PDA

View Full Version : Hi I'm Blaggard and I'm..


Blaggard
04-09-2010, 02:41 PM
Noticing things more and more everyday. Things that don't add up. What I'm interested in is the Rule of Law and if it actually applies to anyone. We apparently live in a democratic society but I do not agree with some laws.
These laws will be things like private property ownership, land ownership, freedom of speech and the concealment of semantics.
People are taught to want happiness, and to gain happiness you have to have a family that loves and supports you whilst you work and pay taxes. They are taught that government 'acts' are "laws", not rules that have been agreed upon by those who think they are in power.

I'm starting to think there is a conspiracy of control; create a amiable populous that provides you with wealth and follows your rules.

However I cannot seem to link everything I'm learning and noticing together, which is why I'm here. I want help to understand what's really happening. Who calls the shots and how they are doing it and how they even got into that position.

I'm Blaggard; liberty in all things except that which causes loss to others.

BlueAngel
04-15-2010, 01:26 AM
In answer to your question.

To lie to someone is wrong because it doesn't help them.

The LIE serves the purpose of helping the person who perpetrates it.

Thus, the reason people lie.

To help themselves and not anyone else.

Our government lies to us everyday.

This does not help us.

It helps them.

Hence, my point regarding your signature line.

Blaggard
04-16-2010, 11:56 AM
You and you're friend are in a war. Somehow your friend has been surrounded and captured, and you are hidden and can watch them. You see them torture him, beat him, dismember him, defile him and commit atrocities to him. You are not in a position to have done anything without expecting the same treatment.
When you get back do you tell his mother what happened, about how he screamed whilst they laughed? Or do you tell her that they made it quick.

Surely it's not better for the mother to know why. You do it for yourself so you don't see her pain, but does she have to bear your burden?

BlueAngel
04-17-2010, 07:46 AM
You and you're friend are in a war. Somehow your friend has been surrounded and captured, and you are hidden and can watch them. You see them torture him, beat him, dismember him, defile him and commit atrocities to him. You are not in a position to have done anything without expecting the same treatment.
When you get back do you tell his mother what happened, about how he screamed whilst they laughed? Or do you tell her that they made it quick.

Surely it's not better for the mother to know why. You do it for yourself so you don't see her pain, but does she have to bear your burden?

That would be referred to as leaving out details.

Blaggard
04-17-2010, 07:49 AM
That would be referred to as leaving out details.
So don't our governments just leave out details?
Is that right?

BlueAngel
04-17-2010, 08:05 AM
So don't our governments just leave out details?
Is that right?

Give me a minute, Blaggard.

I was editing my post.

You make a good point and I wanted to elaborate further than just responding with, "that would be referred to as leaving out the details."

If the mother asks you if her son suffered and you reply, "no," I'm not certain if this lie is to protect yourself from having to be the one to cause/witness her pain in knowing the truth or to protect her from feeling pain and anguish or, perhaps, both.

In either event, I assume that the lie would serve one of those purposes.

However, if she finds out later that you lied and learns that her son did, in fact, suffer and must go through another grieving process, she might resent you and you might resent yourself for lieing.

Or, she might understand your motive.

I guess the reaction depends upon the individual who has been lied to and learns the truth.

Yes.

The government lies to us all the time; however, I wouldn't agree that most of the time they leave out details to protect us.

Most of the time, they leave out details to protect themselves.

Blaggard
04-17-2010, 08:13 AM
If the government doesn't protect itself then the protection racket money we give them may be better of with a government that does protect itself.
Governments only goal is to gain as much power over as many people as possible because it is a protection racket. We decide when the racket goes too far at times but we have to accept there is some things that if the public knew, the public would be at threat.

And regarding the mother: You make possibilities of failure of the lie. If the lie worked and she never found out; living in comparative bliss. If the lies work you never hear of them working, if they've been covered up so well as if to seem like truth, what harm?
With lying you make a massive gamble between "total ignorance" or "full exposure" and sometimes the person who has to talk would rather everyone be in ignorance to make it easier for everyone involved.

BlueAngel
04-17-2010, 08:58 AM
If the government doesn't protect itself then the protection racket money we give them may be better of with a government that does protect itself.
Governments only goal is to gain as much power over as many people as possible because it is a protection racket. We decide when the racket goes too far at times but we have to accept there is some things that if the public knew, the public would be at threat.

