 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
"I was guilty of braking traffic laws..."
We are subjects of brainwashing. Some of us are finding out how to dirty our brains back up. Note, even here, how language manages to make the bad guys into good guys and the good guys into bad guys as a function of how the words are scientifically chosen. Brains are dirty so they need to be washed by the good guys.
If laws meant something other than crimes made legal then every guilty would be paying the same fine, every time, for speeding. If that is not even remotely possible, because of this or that reason, then why spend any time collecting those fines from only a few people who speed?
How about this angle: If an insurance actuary were to find the greatest cause of human injury by other human beings would the concept of preventing that cause of human injury be the first thing on the list of laws to be enforced?
1.
The willful orders to murder innocent people by the millions for the crime of living on a place where oil exists and the murderers desire control of that oil.
2.
Accidents
Can an accident be prevented by a third party?
Can a crime be prevented by a third party?
If there is no victim until someone demands a payment of money from an innocent person, then there was no victim until the innocent person had to pay the "traffic ticket."
How much would it cost, out of the innocent victims pockets, to prevent the willful murder of millions of innocent victims for fun and profit, for oil and legal control of the one money?
It costs less, out of pocket, for the innocent victims to prevent the willful murder of millions of innocent victims for fun and profit, because the way to prevent that is to stop paying Federal Income Tax through The Federal Reserve System, so that way to enforce that law, to prevent those most serious of crimes, is actually a money saver.
Can car accidents be prevented by allowing innocent people, who have not harmed anyone, to randomly pay, out of pocket, a sum of earnings to a gag of highway robbers?
1.
In every case where the Legal Criminals were no longer able to collect money from the innocent victims through fraud and extortion made legal, those crimes were prevented in that way.
2.
In no case has the random payment of money worked to prevent accidents, in fact, the opposite may be as likely as the idea that punishment for risky behavior leads to less risky behavior.
Cops hired by criminals to run confidence schemes on the side of the road.
If instead of a flow of money flowing to the people who hire the Cops to run confidence schemes on the side of the road, there were tickets sent to competitive insurance companies, and your insurance rates go up, for each ticket, based upon increased risk, then that is an entirely different concept, and a concept that remains voluntary.
If someone causing an accident is found to be guilty of causing an accident, then finding out a way to prevent that same thing happening again, could be done, but by who, by what process?
Someone willfully committing a fraud, which is what is happening when COPS are hired to lie, so as to get money from innocent people, then that is a willful crime, not an accident. The COP may be as much a victim as the "speeder," because the actual willful fraud was perpetrated as far back, in this country, as 1788.
Involuntary associations are code words for honest people so that honest people can identify the criminals who willfully create involuntary associations.
We can't even speak to each other. Our language is inculpatory evidence proving a willful crime upon the innocent.
How about this angle: If this land, and these roads, and the air we breath, is ours, not one person owning the roads, and not one group owning the roads, or the oxygen, then the word for that idea, for that concept, can be a handy word.
What is the word for collective ownership?
If oxygen is not collectively owned by everyone, each person having the equal power to breath it, then what power is at work to stop some of the people, some of the time, from breathing, owning, having, using, oxygen?
What word is used to convey the process by which one person, or one group of people, willfully remove access to oxygen from one person or one group of people?
Why is oxygen any different than land?
So, does it make sense, in that light, to see the wisdom of a man made law that says that any human being has a right to travel across the land, as much a right to travel across the land as any other human being, as much a right to breath air as travel across the land, so long as doing so does not steal away the air from someone else, and so long as doing so does not steal away the land from someone else, and what is a road?
What is your definition of a road?
If you define a road as your property, exclusively yours, then anyone on it, without permission from you, is effectively stealing it away from you, which is the same thing as stealing away your oxygen, and therefore you have been injured by that trespasser, in the same way as someone stealing away the air you breath, in principle, if not actually causing you to pass out, and die, from lack of oxygen.
If a criminal chokes you, throttles you by the throat, a little bit, leaving you brain damaged, but alive, then the principle is the same thing as someone removing you from access to the land you must have to survive on Earth.
