?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I despise Michelle Malkin, this Bill O'Reilly WANNABE, just as much as I despise Ann Coulter!!

The Anne Coulter link stolen from [info]jblaque



Playgirl's Crazy Life


Join The NRA

"The Right Of The People To Keep and
Bear Arms, Shall Not Be infringed."

Comments

( 17 comments — Leave a comment )
darkphoenixrisn
Jun. 26th, 2007 09:43 pm (UTC)
Malkin, O'Reilly, and Coulter all have one thing in common: they're mean spirited people.
playgirl
Jun. 26th, 2007 09:52 pm (UTC)
I honestly believe they have a liver for a heart!
shadowy_poet
Jun. 27th, 2007 12:00 am (UTC)
Malkin, Coulter, and O'Reilly are perfect examples of how willing the "media" in this country are to lead the march towards fascism in America as long as there are ratings and money in it for them.

All three of them remind me of the Sinclair Lewis quote:

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
playgirl
Jun. 27th, 2007 07:51 pm (UTC)
…I’m afraid I’m contributing to it all, because I totally hooked on watching them! I have learned a great lesson just by watching these ruthless people, and that’s that not all men and women have a conscience, and often times are downright wicked and don’t give a damn who they ruin, just to climb up the ladder of success!

The Lewis quote is most befitting for all of them! I forgot to add Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh to the list!
tomcatshanger
Jun. 27th, 2007 02:20 am (UTC)
Ah yes, because her unability to talk over the host of the program makes her very fucked up.
playgirl
Jun. 27th, 2007 07:36 pm (UTC)
True, and I sure would like to personally pat Chris Matthews back for a job well done! :o)
inspectorjury
Jun. 27th, 2007 05:06 am (UTC)
Screw them! What do you think of me? That's what's important!!!
playgirl
Jun. 27th, 2007 07:33 pm (UTC)
Yup! SCREW THEM! I think you're THE man, and that's what's important!! :o)
tigron_x
Jun. 27th, 2007 06:30 am (UTC)
Malkin sounds like she is voicing an allegation from a book, but the host didn't let her finish a single sentence; not to mention that the host was asking a journalist to make a personal opinion on something she seems to be investigating. Basically, all she has is a lead and no facts, and I think she has a right to investigate anything she likes regardless of how taboo one thinks the subject matter is. We have a right to a free press.

Personally, I think it's a tough question, but the story is irrelivant and is just a way to get attention. I mean seriously, who care if Kerry shot himself or not? Her story is obviously all about getting ratings. Which brings me to...

Anne Coulter, who I have no problem with. Actually, I find her to be funny. She is pretty witty, and I think she uses shock value to grab people's attention in order to bring awareness to certain issues. And she has a lot of good points from what I've seen.

However, all in all, all this crap is just entertainment and part of the smoke and mirrors used to steer the masses from the true important issues plaguing our nation and our world. These people think they're helping; they think they're righteous in their actions. But, they're part of the system without even knowing it. People listen to them. But really... they're just doing nothing but bitching. :\

Their 'news' won't change a single damn thing. They just perpetuate the system, and I doubt they're even aware of it -- most likely because they're blinded by the lime light.

Oh well, what can you do but turn off the tv and pick up a book like Blacks Law Dictionary and start deciphering all the statutes that are imposed upon us? Maybe then people will wake the fuck up and realize how Uncle Sam is the one pulling our strings. The strings we've attached to our selves.

I mean... did you know the word "Application" in blacks law dictionary is defined as: to beg, plead petition, implore, entreat, ask or request?

Or "Sumbission": to agree to bend to anothers will or to leave to another's discretion.

So what is it that you think you're actually 'legally' saying when you go somewhere to Sumbit an Application. Or when you 'register' your automobile at the DMV?

Registration: Histroically registration was the act of a ships Captain signing over his vessel and all chattel contents to the harbour master for safe keeping. If you register something, are signing over ownershup to whoever is registering it.

So who do you really thinks owns your land, your car, and all the other property you've ever registered?

