YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

is this person just homeless and just want free room and board????

1eich 3 years ago

Had the IRS asked her to leave, and then physically removed her if she refused, what could have resulted from that?

I've been wondering why the "arrest"? Why the handcuffs and the dragging and the escalation, when a simple removal from the premises would have been so much easier and cheaper?

CurtHowland 3 years ago

But I will tell you who has rights over you. the victims of crimes(rape,robbery and a child that has been sodomized), but you wourld rathe as a wnttobe repoter. Tie up police officers and the court system with bullshit. Oh but if it were you and your you would be the first to whine that nothing is getting done. How would you feel to know your kid has been sodomized, but the cops tell you that they are having to spend time getting rid of pricks tieing up the station and courts?

ANGLEBOOT 3 years ago

Your error is in not realizing that those "bullshit" cases would not be tying up courts or police if the laws creating victimless crimes were not being prosecuted by those very police and courts.

I cannot "tie up police officers and the court system" without their active participation.

Why are you not berating the police and courts for wasting their time with trivia while murderers and rapists run free?

CurtHowland 3 years ago

Thank you so going into a police station and having them spend one minute of their time is the harm done. But spend huors and days of it can cost lives.

Their active participation is you and others whning for breaking the law then coming in with cams and a bunch of "how comes", pay your fine, stop breaking the law. Victimless crimes are just that crime. So is baby killing. And I put them as the same. Only the punishment different. Yes they run free, cause ding dongs like you tie them up alday

ANGLEBOOT 3 years ago

The cause of the police and courts wasting their time with trivia is that they choose to waste their time on trivia by enforcing laws that make trivial actions against the law.

We could not "tie them up alday[sic]" if they did not first spend their time on such laws.

The root of the problem are those laws which make trivial actions that harm no one "illegal".

So, again, don't blame those who do no harm. Blame the ones who are deliberately wasting their time doing what you think is trivial.

CurtHowland 3 years ago

Now wher do you think those laws come from? Just a bunch of cops write them? and what laws, city, country, state or federal.

Federal won't do their job here so 'We the People" pushed the city to. So now there is city law that says "it's illegal to be a illegal in the city". Get caught, no court just a bus ride back to the border. As it should be.

But as they say, If you can't the time don't do the crime. In other words, stop whining.

ANGLEBOOT 3 years ago

I'm not whining. You were complaining about police and courts spending their time dealing with protesters and people who hand out leaflets, rather than real criminals.

I was pointing out why. You have also identified a cause for the police to be wasting their time. Good for you. Now, go address the problem rather than complaining about police doing what the "people" tell them to through their "representatives".

If you don't like it, repeal the laws.

CurtHowland 3 years ago

Don't won't the laws repealed. I what the punishment harder on them. Break the law where it is said no handing out leaflets. To 1 year in jail, bread and water under hard labor. That will teach people to go out and get a job and stop all their whining. cause the next time it will be 2 years, and so on and so on....

ANGLEBOOT 3 years ago

So you actually want the police and courts tied up with victimless "crimes", rather than hunting down and punishing rapists, murderers and such.

Really, I wish you would make up your mind.

CurtHowland 3 years ago

Sounds like you need to change your login name from ANGLEBOOT to JACKBOOT.

With regards to handing out leaflets, you may remember a little amendment that makes laws against handing them out unconstitutional. It goes something like this:

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech or of the press..."

So why aren't you demanding accountability from Congress for passing 'laws' that violate the Constitution which in turn result in a lot of wasted time and resources ANGLEBOOT?

CheckpointUSA 3 years ago

Since all crime is equal in your eyes, perhaps you could tell us what you've done to hold accountable a federal administration that routinely violates the law with torture, extraordinary rendition, warrantless searches & seizures & undeclared wars to name a few.

Are these illegal acts all right in your mind because their being committed by men with shiny badges and guns? Do these crimes against the people rank up there with baby killing & protesting the IRS?

CheckpointUSA 3 years ago

You might be surprised by the number of people who would be relieved that the waiting was finally over, if the shooting part of this civil war ever starts.

Luckily for the governments, they have learned to boil the frog slowly. The FBI's primary job has been civil infiltration for several decades, with the purpose of "divide and conquer". Those are the lessons of the destruction of the Constitutional Militia movement that followed Waco.

CurtHowland 3 years ago

fczwartek these people don't even know what their rights are. So they make them up as they go. They break the law and say it's their right.

That would put them in the same boat as a baby killer, and in court the baby killer stands up and says it's their right to kill babies if they want.

These home grown self make "reporters" or so times call themselves "media". Are no more than people that want to break laws and say it's their "right".

ANGLEBOOT 3 years ago

It is my right to break laws. It is also my responsibility to deal with the consequences of breaking those laws.

I haven't seen a RidleyReport yet that showed someone doing any harm to anyone else what so ever, then claiming it's a "right" to do so. If you can, I'd like to see it.

CurtHowland 3 years ago

Ok i'll stick with this one, the others are just garble.