Which oxygen is yours exclusively?
Which land is yours exclusively?
Who, by what process, is there a determination made as to who is allowed access to which oxygen, and who is allowed access to which land?
If someone stops you on the side of the road, commits a provable fraud upon you, recorded on video tape while the crime of fraud is perpetrated upon you, uploaded to the internet, witnesses are bearing witness to the crime in progress, true authorities who know the agreed upon laws are among the witnesses, and advice is freely given to the victim in the case at the time of the crime in progress, then, under those conditions, does the video now make sense?
Someone stopping you, demanding from you a portion of your life, is someone committing a crime upon you, someone who claims to own you, claims to own the road, claims to own your life, and even if that person is mislead into a false belief that that is not a crime, it remains to be a crime, if English can convey accurate meaning.
Even if the supposed laws supposedly authorizing the COP to stop you, and take from you, are honored by you, which to me is an error because I know where those laws come from, even if you honor those laws, the COP is, by those laws, perpetrating a crime upon you.
Why do they go get a supervisor?
They are misled. They are victim to the crime of fraud perpetrated by a LOWER authority. They are misled to look up to a higher authority when they are actually moving down to a lower authority when they go to find their LEADER who was the one committing the willful fraud, the lie, the twist, of voluntary association into involuntary association.
If the "chain of command" goes all the way up to the Supreme Court, and at no time does any false authority confess guilt of fraud, claiming mistake, or whatnot, then it will be the Supreme Court that openly enforces a crime of fraud on the record.
That is the point.
The Legal Criminals MUST maintain the appearance of honorable, justifiable, agreeable, reasonable, authority, or lawful order, otherwise the fact that they are, at the TOP, nothing but criminals will be exposed to all the victims.
See?
The COP is connected to only a few people at the branches.
The Supreme Court is connected to almost everyone, at the ROOT.
IF the COP can get away with a crime, without anyone defending against it, that is a statistically large amount of crimes, because there are many COPS, and crime pays well by those numbers, as a "piece of the action" flows to the real criminals from all those branches. A penny here, a penny there, from each branch, flowing to the root.
If one COP is successfully defended against, right there on the roadside, then the COP goes to find greener pastures, but the COP is no longer innocent at that point, now the COP has been shown true authority. The COP can no longer hid behind the lies of "doing good" and the COP now has to wrestle with failures to find the worst criminals and hold the worst criminals to account for such things as child sex slavery originating in Washington D.C., serial murder, originating in the same place, mass injury by willful poisoning of the oxygen supply, same source of crime POWER in Washington D.C., so on and so forth.
The root, again, goes back to 1788 in this Country.
I have babbled too long on this one thing, so I will now move on.
"You know the guy they were looking for in the red stocking cap?"
The criminals at WACO, and the criminals in New York during the ongoing 911 crimes, destroy inculpatory evidence. If there is a crime in progress the criminals can be known because their hands are red with blood and they are destroying the victims, removing the victims from existence, because the victims are forms of evidence, so that is a long way from someone not knowing if someone has committed a crime, for lack of evidence, since you, as a juror, have yet to see any evidence at all.
Man made law has proven to be merely fines paid by convicted criminals, where there is an innocent victim, and man made law does work to make crime unaffordable for the criminals in that way, using that due process.
Was Bill Clinton put on trial for the torture and murder at Waco?
Was George W Bush put on trial for the massive murders perpetrated in the still ongoing crimes of 911?
Those crimes are still in progress, so there are people right now hacking away, one of the hackers is named Barry Soetero, aka Osama Obama.
When did "Presidents" start needing aliases? Your time. My time. We are here and now.
1788, the good name of George Washington was (is) a fraud in progress, since the man was a known despot: Generalisimo Washington ruled with an iron fist upon his subjects.
"So, he will be proven guilty in a court of law. But something had to incriminate him. He must have been presumed guilty to be picked up by the Sheriff. How does that work?"