I know I went off on a tangent here, but that's what pisses me off. Not some journalists who are doing whatever it takes to get paid while trying to seem important.
playgirl
Jun. 27th, 2007 07:31 pm (UTC)
But the book made no such allegation. She is the one who chose to interpret as she wanted, and was the very first to ever insinuate such a vicious lie! I’ve seen her long enough to see she’s a ruthless, vindictive gossipmonger about many! She’s rude, crude and rude, and could care less who she hurts, in hopes to become famous. She is nothing but a ruthless copycat SNOB, who tries her best to copy Bill O’Reilly.

Sure there’s freedom of speech, and the right to free press, but to insinuate that a man shot himself on purpose to get the Purple Heart is inexcusable!

Did you know that my friend Norma and I once had a terrible crush on this odious man??!! One day, we both looked at the man’s eyes and saw pure evil, and that’s the day our little crush flew away with the dust!

So who do you really thinks owns your land, your car, and all the other property you've ever registered?

All I know is that I DO NOT owe my soul to the company store; they went and TOOK it without my ever realizing when, where or how they did!! :o)
tigron_x
Jun. 28th, 2007 03:28 am (UTC)
I don't think a man would shoot himself to get a Purple Heart, but I could see how a man would shoot himself to get out of Vietnam since an injury would pose as a ticket to get out of there. And, in the process the person would have gotten a Purple Heart. Plus, it's not like it is unheard of for a soldier to desert his post. So I can see how her allegations would be plausible. However, it holds no water without facts, so most likely she's just stirring the waters with speculation in order to get attention.

And if her reputation is what you say it is, then I wouldn't pay any attention to her. Why pay any mind to fools?

As for Bill O'Reily, he's in the same boat. He's nothing but a talk show host that presents public opinions for his target market, and we call it news. But democracy doesn't work. Democracy means the rule of the mob. And, it didn't work for Rome, so why would it work for us?

These shows basically do nothing more than promote collectivism through Public Relations.

And, did you know that 'Public Relations' was a term coined to take the place of the term "propaganda"? Because if people knew it was propaganda, then they'd stop watching.
donchep
Jun. 28th, 2007 02:56 pm (UTC)
I agree with what you said about most of these so called pundits acting with shock value but :

Anne Coulter, who I have no problem with. Actually, I find her to be funny. She is pretty witty, and I think she uses shock value to grab people's attention in order to bring awareness to certain issues. And she has a lot of good points from what I've seen.




I'm curious. Based on what you said, what issue has Ann Coulter been bringing to everyone's attention with her "wit" when she called John Edwards a faggot and expressed through her so called sense of humor that he should have been killed in a terrorist attack?

Also I'm not sure what version of Black's law dictionary you are using but the definitions I'm reading are very different and make more sense contextually.

application: A putting to, placing before, preferring a request or petition to or before a person. The act of making a request for something. A petition. The use or disposition made of a thing. A bringing together, in order to ascertain some relation or establish some connection; as the application of a rule or principle to a case or fact. etc.

as far as submit goes if you are going to use Black's law Dictionary you also need to include the clauses that work within the proffered context. The clause you omitted "to propound; to present for determination" makes so much more sense in this context."

If you submit an application you are presenting a petition for determination based on the definitions in Black's law Dictionary. Whether it's a job application, driver's license, etc.


So when I "register" my child for school what does that mean? :)


Enough with the kookiness, ok? :)
tigron_x
Jun. 28th, 2007 08:22 pm (UTC)
Re: Anne Coulter
Not to take politics too seriously. And, she was being audacious. It was a joke. She is an intelligent woman. But don't get me wrong. That doesn't mean I agree or approve of everything she does or says. She does not represent me or my beliefs. She is her own being and I can respect her for that. She's rebellious. And I like that.


Re: Registration
It means they have ownership over your child's person and thus can command the child to do what they believe is best for the child in respect to governing statute. But in reality, a child is his/her own authority. So, by sumbiting an application to register your child to the school you have put your child into contract with the school, and have given up his/her sovereignty to decide what he/she wants to learn. Basically, that child now has a duty to the government because you put that child into contract. Thus, they have legal authority over your child's person. And, you do not. So, they can legally tell your child that the purpose of their life is to get a good education and to get a good job and to obey the government.

