pigpot's Pot

[pigpot]

I'd like Santos as a next door neighbour. I could learn a few things that's for sure.

Yes, he's a fantastic guitarist and would be a great teacher I would pay for a few lessons from him. I simply do not understand why he decided to be a court jester instead.
Watch;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_JWEFTPTzs

My post over on the Quatloos forum deals with the arrogance of the Westerner's view point when dealing with "Native" peoples. Here: viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10659&p=202608#p202608

The "Court" as you put it is a rather crap idea. At it's worse what will it do? Order someone to kill me. What a laugh. Go ahead. I couldn't care a toss. I don't think some posters here get it... There are people like me EVERYWHERE who don't CARE about the precious "Courts" that are held in such high regard by people here.

Natural law to people like me is ALL I care about.

[LordEd]

At any time we can change the constitution and kick out the monarchy. That's actually a mainstream debate.

The queens authority was reaffirmed and accepted in a vote when the constitution was written and accepted.

[NG3]

Can I ask the question that I haven't seen answered yet please? (I might have missed it and apologies if I have and if I have can you please point me to the post via a link) but where did the Queen / Crown etc get the authority to run / govern ANYTHING?

Life doesn't work like that, there isn't a definitive moment.

Life is ever changing, for ever being examined, discussed and changed.

It's why many countries operate forms of democracy, to allow the people access to that process.

In fact that's where the word democracy comes from, it's from the Greek demokratia "popular government," from demos "common people" and relates to the right of the "common people" to engage in the political system to try and ensure a reasonable and fair society.

The Status Quo's time is up.

With tracks like Bula Bula Quo I think it can be argued their time has been up for decades

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO2hM7UXZqE

[longdog]

Can I ask the question that I haven't seen answered yet please? (I might have missed it and apologies if I have and if I have can you please point me to the post via a link) but where did the Queen / Crown etc get the authority to run / govern ANYTHING? At it's most original point when and where and how did it happen? To state it happened and we'll carry on from there is a de facto (after the fact) assumption.

That question was answered ages ago and the answer is "God"... The divine right of kings and all that.

Now if, like me, you are a dyed in the wool atheist and a dyed in the wool republican that's a very stupid answer but it happens also to be an accurate one.

[NG3]

The divine right of kings and all that.

Yes, we went through that stage, and, yes, in hindsight it was incredibly ridiculous, but as you state in a previous post at any time people can change things as were in perpetual debate an evolution (even if it doesn't always produce the results that an individual wants)

[Philistine]

pigpot, look up "the divine right of kings".
Thankfully, we surpassed this a long time ago.
You should study some history. It might set you on the path to learn how western governments developed.

Page 9. pigpot ignored it.

[longdog]

The footler thought process as I see it...

1) I have a poor education, poor level of general knowledge and poor reasoning skills
2) Because of 1) I think I have a very clever question which undermines the generally accepted way the world is perceived.
3) Because of 1) I don't realise that 2) is really a rather dumb question.
4) Because of 1), 2) and 3) I feel rather aggrieved that my question has been answered simply and accurately.
5) Because of 1), 2), 3) and 4) I'm a bit pissed off that my clever question hasn't been the argument killer and talking point I thought it would be.
6) Because of 1), 2), 3), 4) and 5) I'm going to ignore the answers and just ask the same question again.
7) Je Suis Pigpot.

[wanglepin]

There are people like me EVERYWHERE who don't CARE about the precious "Courts" that are held in such high regard by people here.

Well Santos does, he has been running from them for some time now. And so has retard Menard.I bet they wish they had your attitude towards the courts pigpot.

[longdog]

I too have a dismissive attitude to the courts because I don't break any laws that anybody really cares about and when I do break the law I try my very hardest not to get caught.

50 years with only a FPN for drunk and disorderly and two speeding convictions to my name... Eat my shorts powers that be

[pigpot]

Can I ask the question that I haven't seen answered yet please? (I might have missed it and apologies if I have and if I have can you please point me to the post via a link) but where did the Queen / Crown etc get the authority to run / govern ANYTHING? At it's most original point when and where and how did it happen? To state it happened and we'll carry on from there is a de facto (after the fact) assumption.

That question was answered ages ago and the answer is "God"... The divine right of kings and all that.

Now if, like me, you are a dyed in the wool atheist and a dyed in the wool republican that's a very stupid answer but it happens also to be an accurate one.