And regarding the mother: You make possibilities of failure of the lie. If the lie worked and she never found out; living in comparative bliss. If the lies work you never hear of them working, if they've been covered up so well as if to seem like truth, what harm?
With lying you make a massive gamble between "total ignorance" or "full exposure" and sometimes the person who has to talk would rather everyone be in ignorance to make it easier for everyone involved.

She wouldn't be living in bliss and if she never learned the truth, you would have to live with the lie.

Blaggard
04-17-2010, 09:01 AM
Thus it being a gamble. You gamble for ignorance and you gamble against them knowing how their baby was tortured.

The government is able to do this on a much larger and many times more efficient scale because they control information and decide what is learned.

BlueAngel
04-17-2010, 09:07 AM
Thus it being a gamble. You gamble for ignorance and you gamble against them knowing how their baby was tortured.

The government is able to do this on a much larger and many times more efficient scale because they control information and decide what is learned.

I'm not disputing your opinion that the governments lies.

I've agreed that the government lies to protect themselves and deceive the people.

Blaggard
04-17-2010, 09:22 AM
We dispute if it's right to lie.

If you are so sure you can hide things and leave people not knowing that which would destroy their souls; will it be right to lie for the betterment of everyone.

BlueAngel
04-17-2010, 06:23 PM
We dispute if it's right to lie.

If you are so sure you can hide things and leave people not knowing that which would destroy their souls; will it be right to lie for the betterment of everyone.

Knowing the truth does not destroy one's soul.

Lying is not for the betterment of everyone.

It is for the betterment of those who perpetrate the lies in order to advance their cause which is not in the best interest of society, but only in their best interest.

Blaggard
04-17-2010, 06:43 PM
1) It was a simile. Sheltered from pain people are happy. Why take away their ability to be happy by telling them the truth?
2) Let's assume some conspiracy theories are correct, such a Zionism and the NWO. It is very easy to argue that they do things for personal gain; but there is a limit to this. For example we take into account British Colony's, such as Rhodesia. The British invaded and took control for wealth and personal profit however in doing so, as soon as the population fell into line and did what they were told too, they made countries into economic powerhouses with schools and library's and other wonderful things of culture.
History has shown that capitalist empires can rule people for everyone's benefit. With no dissenters the quality of life grows for all of them.

These conspiracy theories revolve around capitalistic empire growth. If they were to take control our culture would evolve and quality of life increase. More happiness, and that's all people want out of life, to be happy.
If they have to lie to be able to get to the position to seize power, but ultimately benefit everyone, isn't it a good thing?

BlueAngel
04-17-2010, 06:59 PM
1) It was a simile. Sheltered from pain people are happy. Why take away their ability to be happy by telling them the truth?
2) Let's assume some conspiracy theories are correct, such a Zionism and the NWO. It is very easy to argue that they do things for personal gain; but there is a limit to this. For example we take into account British Colony's, such as Rhodesia. The British invaded and took control for wealth and personal profit however in doing so, as soon as the population fell into line and did what they were told too, they made countries into economic powerhouses with schools and library's and other wonderful things of culture.
History has shown that capitalist empires can rule people for everyone's benefit. With no dissenters the quality of life grows for all of them.

These conspiracy theories revolve around capitalistic empire growth. If they were to take control our culture would evolve and quality of life increase. More happiness, and that's all people want out of life, to be happy.
If they have to lie to be able to get to the position to seize power, but ultimately benefit everyone, isn't it a good thing?

Sheltered from pain people are happy?

Huh?

No one can shelter anyone from pain.

People live with pain everyday and suffer everyday, as we speak, and they ain't being sheltered from the pain by any government entity.

Some of it was perpetrated upon them by the government.

Such as the banking/financial institutions that caused people to lose their homes and the economic collapse that caused the unemployment rate to skyrocket in this country.

So, what the hell are you talking about?

People live with pain everyday irregardless of whether or not it has been perpetrated upon them by the government and the government doesn't shelter anyone from pain.

And, you say the following:

"If they have to lie to be able to get to the position to seize power, but ultimately benefit everyone, isn't it a good thing?"

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Are you freakin' kidding me?

You must be.

Right?

Who are they?

The government?

Get to the point, pal, and quit beating around the bush.

Yeah.

The government lies so they can seize power and this benefits everyone.

This benefits them.

Please!

Blaggard
04-17-2010, 07:17 PM
Are you freakin' kidding me?