Re: Submitting an Application
When you sumbit an application, you are giving up natural God given rights in order for the government to assign rights or priveleges to your person. For example, when you go get a driver's license. Before you apply you can act on your Common Law right to travel, so you don't need a driver's license to travel. However, after you 'submit an application', you have in essence given up those rights. And by doing so, they can tax you. And they force you into contract everytime you get a ticket.

When you go sumbit an application for a job, you have in essence given up your right to contract. Also, since you're registering yourself for employment, you've given up ownership of your labour. That's why the government gets paid on your labour before you do.

And understand it... it's not that they can take your rights away. No one can take your natural God given rights away. You're just sumbiting yourself to their rule and their authority. Which means, you're not acting as a sovereign. Instead, you're acting as a servent.

So, it's not kookiness. It's understanding the system and knowing where one stands in accordance to that system. That way I choose how I interact with that system instead of it having authority over me. I am sovereign, and the government is my servent. Not the other way around.
donchep
Jun. 29th, 2007 06:21 pm (UTC)
Speaking to the general argument stemming from your original comment, I get the notion that the American public is being duped into signing away their natural rights surreptitiously.

The problem with that is that the very founding of this nation was based on Hobbesian
social contract theory. There was an awareness and agreement that building this country on a Constitution was the blueprint to social order. The consent of the governed has always been what validated this agreement.
But even to a point you say authority and rule as an absolute when in fact the only authority is that to enforce our rules.

Ever read Plato's Crito? Plato said that your membership in a society implies you agree to the sovereign will of that society by your choice of remaining a member.

Sovereignty of the individual has its merits and can be argued well with lots of good points but the subject as you broach it puts contractualist theory in an adversarial role and the absolute anti-theses to classical liberalism or self-sovereignty.

There's almost an objectivist tilt in what you are saying but as someone who has decried secular humanism I doubt that's your viewpoint on all this.
tigron_x
Jun. 29th, 2007 08:32 pm (UTC)
Going paragraph by paragraph: (5 in all)

(1)Yes, Americans are giving up their natural God given rights without even knowing it because the majority of the People do not even know what their rights are.

(2)The problem in this country is that people aren't aware of this social contract theory. They don't realize they are giving consent to be governed. They don't realize their options. And I think because of that ignorance the People are manipulated into behaving a certain way. Basically, one contracts into a society for social benefits. What benefit is it to be taxed out of our wealth? AFterall, the thing we consider money isn't even money. It's paper. It's fiat currency. You don't even own land in this country. And you don't even own your labour. So, there's no longer any benefit to be in this social contract. So in my eyes, this contact is void because the government no longer protects its citizens; it abuses them and defrauds them of their sovereignty. So, we have to create a new social contract because our current one isn't working.

(3) No, I haven't read Plato's Crito yet. But, I am already aware of this. And I'm currently working to remove my consent to be governed. I also know that consent doesn't mean assent. So people are giving consent to being governed without even knowing it.

(4) How so?

(5)There is individual reality, and then there is reality -- which basically means there are levels of awareness. My whole goal is to have as much awareness as humanly possible, so that I can govern myself at an individual level according to God's Law. In short, in the hierarchy of order there is God (or the Creator), and the 2nd position is there for us to claim if we so choose to claim it. If we do not claim it, then another will claim it on our behalf. So my whoel view point is to declare myself as a Child of God and obey God's Law (or Natural Law or Law of the Land).
donchep
Jun. 29th, 2007 09:47 pm (UTC)
1. What you are claiming is a conspiracy to omit awareness yet by virtue of being aware ourselves that can't be proven. I wouldn't even argue exploitation of the ignorant because the People have become so complacent that they'd ignore any attempts to educate them on natural rights.
That supposes the possibility that the very ends to the social contract of order and the "common welfare" of the preamble of the constitution might even be a possible truth.
I'm not convinced that things would be different if the People had a stronger understanding of what natural rights are.


2.I also disagree with what you are saying about the realization of giving consent to be governed. The very way the United States broke away from it's colonial past was from advocating this very notion. It was the very fuel for revolution and was a phrase used in the first and most important document in establishing a new nation.: The Declaration of Independence.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands, which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.