So stupid is accurate. Fair enough. How many people though have even begun argue / or ask for proof that this "God" ruubish has ANY validity. It's just accepted by assumptions by a lot of people who won't even think for themselves.

Do I have to agree that "God" exists and therefore everything (including the "Queen" and the "Crown") that is founded upon that like the "Courts" and "Police" are real. Of course not. Just deconstruct "their" argument using logic. Is the "Court" system applying logic whilst believing in a "God". Again, of course not. So one moves from that point on to the next.


Cheers ears.

[NG3]

How many people though have even begun argue / or ask for proof that this "God" ruubish has ANY validity.

I think you're confusing yourself here.

No one has a time machine to go back in time and argue about it then and it's irrelevant now, as no one claims divine right now.

[pigpot]

How many people though have even begun argue / or ask for proof that this "God" ruubish has ANY validity.

I think you're confusing yourself here.

No one has a time machine to go back in time and argue about it then and it's irrelevant now, as no one claims divine right now.

Not at all. I'm not confused. I'd like to stop this rubbish about the rules are the rules and everybody has to stick with that just because it IS. No, no, no. Where is the inherent PROOF of this claim? I'll gladly agree that the "Queen" (or whoever else is in charge) is in charge providing they can provide me proof of claim. I'm not just going to sit back and accept the assumptions of others because I'm told I have to. For any sane man, woman or even younger, to accept that is illogical and thus not worthy of credit or even consideration in any form.

Is this the best answer you have because if so we will go no-where and thus shouldn't bother.

It doesn't matter about,

"No one has a time machine to go back in time and argue about it then and it's irrelevant now, as no one claims divine right now.

That's where you are confused. The present state of affairs is based solely upon this past. The Bible's not fact, "God's" not a fact... So everything that has originated from those assumptions cannot also be facts, "Kings", "Queens", "Government", "Courts" "Police", essentially all the agents of all the assumptions.

If you prefer assumptions to facts that's your choice but not mine.

[NG3]

Not at all. I'm not confused.

You come across as very confused

I'd like to stop this rubbish about the rules are the rules and everybody has to stick with that just because it IS. No, no, no. Where is the inherent PROOF of this claim?

This is why you come across as confused, you're asking us for proof of your claim.

The present state of affairs is based solely upon this past.

Again you're confused. You've just tried to argue against something that hasn't been said.

No one is saying that the present isn't based on the past but the past is a fixed event and you cant change it.

The Bible's not fact, "God's" not a fact... So everything that has originated from those assumptions cannot also be facts, "Kings", "Queens", "Government", "Courts" "Police", essentially all the agents of all the assumptions.

If you prefer assumptions to facts that's your choice but not mine.

Again you're confused.

You're arguing against things that changed hundreds of years ago.

[Burnaby49]

This is all totally pointless, you are all just giving Piggy a reason to increase his posting rate to over 300 a month.

Pigpot, rather than squabble forever with non-Canadians and people with little knowledge on the topic of why the Queen is in control of the government, just do this to find your answer. Walk up to any Canadian policeman and punch him in the face. Then tell him that you refuse to be arrested until he can prove, to your satisfaction, that the authority that he derives from the Queen to arrest you is legitimate. If he can't you can just walk away. Then you can make the same demand to the judge and, eventually, to the prison staff. Nitpicking abut the precise legal basis of the Queen's power might be entertaining but it is pointless. She has the power and it legitimately devolves down to Canadian govenment authorities. It doesn't matter in the slightest if Quatloos posters can answer your question for two reasons;

1 - You'll just say they are wrong and keep demanding more proof
2 - The cop you punch in the face couldn't care less what we say on Quatloos

If you are so firm in your conviction that the Queen does not rule Canada through a constitutional monarchy then either go punch the cop or tell us why she doesn't rule rather than just demanding that we explain it to you.

[hardcopy]

Our prisons are full of people who think the law doesn't apply to them.

[longdog]

So stupid is accurate.

Correct.

Whether you like it or not a constitutional monarchy is generally held to be a largely legitimate form of government and in reality of course QE2 has very little actual power and she is only really a figurehead... The real power lies with the legislature.

You have had your explanation of from whence comes the 'power' of the monarch and as others have said you are not going to change historical fact with inane arguments. Your belief or lack of it in the divine right of kings and the existence of god are irrelevant. If you want to campaign for the abolition of the monarchy then that's fine and I would agree with you but what you are doing is simply denying the system is what it is.