You must be.

Right?

Who are they?

The government?

Get to the point, pal, and quit beating around the bush.

Yeah.

The government lies so they can seize power and this benefits everyone.

This benefits them.

Please!


Combined with cultural evolution and education increases, such as evident in the British colonial expansions, we'd be on the right track.

Sheltered from pain people are happy?

Huh?

No one can shelter anyone from pain.

People live with pain everyday and suffer everyday, as we speak, and they ain't being sheltered from the pain by any government entity.

Some of it was perpetrated upon them by the government.

Such as the banking/financial institutions that caused people to lose their homes and the economic collapse that caused the unemployment rate to skyrocket in this country.

So, what the hell are you talking about?

People live with pain everyday irregardless of whether or not it has been perpetrated upon them by the government and the government doesn't shelter anyone from pain.

And, you say the following:

"If they have to lie to be able to get to the position to seize power, but ultimately benefit everyone, isn't it a good thing?"



We hide ourselves from pain all the time. The more we don't know of what pain we should have the less we will have it.
How many things does the government hide from you do you don't experience pain?
The failures of the "banking" system we have now is just ran by short term profit mongers; the ones who are believed to pull the strings and to make long term plans for the evolution of society control these recessions, the pain they choose to inflict upon the world.


Pain for a purpose. A populace in pain isn't productive or profitable. A populous who is amiable and stupid whilst happy and care free will profit the puppet master much more. Benefits for both parties. The pain the caused now may be a intended pain, something beyond our understanding for we are not privy to thousands of years of planning.

BlueAngel
04-17-2010, 07:22 PM
Combined with cultural evolution and education increases, such as evident in the British colonial expansions, we'd be on the right track.



We hide ourselves from pain all the time. The more we don't know of what pain we should have the less we will have it.
How many things does the government hide from you do you don't experience pain?
The failures of the "banking" system we have now is just ran by short term profit mongers; the ones who are believed to pull the strings and to make long term plans for the evolution of society control these recessions, the pain they choose to inflict upon the world.


Pain for a purpose. A populace in pain isn't productive or profitable. A populous who is amiable and stupid whilst happy and care free will profit the puppet master much more. Benefits for both parties. The pain the caused now may be a intended pain, something beyond our understanding for we are not privy to thousands of years of planning.

The populace is in pain, pal, and the government hasn't done anything to shelter them from it.

They caused it.

The pain the government created now may be an intended pain, something beyond our understanding, you say.

Yeah.

Right.

I just explained to you how I understood it, so it isn't beyond my understanding.

Blaggard
04-17-2010, 07:26 PM
Jews are not so forward thinking to stop enjoying themselves now. They only have the lifespan we do.

This recession will be a short thing, as they always are. The shorter the better. The more brutal and short the recession is, the better the economic state of countries is afterwards.
Trying to stop it by giving out money that doesn't exist (hey isn't that what caused the problem?) will make it last longer, effect more people and the end result will be worse than a short brutal shitstorm.

---


EDIT:

I love how you just edited your post so you don't admit your stupid.

BlueAngel
04-17-2010, 07:38 PM
Jews are not so forward thinking to stop enjoying themselves now. They only have the lifespan we do.

This recession will be a short thing, as they always are. The shorter the better. The more brutal and short the recession is, the better the economic state of countries is afterwards.
Trying to stop it by giving out money that doesn't exist (hey isn't that what caused the problem?) will make it last longer, effect more people and the end result will be worse than a short brutal shitstorm.

Thank goodness we have a financial expert on board.

We can all breathe a deep sigh of relief.

Blaggard says that the recession will be a short thing, as they always are, according to him.

Should I start a thread asking all financial experts to check in?

Blaggard says that trying to stop it by giving out money that doesn't exist will make it last longer.

Ah, that's what they did.

They gave out millions of dollars that didn't exist to the automobile manufacturers and financial institutions.

Where have you been?

So, how can the recession be a short thing when you say it will be a long thing if they give out money that doesn't exist?

They did this.

You have contradicted yourself.

:)

Blaggard
04-17-2010, 08:37 PM
Exactly, artificial constructs. We assign it wealth. We take in the "value" of people within the country and use that actual value to back up bonds of fake value.
On the back of your Birth Certificate is one such bond number. The Government owns your skills; the more skilled and educated you are the more you are able to provide wealth and thus the value of your bond increasing. These skills and potential to earn is turned into a numerical value and that should be the end to it.
However to stimulate growth there is commercial banks with interest rates and other shit! Government should own all money, interest rate at 0%. All money is tracked and is always going to be a specific value based on the perceived potential to profit valued from the skills pool and raw materials value of the entire country.