Guess you can say you have the right to kill babies, but you then have the right to be beat, gased, drug to jail if need be, thrown in a 8x4 cell and given bread and water. Cold or hot, it don't matter.

ANGLEBOOT 3 years ago

Babies are people. By harming them, I violate their rights. I therefore have no right to kill babies, just as I have no right to harm anyone unless they try to harm me first.

Just like the fraud of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, what is prosecutable is the harm done, not the yelling.

CurtHowland 3 years ago

I would agree with you that they obviously don't have understand the constitution, democracy, or their own rights and responsibilities to society.

I disagree that this automatically makes them baby killers. That is a complete separate magnitude.

I think libertarianism is in general a completely selfish ideology though.

fczwartek 3 years ago

When a midwestern church going bible thumper once told Henry Rollins to find Jesus, Rollins replied "I found Jesus and I passed him by."

fczwartek 3 years ago

You still think rights are "absolute?"

What about freedom of religion? You can worship any god you want (or devil if you choose, or nothing at all.)

But what if your method of worshiping includes human sacrifice? You would be able to do that if your rights were "absolute."

What if like Warren Jeffs of the FLDS church your freedom of religion requires you to have sex with young girls? That would be ok if your rights were "absolute."

Rights are not absolute.

fczwartek 3 years ago

civil disobedience is fighting back.

TEBON 3 years ago

no thanks I'll just do what I feel like right here where I am.

TEBON 3 years ago

He who throws the first punch is the first to have run out of ideas.

The question to those who advocate violence that must be answered first is, violence against whom?

A Statesman is simply a dead politician. The world needs more Statesmen.

CurtHowland 3 years ago

What ever happened to the first amendment? Does it still exist in their books, or have they stopped giving lip service to the constitution?

smcgraw123 3 years ago

There hasn't been real 1st amendment protection since the 1790s, with the Alien and Sedition Act.

The Constitution was a dead letter on day 1.

I recommend lewrockwell com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo144 html

The Founding Father of Constitutional Subversion: Alexander Hamilton

CurtHowland 3 years ago

thanks dave! great work!

smartbandwidth 3 years ago

Since the State of NH has the right to civil disobedience written in the state constitution, the state of NH should stand up and fight for Lauren. Rights are absolute. Of course, almost no bureaucrats have any constitutional integrity... and have no incentive to stand up for our rights. I guess that explains why they do not act.

txballoonman 3 years ago

Rights are not absolute.

fczwartek 3 years ago

Of course that's what they say in government school. If rights are not absolute, who has the right to decide which of your rights can be limited?

GloriousCoconut 3 years ago 2

then, they aren't rights. They are privileges. So, you say there is no such thing as rights?

txballoonman 3 years ago

"Rights are not absolute."

So then, by that standard, the Nazis and the Soviets did nothing wrong, correct? If rights are not absolute, there are no rights, only "might makes right".

Libertarian333 3 years ago

The term "nazi" was made up by the bolshevik khazaric-jews, who ruled the soviet union at the time.

Clearly germany was in the right during ww2 and were surrounded on all fronts. Europe lost in the end and international zionism triumphed. The israeli state was created.

Jew lord Rothschild owned the bank of england

and he now owns nearly all of europes banks.

The fed resere, IMF, world bank, hls, hollywood, msm, = all jewish.

synthpopclassics 3 years ago

There's a different between rights that are not absolute and no rights at all.

How can rights be absolute when they often oppose each other. Your right to free speech is not absolute. You cannot legally threaten someone, you can not slander someone.

Rights are not absolute.

fczwartek 3 years ago

Rights are indeed absolute. What you have confused with limitations is the very real concept of Individual Responsibility.

I have a perfect Right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.... if there is a fire.

I have a perfect Right to shoot and kill someone.... if my life or those of another were already threatened.

These distinctions are not taught in government schools, because logic and reason are dangerous to the state. You might realize they are more dangerous than any private criminal.

CurtHowland 3 years ago 2

"I have a perfect Right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.... if there is a fire."

No kidding!

You can also shout "fire" in a crowded theater that is not on fire. The bad news is that you wouldn't be protected by the 1st amendment. You might even get arrested. Rightly so. Your right to free speech does not trump someone else's right to live.

Rights are not absolute.

fczwartek 3 years ago

yes, yes they are. . .because they were given by god. . .man tries to take them away. Yelling 'fire' in a public place when it is not on fire. . .is wrong. . . but is still protected. "Congress shall make no law..." that means 'no' . . . to think otherwise is downright un-American.

TEBON 3 years ago

Try yelling "fire" the next time you are in a crowded theater and see what happens.

Other forms of speech are also not protected by the 1st amendment...libel, slander, defamation, threats.

Sure god may have given you the ability to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, slander someone, or threaten a person. But that form of "speech" is not protected by the constitution...and it shouldn't be.

Rights are not absolute.

fczwartek 3 years ago

Over and over again, you confuse "responsibility" with "limitation".

If you would recognize the difference between those two terms, you would see how rights are absolute without denying responsibility for actions.

By detailing what is allowed and not allowed, thereby creating an environment of privilege and prohibition, the state destroys both rights and responsibility. A perfect example is the produce of the government public schools.

