thing.

I mean these are just vague ideas, to create different ways of being, and different paradigms, that are not focussed on MURDER.INC. and EGO.INC. and GREED.INC.

It's immoral period.

'Immoral'? Who is 'it'; or are you saying 'I am immoral period'?

You seem to believe in moral relativism.

I believe I love you, even when I am furious with you; as for moral relativism; is that you name? ;-)

I reject moral relativism completely. I believe in moral absolutes.

As I said, I believe in loving you; the rest are theories, and ideas, opinions and perspectives... whether they work or not depends on what you call 'work'....

Do you know what I want to do to you? Is that why you avoid meeting me?

Timothy said...

As I have stated, there are no pros and cons in all perspectives. Soem concepts are so abhorent that there is no justification to support them at all. You examples are really silly. First, even if someone places an ad in the paper about death, you still don't kill innocent human beings. Sorry, but we should perseve life and not treat it as trash.

Not to mention that your example of Hannibal proves to me that life isn't something to be toiled away. I wouldn't respond to some ad about a suicide wish at all. Also, you omit examples about mass murderers being wrong in executing a high number of innocent people. That proves that killing innocent people is immoral, because life is vital including that innocent life merits nothing for death. I don't care if people have consensual agreements or not, murdering innocent people is still wrong.

It's not fine to endorse wanton war. It's fine to expose that. We have laws in America to stop murder. If I see a crime, I have every right to prevent that crime from happening or use law enforcement to prevent that from happening as well. Moral relativism means that a person rejects right and wrong and see justifications in all concepts. Killing innocent human being is immoral as I have stated. These are my views.

By Timothy

Andrea Muhrrteyn said...

As I have stated, there are no pros and cons in all perspectives.

No, I guess there arn't any pros in getting a multiple orgasm blowjob, and there aren't any cons's either (like knowing that only a few women even have an interest in giving the men they love one... but I guess you prefer not to get blowjobs)... Anyway, what I am attempting to say, is when you are willing to give me an example of a perspective, the circumstances, etc; then I quite possibly may agree with you, in that case; but if you prefer remaining vague and fundamentalist, about your vagueness... whatever

Soem concepts are so abhorent that there is no justification to support them at all.

You examples are really silly.

If supporting and endorsing people to be free to do whatever they want, as long as it is consensual, with their lives, is 'silly', then I guess I am silly.

First, even if someone places an ad in the paper about death, you still don't kill innocent human beings.

If someone wants to be killed, by someone else; then I don't see why I should demand they live, if they want to die. Who the fuck do you think you are, if someone wants to die, and someone else will help them, and you stick your nose in their goddamn fucking business? Do you think you are God?

Sorry, but we should perseve life and not treat it as trash.

AS far as I am concerned about 80% of the worlds population is brain dead anyway, walking corpses, and have no chance of ever coming close to being 'trailer trash'; but that's my perspective. I see no reason to go about attempting to preserve their lives, when all they do is breed and breed and breed, as if they live on a fucking flat planet. Fuck them. If they can't live in harmony, use their gifts of reason, then no big deal; I shall fuck off, and make some more room for htem to do their goddamn fucking slave and cannon fodder breeding.

Not to mention that your example of Hannibal proves to me that life isn't something to be toiled away.

I don't know what you mean.

I wouldn't respond to some ad about a suicide wish at all.

I would. Why bother and sit around and wait for someone to pitch up, when they appear to have no intention to do so.

Also, you omit examples about mass murderers being wrong in executing a high number of innocent people. That proves that killing innocent people is immoral, because life is vital including that innocent life merits nothing for death. I don't care if people have consensual agreements or not, murdering innocent people is still wrong.

It doesn't appear as if you are interested in a conversation of enquiry; rather it appears as if you are interested in preaching about what is right and wrong. If you aren't interested in my perspective, that's okay. I dont have the need to thrust it down your throat, nor for it to be right; just a fucking enquiry.

It's not fine to endorse wanton war. It's fine to expose that. We have laws in America to stop murder. If I see a crime, I have every right to prevent that crime from happening or use law enforcement to prevent that from happening as well. Moral relativism means that a person rejects right and wrong and see justifications in all concepts. Killing innocent human being is immoral as I have stated. These are my views.

You have laws in america to stop blowjobs too. Best you wait till they are abolished before you go and get yourself one.

If your intention is to fucking believe anything a goddamn fucking lawyer told you is 'the law' and is 'against the law' -- go ahead.

I have NOT MET ONE FUCKING LAWYER IN MY ENTIRE LIFE WHO TOLD ME THE TRUTH; so why the fuck should I believe them when they say anything is against the law? Who the fuck made htem God? Who the fuck made 'the law'?

