Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Blackclaw · 07-08-2008, 07:54 AM

At least Drew wasn't as dreadfully tedious as this...

Quote:

These codes have since been changed to read as follows: IMF 300-309,
Barred Assessment, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for the 1040 form.

Oh why yes, that certainly... is compelling.

What is this a Lyndon LaRouche theory?

A quick search of a key case mentioned in the post, Tillman V. Roberts, quickly reveals that this entire post was copied and pasted from some conspiracy site. The post relies on people not bothering to actually look at any of the nonsense it puts forth as most of it is unintelligible.

If the OP would care to fully discuss the background of any of the cases this post cites, perhaps we could get some glimmer of the point attempting to be made. But judging by the sheer volume of "government" codes tossed about, I highly doubt that the original author had any intention of the claims made being seriously examined. It's meant to be incomprehensible.

Tom Sawyer · 07-08-2008, 07:57 AM

It's too bad that Drew J got banned. I'd like to see the two of them argue about which shadowy organization it is that's controlling our lives through some overly complex conspiracy.

nogods4me · 07-08-2008, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

It's too bad that Drew J got banned. I'd like to see the two of them argue about which shadowy organization it is that's controlling our lives through some overly complex conspiracy.

Duh. It is our Jewish Lizard Overlords...

I just call them Jizzards for short...

BigBlue2 · 07-08-2008, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackclaw

At least Drew wasn't as dreadfully tedious as this...

Quote:

These codes have since been changed to read as follows: IMF 300-309,
Barred Assessment, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for the 1040 form.

Oh why yes, that certainly... is compelling.

No, that's more what QM would write in one of his tax threads.

Sultanist · 07-08-2008, 06:07 PM

Doog Drol! from Ladproa, Bangkok.
C'mon. No way.

If there's really a Doog Drol! from Ladproa, Bangkok then I'm Dub Drool the queen mother of sheeba.

rickP · 07-08-2008, 06:29 PM

Yes, that is the tip of the iceberg. Everyone knows that the Queen is controlled by...The Vatican! duh duh dahhhhh. And I'm convinced they're all secretly subsidiaries of Beatrice Foods.

rickP · 07-08-2008, 06:31 PM

Isn't that just 'Good Lord!' in reverse-ish? and it's Lad Prao.

J-D · 07-08-2008, 06:55 PM

There really is a Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997. I just found it on the Web. It was approved formally in the name of the Queen, as all British laws are, but substantively by the British Government. And it amends British law. It doesn't amend US law (there is no way it could).

I expect similar investigation would show all your other assertions to be similarly misconceived. I may look into a few of them when I have time later.

Tom Sawyer · 07-08-2008, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

There really is a Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997. I just found it on the Web. It was approved formally in the name of the Queen, as all British laws are, but substantively by the British Government. And it amends British law. It doesn't amend US law (there is no way it could).

I expect similar investigation would show all your other assertions to be similarly misconceived. I may look into a few of them when I have time later.

British law damn well can amend American law - you're just a colony. You don't like it, toss some tea in a harbour and start a revolution and try to handle shit on your own. Until you're willing to do that, just accept that the Queen is your head of state.

J-D · 07-08-2008, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

There really is a Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997. I just found it on the Web. It was approved formally in the name of the Queen, as all British laws are, but substantively by the British Government. And it amends British law. It doesn't amend US law (there is no way it could).

I expect similar investigation would show all your other assertions to be similarly misconceived. I may look into a few of them when I have time later.

British law damn well can amend American law - you're just a colony. You don't like it, toss some tea in a harbour and start a revolution and try to handle shit on your own. Until you're willing to do that, just accept that the Queen is your head of state.

The Queen is not the head of state of the US.

UK law does not have the power to amend US law, as I said.

On the other hand, the head of state of my country is the Queen of Australia. It does not follow that UK law has the power to amend Australian law. It has not had the power to do so since the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) came into force on 3 March 1986. Read it for yourself if you don't believe me. (Note that the Queen personally assented to the Australia Act.)

What the position is in your country I don't know.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-08-2008, 07:57 AM	#12
Tom Sawyer Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Toronto, eh Posts: 42,293	It's too bad that Drew J got banned. I'd like to see the two of them argue about which shadowy organization it is that's controlling our lives through some overly complex conspiracy.

07-08-2008, 06:07 PM	#15
Sultanist Contributor Join Date: May 2005 Location: Pensacola, Florida Posts: 28,681	Doog Drol! from Ladproa, Bangkok. C'mon. No way. If there's really a Doog Drol! from Ladproa, Bangkok then I'm Dub Drool the queen mother of sheeba.

07-08-2008, 06:29 PM	#16
rickP Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Bloomington, IL Posts: 1,079	Yes, that is the tip of the iceberg. Everyone knows that the Queen is controlled by...The Vatican! duh duh dahhhhh. And I'm convinced they're all secretly subsidiaries of Beatrice Foods.

07-08-2008, 06:31 PM	#17
rickP Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Bloomington, IL Posts: 1,079	Isn't that just 'Good Lord!' in reverse-ish? and it's Lad Prao.

07-08-2008, 06:55 PM	#18
J-D Moderator - General Religious Discussions Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: New South Wales Posts: 27,330	There really is a Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997. I just found it on the Web. It was approved formally in the name of the Queen, as all British laws are, but substantively by the British Government. And it amends British law. It doesn't amend US law (there is no way it could). I expect similar investigation would show all your other assertions to be similarly misconceived. I may look into a few of them when I have time later.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.