CurtHowland 3 years ago

Congratulations on your sense of responsibility, but if you think everyone is guided by the same "moral compass" as yourself, while then you are mistaken.

So if only Warren Jeffs of the FDLS church had a sense of "responsibility" he would stop raping young girls? Someone should have just told him!

You feel as though you're free to do anything your "sense of responsibility" allows...probably including violence against others.

I'm glad the law sees things differently.

fczwartek 3 years ago

"probably including violence against others."

That's called "projection".

You have confused Liberty with "libertine". A "libertine" wants to act without responsibility.

Since I explicitly try to draw your attention to the responsibility inherent in exercising rights, your conclusion is a non-sequiter.

As to "sense of responsibility", the fact that there are people who harm others denies any illusion that "everyone" shares "my" sense. So your beginning is a non-sequiter also.

CurtHowland 3 years ago

It may be projection...but lets call it informed projection. Read your own words! Many of you think violence against the state is a good thing.

fczwartek 3 years ago

I do read my own words. I only advocate violence in defense against violence.

CurtHowland 3 years ago

You and everyone else who advocates violence.

fczwartek 3 years ago

Like the Dalai Lama: If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. (Seattle Times, May 15, 2001)

I find myself in good company.

CurtHowland 3 years ago

So who is trying to kill you that you feel violence is justified? Who has a gun to your head?

I was thinking your philosophy is more like George Bush's than the Dalai Lama's. I think his "doctrine" consists of only two points....

Fear mongering, and pre-emptive "self defense."

I guess a third tenant would be "do not destroy oil wells."

fczwartek 3 years ago

No one is trying to kill me, although government is trying to ROB me. That's why I am telling you that you are making things up.

Comparing me to George Bush very much shows you're making things up. GB and I could not be more different without one of us being female.

CurtHowland 3 years ago

My point is that everyone who attempts to justify violence always claims self defense.

The Dalai Lama points out that it is reasonable to defend yourself....if you are actually under attack.

You and George Bush create an enemy (or at least exaggerate one) to make it seem like you are under attack, and in the name of self defense violence is not only justified, but also a necessity.

Is that so far from the truth?

fczwartek 3 years ago

"if you are actually under attack."

Exactly. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

CurtHowland 3 years ago 2

"no one is trying to kill me."

Those are your words. Yet at the same time you claim to be "under attack" of some kind from the government.

"Your anger will not solve the problem. More sadness, more frustration only brings more suffering for yourself."- Dalai Lama

"with truth, courage and determination as our weapons, Tibet will be liberated." - Dalai Lama

"People inflict pain on others in the selfish pursuit of their happiness or satisfaction." - Dalai Lama

fczwartek 3 years ago

"you claim to be "under attack" of some kind from the government."

Government is a parasitic organization, which exists by robbing people. So by definition, I, and you, are in fact under attack.

How you respond to that attack is up to you. I choose to respond peacefully, as long as peaceful resistance is possible.

CurtHowland 3 years ago 2

What civilization has ever existed without some form of government?

Civilization is not free. Society has always been your benefactor. You owe something back to it, we all do.

fczwartek 3 years ago

"What civilization has ever existed without some form of government?"

Ireland, Iceland, the old American west, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and the list goes on. There are numerous historical examples of peaceful and functional stateless societies.

Libertarian333 3 years ago

I think clans, tribes, and kingdoms are all forms of government. So your examples of Ireland and Iceland are false.

The American government promoted expansion of white settlers into the west since the 1840's, and even started the Mexican war to annex more western land for the settlers.

Rhode Island has had a "formal government" since 1639, Pennsylvania since 1681. Were the colonies not governments?

fczwartek 3 years ago

"you claim to be 'under attack' of some kind from the government"

Try not paying taxes. Try engaging in some voluntary relationship with others that is prohibited by the state. Try having a chemical reaction in your body that is prohibited by the state, or possessing the means to induce such a reaction. Every decree of the state, and every action of its agents, is backed by threats and acts of violence.

Libertarian333 3 years ago 2

I agree that the state should not tell people what they can and can't do with their own bodies (as long as they are causing no harm to anyone else.) I'm in complete agreement.

Not paying taxes though, I don't have much sympathy for that. If you are protesting a war or torture then I think you have a solid argument for not paying taxes.

If you don't pay taxes because you think it's your money...well then you're the thief.

fczwartek 3 years ago

Responsibility is absolutely inherent in exercising your rights. It is in fact a limiting force on your rights. You wouldn't consider exercising your rights in a way you believe is irresponsible (I would hope.)

You could divide responsibility into several categories; such as moral, ethical, legal, individual, and societal.

You apparently believe we are only subject to moral responsibility. Even if that was the only restriction it proves my point that rights are not absolute.

fczwartek 3 years ago

"You apparently believe..."

Rather, how about reading what I wrote? I said specifically "individual responsibility". I don't care how you want to parse moral vs ethical vs legal or whatever. That's distinctions for people who want to get out of their responsibility. Not face it squarely and honestly.

CurtHowland 3 years ago 2