almightywood

Of course I will provide that, along with proof that JFK wasn't assassinated by Lee Harvey, and that Leonardo Davinci came up with a way to transmute lead into gold.

This is the conspiracy theory section. You are out of line to ask for proof here.

LonelyNinja

"Theory" implies that there is substantial evidence to support it. Granted, conspiracy theories are usually total bollocks, but any "legitimate" theory has some form of evidence. Doesn't have to be particularly compelling, but then it can at least be argued that it's a theory.

__________________

almightywood

Well there are some statements that are indisputable in this theory.
Namely the parts about the constitution.
I was in prison when I read this.
Did a bit of research in the law library about it, and it seemed to check out.
Didn't work when I tried it.
Posted it to see if anyone would recognize it more or less. HR did

Mal

PROTIP: It's not good to have HR agree with you.

From the brief cursory reading I was willing to give those links, it seems the arguments rely far to heavily on assuming what is true for a corporation is true for a country.

Human Rasengan

Ok evidence that this is actually something going on most of the people that prescribe to the Sovereign Citizen Movement all pretty much start out with the basic things I outlined and another thing and perhaps the most important is that the government has devised ways to protect itself from these people. Many are often labeled Paper Terrorists for flooding the system with paperwork as they try to submit various documents to claim their rights again as free and sovereign citizens as they believe was granted to them by the constitution and has been worked around by small covert steps by the government.. most of which happened back in 1933 during the FDR presidency.

The sovereign citizens believe that the current government is false and thus the so called laws don't apply to them.. most of these people live quiet lives while like all fringe groups have a extremest element.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLSNLeoab8c This father and son duo who had been traveling across the country spreading the Enlightenment of America's citizens when they gunned down that officer in West Memphis.


Others who use aspects of this movement which heavilly relies on the UCC or the Uniform Commerce Code get labled as squatters but legally take back land form the government that doesn't really own hte land anywayhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjZQkErPD4Q so called legal loopholes that allow people to just acquire homes by making real investments or improving upon the physical property itself

But most of it can be summed up in this piece by 60 minutes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F_pY47hE5U

ok well not saying that i agree with any of this but here is the basic jist of their reasoning ot the claim that America is a corporation as you put it

Like i said earlier there is a lot more to all this stuff and it's going on all around us whether real or fake .. something is going on .. either the government is a corporation and has taken measures to hush people who have tried to awaken people to the rouse .. or there is a growing American Domestic terrorist organization .. at any rate we should be alarmed.

__________________
for those of you who don't understand.. I'm coming from an illogical perspective so your logic won't fit my argument .. it'll only give you a headache.. remember ..belief doesn't require a co-signer There Is A Fine Line Between Genius And Insanity , I Have Erased This Line ! If I were you I'd hate me too.. I am the HUMAN RASENGAN!!!

The power of despair is great in you.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zlzx4...&feature=share

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3qkz4WfOto

LOL I'M DYING BACK HERE

Numinous

If the statements are "indisputable" and you actually researched upon them, please provide the evidence. That's what people are asking, they aren't asking for you to do a special pleading about how "conspiracy theories don't need evidence!" to evade your responsibility to back up the claims.

__________________

Mal

Why should we be alarmed? OP said he heard about this 15 years ago, yet this is the first time I'm hearing about it. If this theory hasn't propagated as quickly as the 9/11 conspiracies, then obviously even the less intelligent members of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA realize it's stupid.

I'd have also expected the Occupy movement to breathe new life into this theory if it was really as commonly as believed as you say, since it would give those whiny bitches yet another scapegoat to blame for their own failure.

Miburo

Holy shit, retarded.


But that Occupy stuff. Mal, could you clarify what you mean by the 'whiny bitches, failure' thing? I haven't really be following that shit hardcore closely or anything, but from what I understand their complaints seem fairly justifiable.

almightywood

Dude, your attitude problem is almost as bad as Kael's.

So now I have to provide you with a link to the constitution?

Do you want me to hold your hand while you go to the bathroom too?

If you choose to dispute what I am saying, then provide proof yourself.


EDIT: oh fine, there you go: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...ranscript.html


Don't say I never did anything for you, jackass

Numinous

Yes, because calling you on your BS is clearly an attitude problem. Stop being a pussy dancing around the issue and provide the evidence.

Since the US Constitution is huge as hell and it's not even my constitution, I am unfamiliar with it. So yes, please provide me a link with the specific parts of the Constitution that back you up.