I've written to you about the few cases I have personal experience in Trial by Jury American Style, which is comparable to my understanding of how the design of sortition is supposed to work as a means of putting the blinders on the lady holding the scales. Trial by Jury worked the way it worked in my case, and in my son's case, because my son on one case, and me in another case, were hand picked by the Union lawyers. My latest experience was such that both Union Lawyers rejected my presence in the Jury, while, as far as I could tell, the Union Judge wanted me to be on the Jury. I know, by these experiences, how due process words the way it works, I was there, and I was not merely a passive witness. My viewpoint added to the power being exerted. I was the law in one case. I was excluded from the law by Union Lawyers in another case. My son was the Law in his case, ensuring that innocent people are not abandoned, to the reach of his power, and his power was reason.
What does reason mean when reason is used in the phrase "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"?
Reason does not exist on paper. Paper records reason as a human being was the source of reason, and paper records the event that was an example of reason.
If you read an example of reason, yet you cannot know of reason, that does not make reason unreasonable as a fact, it merely suggests that either you are incapable of reason or the example is not a case of reason, so your example casts reasonable doubt as to that example of reason being a genuine, and not a counterfeit, example of reason.
If I eat one of two apples, on that table, it is reasonable to conclude that there will then be 10 apples on that table, after I eat one of the two apples on that table.
If I eat one of two apples on that table it is reasonable to conclude that there will be only 1 apple left on that table after I eat one of the two apples on that table, so long as other apples are not produced and placed on that table.
If a man is currently perpetrating a crime in front of 12 reasonable people, people with eyes to see the crime in progress, ears to hear the crime in progress, then it is reasonable to conclude that those 12 people are witnesses to the crime in progress, and it is further reasonable to conclude that those witnesses are criminals themselves if they all work to give more innocent victims to that criminal, so as to supply that criminal with a steady supply of innocent victims so long as that criminal remains powerful enough to keep on torturing and murdering the steady stream of innocent victims provided to the criminal by those 12 fellow criminals.
It is reasonable to conclude that 12 witnesses to a criminal perpetrating a crime in progress, are criminals themselves, if it is in their power to stop the crime, at no cost to themselves, such as a push of a button immobilizing the criminal, and instead of pushing the button all 12 witnesses sit and watch, eating popcorn, perhaps even cheering, clapping, applauding, waving flags.
Tonight is another night of questions and answers offered by Frank O'Collins, the person you convict as a liar, and I agree but only if The Bible is, in fact, the word of God, which I don't know, but anyway, I add this to our conversation because Frank uses the word Nihilist.
Do you know the meaning of the word Nihilist?
I think the word means that a person can be in such a state of being that the person either has no moral conscience or that the person has a moral conscience but the person willfully destroys moral conscience in his own mind. In other words a person is either unable or refuses to judge between right and wrong as if there is no such thing as right or wrong.
If there is no such thing as right or wrong, as far as my power of reason goes, then life itself is not good, or right, and therefore ending life is no different than bearing life. A murderer is no different on any scale of right or wrong, since there is no right, and there is no wrong, as parents: according to that type of reason.
When the unreasonable is claimed to be reasonable, how could someone exemplify that process, and is it a due process, as if to say that everyone will be processed in this manner?
If you wanted to remove the moral conscience of everyone alive, every human being, how would you go about accomplishing that goal?
If you figured out a way to remove the moral conscience of every human being alive, and you, and your group of like minded people began to work effectively at doing so, would that be an example of a reasonable due process?
Which steps would be necessary, along the way, to accomplish that goal?
Beat children until they no longer have a working moral conscience?
Make crime legal?
What happened in this Country in 1788?
"Yes, my goal is that you might see Jesus through the eyes of a child…a simple story. Is faith abject believe in falsehood? "
Faith as far as I know for you is a treasure, a fortune, a vast improvement in life on Earth, but those are my words, not yours.
I do not know your faith. I have, so far, no reasonable way of knowing your faith.
It is your faith, for reasons that you know.
Faith, by your definition, is not belief in falsehood, how could it be?
It can't be, by your definition of faith, and an example of how that works may help.
