The Person vs Human Being Thread (split from the Deerfoot Speeding Cam thread)

[KevanGuy]

Originally Posted by Tower

And why have lawyers (who frequent this site) not spurned me? The truth is because it is true. And ignorance is bliss.

That isn't the only possible answer to that question, surely you must acknowledge that.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by fredr123

I have no clue what you're getting at. The first time I heard of Notice of Intent and Understanding and the associated jazz was with respect to those situations in the links I provided.

Good luck with your future endeavors.

So you linked it and didn't read it?

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Ok, so I read it.

I assume at this point you will tell me what secret section in that act, which never passed, would have been so terrible had it done so. I fail to see the line that says you can write on your speeding tickets to make them into money.



Does this have something to do with the WD-40 my wife wants me to get from the store, because that's the only shopping list I am aware of.

Please enlighten me.

Violent Radicalization of Home Grown Terrorism Prevention Act 2007

Passed the House of Representatives October 23, 2007.

Attest:


LORRAINE C. MILLER,


Clerk.


You also need to read what is not there. They use one word in this act over and over, Terrorist. However what you will also notice is that there is no DEFINED meaning for Terrorist on this Act. Nor is there a definition that is universally accepted.
It's basically a free pass to call anyone a Terrorist because we see TERRORIST every day on the news and as a public we picture man strapped to bomb and bombs building.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Tower

It's basically a free pass to call anyone a Terrorist because we see TERRORIST every day on the news and as a public we picture man strapped to bomb and bombs building. Blah blah blah

http://www.despair.com/madness.html

The rest of us are trying to talk about the issue of speed cameras on Deerfoot trail not terrorists.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Tower

Violent Radicalization of Home Grown Terrorism Prevention Act 2007

Passed the House of Representatives October 23, 2007.

Attest:


LORRAINE C. MILLER,


Clerk.


You also need to read what is not there. They use one word in this act over and over, Terrorist. However what you will also notice is that there is no DEFINED meaning for Terrorist on this Act. Nor is there a definition that is universally accepted.
It's basically a free pass to call anyone a Terrorist because we see TERRORIST every day on the news and as a public we picture man strapped to bomb and bombs building.

So you are saying that speeders are terrorists who should write on their ticket to avoid paying it? What does this have to do with my shopping list?

Speaking of laws that don't mention important things, the constitution says nothing about the office of Prime Minister. Does that mean that a french fry can be Prime Minister? How about a grapefruit? Ketchup packet perhaps? Maybe we can write something on the ketchup packet and it can pay our national debt? Will that work?

Edit: Before you respond, I am 100% aware that this post is filled with nothing but pure idiocy.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Madman

Creepy.

Have you purchased any land for your followers, or will this strictly be an online thing?

You know what I find funny about quotes like this. I gave you a lot of information of which you can deem true or false with out investigation.

Tell a sergeant that you recently have become aware of the Person vs Human Being. And ask him if he is aware of it.

Call up the CRA and ask what the other name for a social insurance number is. If they don't know escalate. If they play dumb ask if it is a government employee number.

These are civil servants and therefore can not lie to you. Your power is in asking questions not letting them tell you what to do.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

http://www.despair.com/madness.html

The rest of us are trying to talk about the issue of speed cameras on Deerfoot trail not terrorists.

Are you having trouble keeping up? There was an offer to start a new thread that was not responded too. I also see you feel the top notch character need to miss quote as well.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by KevanGuy

That isn't the only possible answer to that question, surely you must acknowledge that.

Of course I do. But as of right now it has not been answered or retorted and so is the one I believe.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Rathji

So you are saying that speeders are terrorists who should write on their ticket to avoid paying it? What does this have to do with my shopping list?

Speaking of laws that don't mention important things, the constitution says nothing about the office of Prime Minister. Does that mean that a french fry can be Prime Minister? How about a grapefruit? Ketchup packet perhaps? Maybe we can write something on the ketchup packet and it can pay our national debt? Will that work?

Edit: Before you respond, I am 100% aware that this post is filled with nothing but pure idiocy.

Well I sure do notice that you ignored the fact that the bill passed. And yes, if a speeder scares you into feeling terror would that likely be thought of in such a way being that there is no true definition to something cited (Terrorist) over and over in an Act that meant to be Law.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Tower

Well I sure do notice that you ignored the fact that the bill passed. And yes, if a speeder scares you into feeling terror would that likely be thought of in such a way being that there is no true definition to something cited (Terrorist) over and over in an Act that meant to be Law.

It says here that it was not passed by Senate nor was it signed into law by the President. Are you actually researching this stuff or is it just a cut and paste from thinkfree.ca?

I understand this site might be wrong, and if you do have an alternative source I will gladly read it.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Tower

Are you having trouble keeping up? There was an offer to start a new thread that was not responded too. I also see you feel the top notch character need to miss quote as well.

No trouble keeping up at all. I'm just someone who only has a few minutes here or there to look at threads on CP and appreciates the discussion in said threads to match the title of the threads. You were misquoted to the extent that I added "Blah Blah Blah" at the end of one of your rants.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Rathji

It says here that it was not passed by Senate nor was it signed into law by the President. Are you actually researching this stuff or is it just a cut and paste from thinkfree.ca?

I understand this site might be wrong, and if you do have an alternative source I will gladly read it.

I have read this and actually I am incorrect as far as becoming law. No this was not from Think Free this was from my own reading. It also says there that they have been attempting to pass the Act more than once. Still freaking scary.

I'm referencing from the same source but without the cool boxes that show how far it has been passed. Hence the:
"Passed the House of Representatives October 23, 2007.

Attest:


LORRAINE C. MILLER,


Clerk."

From this page -http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-1955

[Tower]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

No trouble keeping up at all. I'm just someone who only has a few minutes here or there to look at threads on CP and appreciates the discussion in said threads to match the title of the threads. You were misquoted to the extent that I added "Blah Blah Blah" at the end of one of your rants.

RANT -

• talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner

Don't believe this is coming from me. I'm quite calm and having a lot of fun in this discussion.

You however seem to come off quite arrogant in most of your posts on this board.

ARROGANT -

• Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.

I for one believe that we are all equal in this world and do you find this invasive? Truly I am sorry if that is so, but I will not avoid a question if asked. And I certainly will not avoid a comment when directed to me. However if I truly am deemed to be in correct I have zero problems owning up to it. So on the topic of derailment, I will offer again an invitation to start a new thread.

[burn_this_city]

Can we get a mod to split this thread..? Purdy please..

[Tower]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Can we get a mod to split this thread..? Purdy please..

If that can be done it would be great!

[KevanGuy]

OK, I split it out.

[Tower]

Thank you KevinGuy

[valo403]

Tower, I have one very simple request for you. I like your original theory on traffic tickets qualifying as bills of exchange, it's very creative. But can you please provide at least some semblance of case law to support your stance? Because without it, your theory is completely useless.

[Tower]

Originally Posted by valo403

Tower, I have one very simple request for you. I like your original theory on traffic tickets qualifying as bills of exchange, it's very creative. But can you please provide at least some semblance of case law to support your stance? Because without it, your theory is completely useless.

Very reasonable request. At work currently so it will be awhile. Also I am documenting everything I can in regards to communication with our representatives. And I will as well back it with an affidavit. If by chance anything I'm saying is true, it will open many doors for many people not happy with the statues quo.

[malcolmk14]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread436338/pg1

sounds like you're either spouting this stuff all over the internet on conspiracy websites, or you just stole it from this dude, king9072.

Are you a big Robert Menard fan, bursting bubbles of government deception, magnificent deception, etc.,