Wow, you're stupid. Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person refuting it. And I'm pretty sure you were called on that earlier.

Edit: finally read all the parts of the Original Constitution (without any Amendment) you linked that refer to the Congress and in none of the parts was there even an hint of the US Congress owning exclusively federal territories. The closest thing was the Congress having to be summoned in case someone wants to create a new state, due to territory issues.

__________________

almightywood

No, calling someone stupid for any reason ever is an attitude problem. The same with claiming that someone you have never met has any responsibility to you whatsoever.

Right, you obviously have no internet access, so can't google it.

Again this only applies if someone is claiming something is assuredly so. I posted this in this section because conspiracy theories are BS. So asking me to provide proof for BS is ludicrous.


Though I don't really like helping people to see things when they are as egotistically committed to their own impregnability as you, you must have missed this other part of article IV section 3:

Numinous

You must be new to debates. Or rather, debates that involve people not caring about what's politically correct. If you're being stupid, I'll call you stupid, since I don't like to pat people in the back when they don't deserve it. Also, when you make a positive claim, you have the responsibility to back it, unless you want to sound like an unmanly pussy that wants his bacon pristine all the times.

Why should I google it if you're the one making the claim? Burden of proof's on you.

In other words, you're backpedaling. You said it's in the fucking Constitution and you even researched a law library that backed you up. That means you don't consider this BS but actually something to be considered, to the point of posting it when nobody asked for it. Now be a man and own your shit.

Do you even read what you post?

That part of the section says that the Congress has the power to modify the laws of any territory/property of the United States, but it can't make laws that imply prejudice upon a claim (like the states that were included after the original Constitution was released) or State.

Nothing here says "US Congress has exclusive control of federal territories".

__________________

Mal

There are reasonable points at the base of it, but they've since been buried by people who have just failed at life and are looking for someone to blame. Keeping in mind I am doing my best to avoid the Fundamental Attribution Error, I can't help but think life is much easier than they're making it seem. Then again, I've been paying more attention to the Canadian equivalent, and I'm not sure how bad things are in the US.

Miburo

I also dislike it when people divert blame off themselves and whatnot, since it's UNMANLY, but I'd say there are plenty of legit scenarios where people can 'fail at life,' which I assume you're referring to financial success given the context, where they really couldn't reasonably avoid it on their own.

Without any specific examples I can't address anything specifically. So, broadly speaking, it's not like everyone can be rich if they work hard and do their very best and shit. For our society to function there pretty much has to be people that get stuck in shit jobs that get shit pay. Cashiers, garbage men, etc. I don't think I need to really elaborate. That alone should be sufficient evidence that not everyone can be financially well off with hard work alone; that not everyone who is poor is a lazy loser that should pull himself up by his bootstraps or whatever.

When you add that to a pretty high unemployment rate, continual rising costs of healthcare in a nation with no universal system for some stupid reason (A lot of people can't afford preventative treatment, a medical problem can easily lead to financial ruin, etc.), crazy level of income and social inequality, and so on it's easy to see where a lot of people can actually become unable to better their situations despite their best efforts.

Sure, it's definitely possible for people to work their way up in life from near hopeless soul-crushing poverty to becoming reasonably wealthy. But for every success story there are most likely thousands of people who tried just as hard and didn't succeed. I would never call anyone a loser for simply not succeeding. And I'm a dick.

almightywood

I'm all about discussions, I love them, I have them all the time for the sake of learning and knowledge like a proper discussion should be. I don't give attitude (before I get it) because it could throw people off, and make them not be able to tell me something I didn't know. I care way more about the knowledge than being right.

Be reasonable and take things the way they are presented. I told you what I meant by it, you refusing to accept that is simply proof that you are unreasonable, not that I am backpedaling. The existence of this section asked for it.

To quote an egotistical know-it-all, there's such a thing as reading comprehension, you lack it.

This is listed under the section detailing the judicial branch, and separate from the regular legislative branch. This little excerpt is stand-alone. In other words the executive branch has no say over this, and since it is listed as part of the judicial, it qualifies as that as well. ie. Exclusive control.

Now do me a favor and quit making arguments just to prove me wrong.

If you actually admitted that's all you care about it would be one thing, but you claim it's all about logic and learning. IF this was true you would have no need for the attitude. The attitude puts the lie to this whole little line of shit you like to shove down people's throats.