If, for example, I say that I believe that perception exists, and each time I work as hard as I can to expose my belief as being false, every single time, I fail to disprove my belief, then at this time, for me, I cannot know that my belief is false.
I believe that which can be prove to me, even while I question that belief, every time, so far, my belief passes every test.
How about this angle:
If I willfully reject any evidence that tests my belief, and I willfully ignore the obvious reason for me to reject any evidence that tests my belief, then reason, if used, by me, instead of reason being discarded by me, would suggest that my belief is not a belief, it is a willful lie that I borrow, or invent, so as to destroy my own moral conscience.
What is the source of reason?
What is the source of moral conscience?
If I listen to reason, and if I listen to moral conscience, where is the source of those powers over me?
If I look for the source of power, and there is so far no way for me to perceive it, to focus attention on it, to measure it, at the source of it, then I cannot know it, I cannot know that source, so far, and therefore it, the source of what I decide to listen to, the source of reason that I decide to listen to, the source of moral conscience that I decide to listen to, remains to be a source that I CANNOT KNOW.
Do I believe that there is a source of reason, and do I believe that there is a source or moral conscience?
Is it reasonable to claim that there is no such source, that there is no such thing as a source of reason, and is it reasonable to claim that there is no such source of moral conscience?
How does a human being become convinced in the need to destroy (or not listen to) reason, and moral conscience?
Is reason not the same thing as moral conscience?
If I knew, without any reasonable doubt, that The Bible was written by God, or The Devil, then that would be my condition of life at that time, a knowing, and where would I find that power, since I do not have that power now?
I DO NOT KNOW.
If you know, then you know, and if you don't know where you get that power to know, exactly, but you know better than I do, then it stands to reason that you can help me know what you know, eventually.
I believe that you can help me know better, more specifically, more accurately, more precisely, with greater clarity, what is, and what is not, the source of reason, which to me is the same source as the source of moral conscience.
If the goal is knowing better, in my view, I have to know where the source of reason and where the source of moral conscience is, and I can go there, and I can know better once I get there, or, again, me with my scales, I can move in that direction rather than moving on the opposite direction.
A nihilist may claim that the way to move closer to reason is to move further away from moral conscience.
I believe, so far, that that is not true.
"So, my goal, my goal is that you might have eyes that see and ears that hear and seek as a little child. Yes, God knows where to find you, and He already has. Did he not send me to speak of Him?"
English is problematic, this I can measure, and belief in what I can't measure is not required, not needed, not even useful, since belief can be confused with gambling, on an on, proving the point. The point being: English is problematic.
I can trust in your belief as if it were my own until proven otherwise by reason, or moral conscience, as I listen, and listen, and listen, for information that comes from a source of information whereby things "ring true," or make sense, or reason out, or add up, or work out, as pieces fit, and the puzzle takes form, and light is shown in the dark room, and dragons turn out to be little, pathetic, men behind curtains.
I can't know what you know, not yet, it is measurably not possible at this time, but not for lack of trying.
God is a him? We went this way before, and again: English is problematic.
Joe, God is righteous. God is holy. God is Just. God is a consuming fire. We are not. Because He is, all sin receives its just reward. What is the reward for sin? The lake of fire is the reward for sin. All sin will receive its reward there. God loves you Joe. That is why God took your reward upon Himself. It was the only way for justice to be served in the face of righteous holiness.
I see little, or no, reason in arguing about such words, in English, where you offer me something I see as being routine brainwashing, carrot and stick, man made falsehoods designed to remove the moral conscience, the power of reason, from the innocent targeted victims. That is what I see in your words above, so there is a measurable problem where you are intending to help me and I see instead a stack of symbols arranged in such a way as to exemplify a road sign that leads people off a cliff to their doom.
I've spoken about this analogy of a road sign before, so as to remove you from the viewpoint, and so as to allow us both to look at the road sign as it exists on that road.