The Commercial Banks and Federal Banks are methods to display an illusion of economy; because who trusts the government with their money? They'll trust a private company because... well, it's private, they can be held accountable.
These banks get to a position of power where people have so much invested in the 'money' that it'll damage them if they pulled out; so the banks can threaten the people who use the money to keep using it.
Federal banks charge interest on the money they produce to keep the currency competitive; "We've put 0.05% more money into the economy, that's what will be charged on this loan to keep the value consistent when compared to skills and common raw materials".

Of course, the commercial banks will charge 20% for a credit card. The 20% extra isn't covered anywhere. There'll be $100 in existence but $120 on the loan is still there because of commercialness. So, to cover the extra 20%; more loans are needed from the commercial banks and thus more from the federal bank. More loans just to pay off interest which will eventually lead to a massive crash due to trust for the system failing (It's not a case of banks not trusting you to pay back the money, they know you cannot pay back the money. They know there is so much interest in existence that you will not be able to pay it off.

So, commercial banks stop lending because they know you cannot pay them. A design that allows banks to have long periods of lavishly squandering their profits, followed by a short brutish balance of currency, only to be repeated.

The billions of dollars given away to failing companies is the government trying to stop the recession being short and brutal. The longer it goes on the less value everything has; whilst the shorter it is means that less value is lost on keeping companies afloat.

EDIT-

I do not contradict myself. You don't have the same definition of government and puppet masters that I do.

Government can only react the way it's been told to react. That can be forced by media control, finance control, blackmail, social reform et al.


The recession continues because our governments are doing what they think will get them re-elected. If they are shown to be cold calculating ruthless bastards during the time of the metro sexual and feminists poisoning (no surprise where they originated from) the minds of "voters" they would never stay in.

And because people would rather have power than fix the problem, they won't fix the problem, they'll try to get as much power as possible. if they fix the problem they are labeled and evil.

BlueAngel
04-17-2010, 09:43 PM
Exactly, artificial constructs. We assign it wealth. We take in the "value" of people within the country and use that actual value to back up bonds of fake value.
On the back of your Birth Certificate is one such bond number. The Government owns your skills; the more skilled and educated you are the more you are able to provide wealth and thus the value of your bond increasing. These skills and potential to earn is turned into a numerical value and that should be the end to it.
However to stimulate growth there is commercial banks with interest rates and other shit! Government should own all money, interest rate at 0%. All money is tracked and is always going to be a specific value based on the perceived potential to profit valued from the skills pool and raw materials value of the entire country.

The Commercial Banks and Federal Banks are methods to display an illusion of economy; because who trusts the government with their money? They'll trust a private company because... well, it's private, they can be held accountable.
These banks get to a position of power where people have so much invested in the 'money' that it'll damage them if they pulled out; so the banks can threaten the people who use the money to keep using it.
Federal banks charge interest on the money they produce to keep the currency competitive; "We've put 0.05% more money into the economy, that's what will be charged on this loan to keep the value consistent when compared to skills and common raw materials".

Of course, the commercial banks will charge 20% for a credit card. The 20% extra isn't covered anywhere. There'll be $100 in existence but $120 on the loan is still there because of commercialness. So, to cover the extra 20%; more loans are needed from the commercial banks and thus more from the federal bank. More loans just to pay off interest which will eventually lead to a massive crash due to trust for the system failing (It's not a case of banks not trusting you to pay back the money, they know you cannot pay back the money. They know there is so much interest in existence that you will not be able to pay it off.

So, commercial banks stop lending because they know you cannot pay them. A design that allows banks to have long periods of lavishly squandering their profits, followed by a short brutish balance of currency, only to be repeated.

The billions of dollars given away to failing companies is the government trying to stop the recession being short and brutal. The longer it goes on the less value everything has; whilst the shorter it is means that less value is lost on keeping companies afloat.

EDIT-

I do not contradict myself. You don't have the same definition of government and puppet masters that I do.

Government can only react the way it's been told to react. That can be forced by media control, finance control, blackmail, social reform et al.


