pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 30 replies \ @Cje95 30 Apr freebie \ parent \ on: Congress To Vote On The US Joining Ukraine, Dan Held To Advise Military bitcoin
I am not a Member I am a staffer and this bill literally does not exist so I have no idea who told you it does but they either A are confused since we are voting on National Resources bills this week or B are just trying to make stuff up and spread disinfo.
Today's Legislation:
These are all bundled together under one vote.
- H.R. 615 - Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act of 2023
- H.R. 2925 - Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024
- H.R. 3195 - Superior National Forest Restoration Act
- H.R. 764 - Trust the Science Act
- H.R. 3397 - WEST Act of 2023
- H.R. 6285 - Alaska’s Right to Produce Act of 2023
- H.R. 6090 - Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023
These are a separate votes
- H.R. 3195 - Superior National Forest Restoration Act
- H.R. 764 - Trust the Science Act
- H.R. 615 - Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act
- H.R. 3397 - Western Economic Security Today Act
reply
Close bud but if you read the bills you would see that well its the opposite of what you said.
- Trust the Science Act actually To require the Secretary of the Interior to reissue regulations removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
ie allows you to shoot them
- Not sure how protections for hunters stops hunting when it ya know does the opposite but again nice try
- Forest Act clearly states To rescind Public Land Order 7917, to reinstate mineral leases and permits in the Superior National Forest, to ensure timely review of Mine Plans of Operations, and for other purposes.
ie allow mining and drilling and overturn the President's ban on these things.
Only takes a second to read but I get that it is hard.
reply
- So if you remove the gray wolf is because you have a long list of other things you still have which you agree a gov should have competence over.
- Protection of hunters really means regulating hunters, which shouldn't. Hunters don't need privileges or help, specially if the rest pay for them.
- Minining permits? I am fully sovereign on what I can mine in my land. Why would I need a permission? And who is the alleged gov to say the public land is theirs to allow or disallow leases in the first place?
You see, the problem here is that you believe and submit to a ficticious authority and try to impose that believe on others. It doesn't matter if what the gov says coincides with what you want or not, because there will be a time in which it doesn't, and you will regret asking to them in the first place.
As @DarthCoin said, you are eating their shit. It doesn't matter if sometimes it is tasty shit, it is shit anyway.
reply
I absolutely love the social psych around the sovereign citizen movement! Tell me more about your beliefs cause they truly are one of a kind! One question though.... Say I mine on my land and fill it with mercury and it ends up poisoning your water... how does that work because with what you said I mined on my land and I did not directly access yours. Mother Nature did her thing and caused it so am I off scot-free while you have no more water?
reply
Natural Law:
You have the right to free use of your property and agreement with other beings, as long as it is voluntary and in full knowledge of the conditions and risks, and if not, you would be fairly responsible and liable to compensate them.
If I contaminate your land with my activities I am responsible and liable to compensate you fully. Is it that so difficult to understand?
reply
Well but how do you decide or enforce this? Say you do something to a tree on my property and it dies and I say well you owe me $20 million because that's what that single tree is worth. I put a value on it that is obviously absurd and no one would agree a single oak tree is worth $20 million and how would I force you to actually pay? There are not any enforcement mechanisms in place and if I crossed over onto your land to extract payment then obviously you have a right to defend yourself and shoot me.
reply
You put the typical example that a statist would put, because that is what you are.
If I kill your tree then I own you a tree, not $20M. I can either transplant another similar tree in the same place or we can both agree on an amount. If we don't agree on that amount, then I owe you a tree, nothing else. You have the right to seize me another tree, nothing else.
Read again the law. It says "you would be fairly responsible". Note the "fairly".
About crossing your land, think about it. Land cannot really be of anyone, because it was not created by anybody. What is your creation or recreation may be a plantation, a house, a garden, or any other modification you have made to the land. So if I cross your land without comiting any damage or traspasing a building I am not liable of anything. But if I cross causing damage or stealing, then yes, I am liable and you have the right to defend your property.
reply
What is fair in your eyes does not mean it is fair in my eyes and this is a huge reason I can't wrap my head around it. Just like art and the saying value is in the eye of the beholder if you kill a 20-year-old tree you realistically cannot plant a new one. So just giving me a tree wouldn't work its not a fair trade because of the loss in variable things like shade, idk a tire swing could be attached to it, it could have been planted by a deceased relative so therefore what is fair to me and to you would be dramatically different and extremely hard to rectify.
I just assumed you were because you said "We don't submit a bill for comment." This appeared to be you claiming you were an elected official passing legislations.
Do the staffers usually have butt sex in the senate chambers before their congresspeople vote on bills that are non compliant with the constitution? How many times have you engaged in this activity?
reply
reply
Have you considered writing a bill for Congress and the CIA to become compliant institutions, barring their noncompliance?
Or do you think there needs to be constitutional amendments for them to become compliant because it's too difficult and restrictive now?
reply
Can you please submit a bill that makes it illegal to prosecute someone for laundering the CIA's money? You shouldn't be able to arrest people for that, in a Democracy
I am not a Member I am a staffer
So you eat the same gov shit, right.
reply
Darth are you proud of my new bio? 110% inspired by your love and commitment to the hate!
reply
There's nothing more in this world to hate more than governments and especially those who work for a gov.
Than came banksters and shitcoiners.
FUCK'EM'ALL
reply
reply
No, as a gov agent you are just a cockroach.
reply
reply
being bribed by a gov agent is the most disgusting thing ever...
I will launder those sats through SN so I will not touch them.
reply
Just thought of something.... since you do not want to touch or "launder" sats that could be from me how do you know what is what? You've posted over a thousand comments and so do you not touch any of the rewards you earn? If you don't then I guess you cant zap people either because that would further build upon "laundering" sats and messing up other people right?
How do you justify working for a noncompliant organization who refuses to follow the rules?
reply
reply
Have you considered submitting a constitutional amendment to remove the 4th amendment so they don't have to keep voting on renewing FISA?
This is all horseshit.
I am wiping my ass with all that paper garbage.
reply