I do not see any need to argue. If you have a message, and the message intends to help me, then that message, in English, is working in the opposite direction on me, at this time. I can explain in great detail as to how I reason out that message, you offer to me, as I listen to whatever POWER is the POWER of reason, from wherever the POWER of reason comes from, whatever the source of the POWER of reason, I listen to it, I am keen to hear the message of reason, and what I hear, may be false, I may have the wrong source in mind, who knows?
I don't know.
So, which paper is the authority? The law code? Or the document that is to be produced so as not to be assumed guilty? Is it the law code written upon a piece of paper that sets itself up as judge and jury? Is that what you are trying to get me to see regarding the Bible? It is printed words on paper setting itself up as the authority?
No, I don't think so, I think there are problems, including problems rooted in the English language, but many problems contributing to failures in reaching the goal of accurate communication.
I tell my wife, for example, that your POWER to know this thing that may be called a Spiritual Connection to God, in English, is what it is, so you are not an example of a person claiming that the proof of fact that The Devil did not write the bible is ONLY the words saying so in The Bible.
The proof of anything is not belief. Proof is proof. Again English appears to be problematic, and exemplary at the same time. In other words English exemplifies itself as a problem.
How about a solution?
If I ask two people the same question I can have competitive examples of the answers.
Problem:
Did the Devil write The Bible.
1.
No, and I can prove it beyond any reasonable doubt, right here, on page such and such, right here in The Bible, there is the true answer. Next question.
2.
I believe in Jesus Christ, and my belief occurred over time, this way, and that way, here and here, and I don't have absolute proof, and that is the point.
For you the problem is solved. For me the problem is not solved. What about the person who answers with answer 1 above?
I trust that you are not a person seized with what I call Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question, because I trust that you are honest.
You could be a complete fabrication of some very sophisticated computer program, for all I know.
You could be an Angel from Hell, for all I know.
I base my trust of you on that source, where I can't even find the source, of reason and moral conscience, which I think is the same source, and again English appears to be problematic, as your words continue to measure up as being someone who is, as I am, questioning.
Questioning?
Listening to reason?
Listening to moral conscience?
Is that not the precise opposite of Absolute Abject Belief in Falsehood Without Question?
So you believe that you are possessed of something powerful, having something I do not have, a closer spiritual relationship with the son of God, and therefore a closer spiritual relationship with God, compared, side by side, with me.
Congratulations, that is worth emulating, a fine example of human life, something exemplary, something I can work at becoming.
Fair enough?
I ask Jesus now. I don't just ask God. I don't just ask my old friend Hank, or my Dad, or my Mom now, or may Aunt Mary, or Nanny, or anyone, please, anyone, help me, please. I now ask Jesus too.
So far I have not moved to the better place you have moved to but not for lack of trying, and if it is fair enough, then at some point we can go into greater detail concerning the reasons I think some of your words, in English, move in the wrong direction.
I don't know. I may be precisely moving in the wrong direction.
For now, it may be a good idea to move onto present matters concerning current information involving COPS and ROBBERS, here on Earth, and how better to know how to avoid all of it, or avoid as much of it as possible, while, at the same time, not abandoning the innocent victims currently being destroyed brutally by their tormentors if it is in someones power, on Earth, to do something, anything, to help those innocent people avoid their brutal tormentors.
If
I believe that it does help to publish words, even though we are using the problematic language known as English, I still think it helps the innocent victims avoid their brutal tormentors, to write, and publish, words as signs on the road.
Which signs?
I do this:
1.
End the FED
2.
End the IRS
3.
Bring the Troops Home (look in the mirror)
4.
Do so by July 4th, 2013. Start now, finish early.
I may be working in the wrong direction.
I think I am listening to reason.
Where is the source of reason?
Is there a way to focus our combined viewpoints?
Where in The Bible does it suggest that Ending the FED is a good idea?
No where? So I'm wrong?
I can play the guitar instead of going in the wrong direction with my sign making?
Is the Creator the authority? If the Creator is righteous, holy, and just is not what that Creator writes upon a piece of paper Righteous, Holy and Just as well? The Creator Himself took your wages of sin upon Himself to delivery you from the paycheck due each time the sin time clock is punched.