The recession continues because our governments are doing what they think will get them re-elected. If they are shown to be cold calculating ruthless bastards during the time of the metro sexual and feminists poisoning (no surprise where they originated from) the minds of "voters" they would never stay in.

And because people would rather have power than fix the problem, they won't fix the problem, they'll try to get as much power as possible. if they fix the problem they are labeled and evil.

-----------------------------------------------------

Again, huh?

The following comment by Blaggard makes no sense.

"And because people would rather have power than fix the problem, they won't fix the problem, they'll try to get as much power as possible. if they fix the problem they are labeled and evil."

Furthermore, you have contradicted yourself all over this thread.

I have pointed out your contradictions so there is no disputing it.

Blaggard
04-17-2010, 09:52 PM
Because you took it out of context.

I was musing on the state of society and how it would react to a government who would fix problems.

I came to the conclusion that politicians only want power and that acting in a way which will fix that particular problem would be considered cold hearted, callous, evi.
If these rulers were in a different time period, such as churchill being in the period of ww2 and not the period of the falklands war, they would be considered proud, thoughtful, for the people.

So to get re-elected they fail to combat the problem seriously and it just becomes worse.
If they fix the problem they will have dogma and programtism sticking to them whether they like it or not they wanted it. The eyes of the media may have done horrible things to them; destroyed reputations and honour.
Who would vote for a honourless fiend who commited such an such an act in this year?

BlueAngel
04-17-2010, 09:55 PM
Because you took it out of context.

I was musing on the state of society and how it would react to a government who would fix problems.

I came to the conclusion that politicians only want power and that acting in a way which will fix that particular problem would be considered cold hearted, callous, evi.
If these rulers were in a different time period, such as churchill being in the period of ww2 and not the period of the falklands war, they would be considered proud, thoughtful, for the people.

So to get re-elected they fail to combat the problem seriously and it just becomes worse.
If they fix the problem they will have dogma and programtism sticking to them whether they like it or not they wanted it. The eyes of the media may have done horrible things to them; destroyed reputations and honour.
Who would vote for a honourless fiend who commited such an such an act in this year?

I didn't take anything out of context.

Blaggard
04-17-2010, 09:58 PM
Why do you not argue my arguements? This is a conspiracy forum is it not?

Have you never considered that those who seek to control you also seek to provide you with happiness?

A happy population is a more easily controlled population.

BlueAngel
04-17-2010, 10:20 PM
Why do you not argue my arguements? This is a conspiracy forum is it not?

Have you never considered that those who seek to control you also seek to provide you with happiness?

A happy population is a more easily controlled population.

Excuse me, but if you fail to see that I have argued your arguments, you apparently do not see that which stares you in the face.

It has nothing to do with whether or not this is a conspiracy forum.

How telling.

Blaggard states that those who seek to control ME also seek to provide me with happiness.

WHO are those who seek to control me?

The CIA/Mafia who used me in child pornography?

Sorry, pal, but I'm just not a happy camper when someone tries to control me and, furthermore, no one provides another with happiness by controlling them.

Blaggard
04-17-2010, 10:37 PM
You don't fall in line like you should.

I can think of many excuses for going after children in a sexual way; however children have been classified as learners. Anything that disrupts the teachings to the children is a potential threat for futore skills base and thus a threat to the futore values worth.

Ergo; screw with children you could be damaging us in 30 years time; we don't want you damaging our most valuable resources. Damage them and you get fucked.

You get fucked so that everyone will know what will happen if you shag a child.

It has been mutually agreed between all members of your community that for certain reasons child sex is wrong and you get punished for doing it. This is for the benefit of everyone, so everyone can be happy and continue to live ignorantly and amiably.

You don't make it look like control; but it is control. You make it look like everyone agreed to it and you learn why it was a good thing to agree upon.

BlueAngel
04-17-2010, 10:46 PM
You don't fall in line like you should.

I can think of many excuses for going after children in a sexual way; however children have been classified as learners. Anything that disrupts the teachings to the children is a potential threat for futore skills base and thus a threat to the futore values worth.

Ergo; screw with children you could be damaging us in 30 years time; we don't want you damaging our most valuable resources. Damage them and you get fucked.

You get fucked so that everyone will know what will happen if you shag a child.

It has been mutually agreed between all members of your community that for certain reasons child sex is wrong and you get punished for doing it. This is for the benefit of everyone, so everyone can be happy and continue to live ignorantly and amiably.