[longdog]

Our prisons are full of people who think the law doesn't apply to them.

I disagree.

Our prisons are full of people who know damned well the law applies to them. They just didn't think they'd get caught... Usually because they're not that bright to be honest.

[pigpot]

This is all totally pointless, you are all just giving Piggy a reason to increase his posting rate to over 300 a month.

Pigpot, rather than squabble forever with non-Canadians and people with little knowledge on the topic of why the Queen is in control of the government, just do this to find your answer. Walk up to any Canadian policeman and punch him in the face. Then tell him that you refuse to be arrested until he can prove, to your satisfaction, that the authority that he derives from the Queen to arrest you is legitimate. If he can't you can just walk away. Then you can make the same demand to the judge and, eventually, to the prison staff. Nitpicking abut the precise legal basis of the Queen's power might be entertaining but it is pointless. She has the power and it legitimately devolves down to Canadian govenment authorities. It doesn't matter in the slightest if Quatloos posters can answer your question for two reasons;

1 - You'll just say they are wrong and keep demanding more proof
2 - The cop you punch in the face couldn't care less what we say on Quatloos

If you are so firm in your conviction that the Queen does not rule Canada through a constitutional monarchy then either go punch the cop or tell us why she doesn't rule rather than just demanding that we explain it to you.

Well the thing here is you've started from a negative. I'm not going to punch anyone in the face other than if I need to defend myself or those close to me if the people mentioned are under attack.

The starting point you have "created" is frivolous. I've asked for something that hasn't been answered.

There is no legitimacy of "The Crown" and no-one has brought forward a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise other than the old claptrap of, "That's the way it is".

but what you are doing is simply denying the system is what it is.

Not at all. I'm proving post by post that the system is essentially a bunch of people with what "they" think is authority over others, when it is merely and simply no more than power.

If you'd agree on this point that it is force at the point of a gun (in it's most essential and absolute essence) then I'm pretty much done here. I can then pretty much be on my way.

I'm not arguing that the system isn't what it is. I've been taken a few times (and released free of charge...). I do understand that "they" do have the power to take people as I myself have been taken. It's what is behind the ability to take people away is what I am and have been for some time questioning.

If the buildings of anything are not built upon sound foundations, then the structure which is built will not survive being tested. I'd hope you would agree with this at the very least. This is my point about the "Crown" "Queen" "Governments" and all "Agents" thereof, it's not backed in it's original form by ANYTHING! That's my point. If it has no backing in it's most essential way it's useless. Take the "Bretton Woods Agreement" and the "Gold Standard". Paper was backed by "Gold" it's not now. Post war Germany was burning "Reich marks" because the paper it was written on was valueless. Same idea as to proposing that someone's in charge because they said so. If I said "Winnie the Pooh" was in charge everyone would laugh and rightly so but no-one questions what is assumed by the masses.Assumption is the key here.

As to waking people up I'm in a very fortunate position, I see hundreds of people daily. Some take it in, others don't and then I meet people who are doing the same thing by coincidence. I just see what I see and those that listen grow exponentially. Synchronicity possibly.

I'd like to be on my way from here and only need agreement with the idea that some people with badges get to do what some OTHERS can't and use force as a medium to convey their wishes / demands.

[pigpot]

[quote="NG3"]No one is saying that the present isn't based on the past but the past is a fixed event and you cant change it.[quote]

But that's where you're wrong. if a "Court" is a true Court, a real Court, a Court of record then all that needs to be done is present the facts. If the present is based upon the past and the past is incorrect or wrong or without fact then the present state of affairs is incorrect and procedure cannot logically continue.

Would you agree or disagree with this logical statement. If you disagree please show me how a right can be made from a wrong?

[NG3]

No one is saying that the present isn't based on the past but the past is a fixed event and you cant change it.

But that's where you're wrong.

Sorry to disappoint you but you can't change the past. It's happened. It's over.

if a "Court" is a true Court, a real Court, a Court of record then all that needs to be done is present the facts.

That doesn't change the past.

You can argue about the past in a court, if you wish, but not change it.

In this case the point you're arguing about "divine right" has already changed, so not only would you be arguing about an historical event that you can't change but also a redundant point that's irrelevant because it's already changed historically.