So we may part ways. That can happen. I so not reason that out well. I reason that out as a sign on the road that is inaccurate at best. Is it worth the effort to accurately identify the source of my error in reasoning?
If a criminal writes words upon a piece of paper, are those words then the transport of crime in progress? Satan has written all over God’s Creation, “mine, mine, mine.” But the final choice is yours, Joe, as God says, will you be mine instead? Will you come as a child and believe My Word?
Ambiguity is not reasonable to me. Specifics are reasonable to me. Focus of attention to a fine point unto whatever is to be known, perceived, precisely, to me, is the road to reason, so that collection of words above, to me, are just so many words, in English, those words point in a general direction. If those words point to one specific collection of English symbols, known as The King James Version of The Bible, then there are specific challenges, questions, concerning English and King James and the specific people involved in the creation of English as a language, and the interpretation of other works that were interpreted and then published in that version of that book.
If it is a good idea to look specifically at that English version of that one book, then are there things I am not supposed to look at, because you say that the person offering historical records involving the publishing of that book, in English, is a liar?
Even if I agree to shoot the messenger, this guy named Frank, and he is now spirited off to the memory hole, the information he discovered, from other sources, remains to be either looked at, or spirited off into the memory hole.
We, if you agree, we can just as easily discard any references to any sources of information, and we can discuss the concept of original sin, and human responsibility, and human accountability, based upon our own individual power to know what individual responsibility, and individual accountability means, with, or without the POWER of God working miracles.
A list is what I mean to say:
1.
We can discuss one on one, to compare our individual, separate, viewpoints as they exist, without reliance upon references written on paper.
2.
We can discuss the relative merits of the words written on paper from various sources.
3.
We can discuss the relative merits of the people who wrote the original copies of the words written on paper or written on the skin of murdered children.
4.
We can discuss the relative merits of the people who translated the original copies of the words written on paper onto other paper.
5.
We can discuss the relative merits of the people discovering words on papers, or words on the skins of murder children.
6.
We can discuss methods of cooking meals.
7.
We can't do all things at once.
God has explained everything there and not one jot and not one tittle will pass away without being fulfilled.
As far as you are concerned that is true. As far as I am concerned that is ambiguous to the point of meaninglessness.
Between your perception and my perception on this specific thing, that quote just quoted, there is a gap, and the building of a foundation from which to then build a bridge of agreement between my perception, and your perception, is possible according to my belief.
I know that the gap exists, and I don't have to rely upon belief to know that the gap exists, and I can offer much detail in English words, of my own invention, and much detail in English words from other sources, if I go down the road that ends at a gap, and I then work on building that specific bridge.
What can I say in response to this:
God has explained everything there and not one jot and not one tittle will pass away without being fulfilled.
I don't know.
So, I asked you to watch a children’s drama about Jesus. Hoping that maybe, those words there and those pictures there might give a glimmer of what I try to explain ever so poorly.
While watching the video I could have stopped it, quoted from it, and worked in great detail to convey my perspective concerning what was specifically said, or specifically done, as a challenge to you. I challenge the concept of original sin, and the concept of human responsibility, and human accountability, with, or without miracles performed by God, Jesus, or anyone. Individual human thought, and individual human action is what it is and then there are other concerns concerning how those individual human thoughts and those individual human actions combine to form a power that is greater or lesser than the linear sum of each individual thought and action.
I can go into great detail.
To reply generally I can say, with confidence, that I do not know what you believe.
If I do not know what you believe, then wherever I get my power of reason from, the right source, or the wrong source, I fail to reason, in any way, a belief based upon something I have no power to know. In fact, when I begin to reason out the concept of original sin, and the concept of individual responsibility, and the concept of individual accountability, and the concept of human connections to other humans, I find your words in English to be sources of potential trouble.
I can go into great detail.
I can say, many times, that I do not know, up until a time in which I can say, accurately, that I do know.
There will be a day when a mark on the hand or forehead will be required to buy or sell. If one does not have that mark, they will be punished.