So, when I meet a lawyer who can look me in the eye, and tell me the truth; then I am more than fucking happy to seriously consider his perspective on 'the law'; but until then it is my perspective that LAWYERS ARE NOTHING BUT PEOPLE WHO USE 'THE LAW' AS THEIR FUCKING FINANCIAL FEEDING TROUGH; JUST LIKE BANKERS USE THE FEDERAL RESERVE AS THEIRS, AND POLITICIANS USE TAXPAYERS AS THEIRS.

In the absence of a FREE AND FAIR TRIAL, ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY IS GODDAMN INNOCENT, and GUILTY, THE ENTIRE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE IS JUST A GODDAMN FUCKING JOKE -- IT' MEANS SWEET FUCK ALL, EXCEPT BEING A POLITICAL POLICE THOUGHT CRIME SYSTEM OF SOCIAL CONTROL FOR THE ELITES..

Now tell me in what fucking county, state or country, and in what fucking courtroom on this planet, can ANYONE GET A FREE AND FAIR TRIAL????

Is it possible to get a free and fair trial, when the court does not allow you to tell your emotional, psychological, and spiritual truth?, because their ego's and the ego-system of court procedure (just like the Infallible Popes, and Monarchy from the past) have a right not to be offended?

So what is the point of sitting in a fake court room, that demands you lie, and crawl up the Judge's ass, to be even remotely given the opportunity of them giving a flying fuck to listen to you? Then I'd rather have a Stalin Tyrant, whom I can say to: Czar Stalin, do me a favour, the day I piss you off, and you have had enough of me; I got no problem with that; you got my permission (I'll give it in writing) to put a bullet htrough my brain.

So, tell me what you mean by 'innocent'; cause I can tell you, unless you crawl up these ego-freaks asses till you tickle their tonsils, they ain't interested in Justice. Not the Supreme Court of the USA, or any other nation, and definitely not those fucking political expedeient new world fucks at the 'Criminal Court in the Hague' -- you'd be quicker getting a fucking faxed response from the Devil, than those fuckwits being interested in 'the law'.

Those are a few of my views, at 18:41 hrs on January 25, 2009.

Timothy said...

This is an interesting response by you.

Timothy said...

Now, here is my reply:

There is only one reality. There is no pros and cons in murder, rape, etc. You citing extremely inplausible hypotheticals is not a true refutation at all. I don't follow vagueness. You may reject my words as vagueness, but that isn't the case. Also, you try to equate pregnancies and your anti-population agenda with this argument (when it has nothing to do with moral absolutes at all).

Also, people have every right to set limits on behavior. People literally can't do what they want anyway since we are bodily limited in what we can and can't do (by the principles of Nature). Also, killing innocent human beings don't have a right to be killed. You can it playing God all you want. Yet, I will maintain that some things are immoral. You don't since you embrace a prizm of relativism. Now, if evil is in front of face, I have every right to oppose evil by doing good. Also, it's not playing God by opposing innocent people dying. It's playing God for people to kill innocent people in the first place.


Sorry, I don't follow your dehumanization proposal. All human life have value. I'm pro-life for a reason. You can make think otherwise at all on that issue. That is why we have a responsibility to help other humans to better their own conditions. If we can't do it in foreign lands, we should at least do it in our own backyards. That's my philosophy of promoting life not destroying it. Also, many great intelligent leaders rose out of the greatest poverty. That existed throughout human history. I won't forget the oppressed, the poor, or all of humanity at all. You will and I won't.

I do have great inquiry. I don't accept your version of life. See, you don't want inquiry about the beauty of life, the purpose of life, and the justice of life. You just want to be limited into your pro-population control, pro-eugenics perspective.

Not to mention that your sexual example is silly since moral laws deal with lying, murder, rape, and a wide vareity of things (not just about sex). See, morality is about perserving innocent people their individual rights. When you violate individual rights by harming people that is immoral. That is why laws exist. They exist to protect people. Now, immoral laws do exist and they ought to be opposed. That doesn't mean we act like beasts and follow no code of conduct whatsoever.

We follow a code of conduct.

Timothy said...

Also, real laws are bigger than some lawyer. Corrupt lawyers exist. That is why we have the right to protest and make changes to our government. If that doesn't work, we have every right to make other changes to our society. No one worships lawyers. Also, laws existed from cultures and many American laws are based on Judeo-Christianity philosophies. Also, being innocent means you haven't committed a crime or you haven't violated moral principles (like murder, rape, injustice, etc.). No one says trust a lawyer 100% of the time. I'm saying it's better to do good and help improve the world then cry and woan about moral relativism (or about how suicide and murder are great, which is a lie).