You don't make it look like control; but it is control. You make it look like everyone agreed to it and you learn why it was a good thing to agree upon.

Absolutely, I don't fall in line like I should and I'm proud of it.

There are no certain reasons that make child sex wrong whether agreed upon between all member of a community or not.

It is wrong, period and most people know this.

Blaggard
04-17-2010, 10:57 PM
Because everyone agreed that children are out of bounds. If you don't accept that law then you've had plenty of time to argue it and get the rest of the community to agree with you.

However you didn't and you went along with it anyway. That was your fault for doing somethign you know everyone knows is wrong.

BlueAngel
04-17-2010, 11:13 PM
Because everyone agreed that children are out of bounds. If you don't accept that law then you've had plenty of time to argue it and get the rest of the community to agree with you.

However you didn't and you went along with it anyway. That was your fault for doing somethign you know everyone knows is wrong.

Again, your post doesn't make any sense.

Blaggard
04-17-2010, 11:15 PM
I fucked you infront of the CIA and FBI, and they gave me a copy of the tapes.

BlueAngel
04-17-2010, 11:18 PM
I fucked you infront of the CIA and FBI, and they gave me a copy of the tapes.

Like I said.

Many members of this forum cause their own demise and it has nothing to do with me wanting to ban them as superted has suggested.

Blaggard.

Case in point.

superted
04-18-2010, 05:08 AM
Blueangel - I started reading from the start of this thread, blaggard was actually making sense you when you said he contradicted himself (on two separate notable occasions), he had in fact not contradicted himself - you only misunderstood what he was trying to convey.

I had planned on going into both of these examples but as I neared the end of the thread I noticed blaggard started on about sex with children....why I'm not sure and I actually agree he should have been banned! His/her last 4/5 posts don't actually make any sense, but his previous did.

Here's a thought, you started to be rude to him pretty early on in this thread. Assuming you were 100% correct and that he was wrong (not so the case) and maybe he/she just thought, screw it, and went off on one and subsequently got themselves banned...what you think?

BlueAngel
04-18-2010, 01:25 PM
Blueangel - I started reading from the start of this thread, blaggard was actually making sense you when you said he contradicted himself (on two separate notable occasions), he had in fact not contradicted himself - you only misunderstood what he was trying to convey.

I had planned on going into both of these examples but as I neared the end of the thread I noticed blaggard started on about sex with children....why I'm not sure and I actually agree he should have been banned! His/her last 4/5 posts don't actually make any sense, but his previous did.

Here's a thought, you started to be rude to him pretty early on in this thread. Assuming you were 100% correct and that he was wrong (not so the case) and maybe he/she just thought, screw it, and went off on one and subsequently got themselves banned...what you think?

It is my opinion that he contradicted himself.

You can choose to believe otherwise.

Stating one's opinion and disagreeing with another member's viewpoint does not constitue rude.

superted
04-18-2010, 03:23 PM
-----------------------------------------------------


I have pointed out your contradictions so there is no disputing it.

I dunno blueangel, I do think its rude....no arrogant to assume your 100% correct - which as the above proves, you did. I can dispute what you said but that's not the point of this current debate.

BlueAngel
04-19-2010, 12:24 PM
I dunno blueangel, I do think its rude....no arrogant to assume your 100% correct - which as the above proves, you did. I can dispute what you said but that's not the point of this current debate.

What debate?

About the fact that you think it's necessary that I offer an explanation to you as to why I banned a member and you decide whether or not I acted appropriately.

Sorry, but it ain't necessary that I either explain why I banned a member or engage in a debate with you about it.

Sentrynox
04-19-2010, 01:55 PM
You might like this website:
http://themindtraveler.blog.com/2010/03/31/concept-of-freedoms-and-its-technological-relationships/

You are right, there is something huge trying to control human life, but not only in the US!!!
Its much worst than you think...

superted
04-20-2010, 05:39 AM
If you say so blueangel!

BlueAngel
04-20-2010, 05:25 PM
If you say so blueangel!

Happy to see that you see it my way.

:)

conspiracytruths.co.uk
04-24-2010, 07:06 AM
I have written a bit about law on my website follow the link to this article Queen of the USA (http://www.conspiracytruths.co.uk/page_1923056.html) and also liam roberts the corporation (http://www.conspiracytruths.co.uk/liamrobertsthecorporation.html)

Also lots of other bits you may be interested in on there.

:)