That looks like a source of trouble to me, along the same lines I've been reasoning out, thinking, working on, that looks like a very misguided arrangement of English symbols, and I can go into great detail, or I can honestly say that I do not know what you believe in reference to those specific words in English.
Getting rid of the opposition beforehand?.
I see no mystery in reference to criminals, they all do the same things.
There is no mystery.
Criminals lie.
Criminals threaten.
Criminals are aggressively violent upon the innocent.
How is that ever a mystery?
A victim is victim to a lie?
A victim is victim to a threat?
A victim is victim to aggressive violence perpetrated by a criminal?
What is the need for, the demand for, secrets?
we will not take the mark
Which mark? Do you have a social security number?
Do you have a drivers license number?
If you do, and it is strictly voluntary, then it is no different than someone wanting to save time by having a bar code voluntarily tattooed on their hand. Where is the victim of such a crime if it is strictly voluntary?
If, on the other hand, your social security number is a way that the criminals tag you, and you are a victim, and the criminals then take from you because you are a thing according to them, and you are thing number such and such, then that is exactly that, no more, and no less.
The mark, if it is criminal, if that is the problem, criminals mark their victims, is here, has been here, already.
If the criminals grow more powerful, because the victims are working harder to have more things for the criminals to steal, then it does not take a prophet to realize what happens down that road.
Patrick Henry spelled it out well enough.
"But bear being a pig wants Joe to listen to all of them."
Frank offers remedy.
If Cooper does not, then that it is reasonable to know the difference, at least based upon the source form which my power of reason is gained.
I started listening to Frank at the time he recorded his first phone call sessions dated as:
11/11/2010 09:00 PM EST
Back then he used labels such as Jesuits, Khazarian Parasites, and The Roman Cult to aim the finger of guilt at those people in those groups as being the source of so much, or the greatest amount of, human misery on Earth.
My words.
Now Frank, jumping head to the present recordings, and the live phone messages, I've attended 2 now, now Frank uses the word Nihilists.
Which words, which labels, are used by Cooper?
Which person, which human being, is more powerful, at any given moment, than another human being?
I can't write myself a check for as much money as everyone else combined and claim my check to be good, and get away with it.
The people running The International Monetary Fund (not the label, not the legal fiction, the actual people) run The Federal Reserve, and The Dollar Hegemony, and The World Reserve Currency, and they can, someone can, some number of people can, agree to write that check, and they have wrote that check, and they are buying World War III.
I can't buy World War III.
Do I have the power to opt out of World War III?
Do I have the power to help anyone opt out?
The criminals employ deceit, threats, and violence.
Have I ever lied to you?
Have I ever threatened you?
Have I ever caused you physical harm?
I can turn that around.
I trust that you have never lied to me, willfully, and even if some of the information that you offer to me happens not to be totally true, I have the power that I use to question information sufficient for me to have a power of defense against falsehood.
It matters not if the falsehood arrives in by brain from the inventor of the lie or just a messenger transporting the lie.
I must have some power, in me, to guard against lies.
I trust that you have never threatened me. If your words convey a threat, whereby my failure to believe as you do will result in my end in a lake of fire, then to me that could be seen as a threat, and to you that information could be merely a fact, based upon your belief. To me it is something I just don't know, therefore it does not work as a threat, or a promise, it is merely ignorance on my part, and it is not willful ignorance since I am actively, willfully, working at knowing.
I can ask Jesus right now. Tomorrow. I get the same answer.
So far.
I trust that you are incapable of doing me any physical harm so long as I am not attacking you or your family.
The Golden rule is not merely words written in English.
I am going to rest abit before answering your latest welcome reply which was separated from the first one because the forum wouldn't let you edit. It may be tomorrow. I am playing Mom Taxi all week long, and I am only home for a couple of hours this afternoon before I have to start driving again. The youngest has a 9pm baseball game tonight as well.
I too, or me too, playing the part of taxi.
Same boat on time too, I want to get more work done on The Daily Paul, someone is discussing a topic with me, and I have that new project to work on with the 1776 magazine.
Your welcome perspective helps, please know that much.