We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it...



It's all straightforward and the birthday of this very document is in 5 days. Any ignorance of those rights is the fault of the governed, because these rights are freely available and taught to us. It all touches upon Natural or God Given Rights which makes it very unique as a document and that's thanks to Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. That last sentence int he quote even spells it out for us if we disagree with the way it's carried out.


3. Consent and Assent are synonymous and carry the same meaning with very little distinction. When you say you are working on removing consent, I'm not sure what you mean. Let's revisit Matthew 22:15-21.

We the governed have a say in choosing those wise enough to know what belongs to Caesar and what doesn't. Like the old axiom, you set the tax rate and I'll decide what is taxable, but it doesn't work out the way because we don't take the time to know our rights. They are not hidden from us, it's complacency or a belief that we choose people to do that for us. Well we choose the people but it'a up to us to make sure that they do what is right for us.

There isn't a single aspect of government we do not have the power to change, the unfortunate thing is people don't care to learn how to do that.
This nation is still under the same rules and contract of that original document. It's time those people re-read the damned thing.

4. What I mean to say is that I ge tthe notion you argue against the very concept of contractualism in relation to natural law.


5. I think Spinoza (the most brilliant philosopher of them all) argued the existence of one reality. And I think marrying outrselves to the truth of this reality we have to accept that people through some conscious level are aware of natural law. In some cases it is defined as anarchy and yes even those who choose to follow Law of God and law of the Land are to some extent anarchists. Or more likely anarcho-libertarians.
tigron_x
Jun. 29th, 2007 11:33 pm (UTC)
(1) On the contrary, just because we are aware doesn't mean others are. The information is always out there for those who seek it. For example, until just recently I didn't know there was a Common Law right to travel. So I have to ask, why haven't I been educated on my rights? Was it because I didn't seek it? Then what was the whole purpose for me to go to school? See, I argue that our public school system creates this complacency.

(2)Like I said above, the information is out there. But people do not understand it becuase it's not completely taught. I think if it was taught, it would promote individualism as opposed to collectivism -- which is being taught in schools today. i.e. follow the crowd. Which means our schools are promoting democracy -- the rule of the mob. History teaches us that democracy is doomed by economic downfall. So if we are being taught to live as a democracy instead of as a republic, then how is that in accordance to what our founding fathers implemented?

(3)The difference between consent and assent can literally make a world of difference because one can administer consent through silence. So, those "uneducated" can be manipulated into giving silent consent without even knowing they administered consent. And this is the biggest deception of it all. For example, by registering to vote or going along with legal acts posed by society, I am unknowingly administering silent consent to be governed. Now, because I can administer consent, I can also revoke or deny consent. And one can do this by serving the government a "Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right". There is a whole process to do this. And I'm currently learning about it. You can find some information on it at www.thinkfree.ca

(4) I'm actually outraged that I've been manipulated into many contracts with the government, and they never provided me with full disclosure. So I have given up natural rights that I didn't even know I had for benefits and privileges which don't even serve me, and on top of that I've been sold the idea that I got a great deal. It's like paying for a car and not knowing what I paid for it, yet claiming I got a great deal.

(5) I'll have to read his work one day. And, I also believe there is only one true reality. And as for law, there is only one true law that applies to us: the law which protects the life, liberty, rights, and property of all living souls. And as you essentially implied, I think everyone has a certain degree of awareness to this. And I know for a fact that our government has become so corrupt that it distorts this by implementing false information upon the People. For example, you don't have a name. Only corporate entities can have names. And if you've ever been to court, the judge will ask your name. However to give a name would be a lie becuase human beings don't have names, they have titles. For example, Smith from Blacksmith. It's a description. That's why the indigenous people are called by certain decriptions among their people. It's not a name. You, the living soul, is held in surety of the name imposed upon you through deception which was issued to you when a birth certificate ("bill of landing") and your SSN was created. And according to the government, you are considered a human resource -- collateral on the national debt. Why else do you think those living souls who died in the WTC were labeled as "collateral damage"?
( 17 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2015
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com