WaterfowlForum.Net

This topic is VERY interesting and our old friend assateague will surely make an appearance here soon.

Been reading the comments...all I could stand.

There seems to be two camps.
1. Naturalists who feel we are being held back from what our God has taught us about how to live.
We're farmers and if you read the bible...it's all about farming and how the kings should rule us justly, humanely, and protect us...

2. The corporate-minded people want to boast about how the earth could never support the huge population without industry and laws that protect industry. That camp is the crazy people who call residents of camp #1 loony-tunes.

When the corporate society collapses (it will)
some of us (naturalists) will be expected to simply hand over the fruits of our labor to the people who occupy camp #2.
When we get there, if I'm alive, I will simply load the supplies camp #2 needs into a large home made cannon and shoot it to them.

aunt betty wrote:This topic is VERY interesting and our old friend assateague will surely make an appearance here soon.

Been reading the comments...all I could stand.

There seems to be two camps.
1. Naturalists who feel we are being held back from what our God has taught us about how to live.
We're farmers and if you read the bible...it's all about farming and how the kings should rule us justly, humanely, and protect us...

2. The corporate-minded people want to boast about how the earth could never support the huge population without industry and laws that protect industry. That camp is the crazy people who call residents of camp #1 loony-tunes.

When the corporate society collapses (it will)
some of us (naturalists) will be expected to simply hand over the fruits of our labor to the people who occupy camp #2.
When we get there, if I'm alive, I will simply load the supplies camp #2 needs into a large home made cannon and shoot it to them.

Shoulda posted this in the political/ controversial and called the thread "universal law"
Olly? Can we do that? It really is about the content of the video.

actually, this seems to hold true to the ideas laid out by John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government; that nature belongs to nobody until man expresses labor to harvest it, which then, by default, makes it his. that's covered under the law of nature.

Very good video. Told her fuck you in a polite way.

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:actually, this seems to hold true to the ideas laid out by John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government; that nature belongs to nobody until man expresses labor to harvest it, which then, by default, makes it his. that's covered under the law of nature.

He was an asshole on Lost.

FlintRiverFowler wrote:

aunt betty wrote:This topic is VERY interesting and our old friend assateague will surely make an appearance here soon.

Been reading the comments...all I could stand.

There seems to be two camps.
1. Naturalists who feel we are being held back from what our God has taught us about how to live.
We're farmers and if you read the bible...it's all about farming and how the kings should rule us justly, humanely, and protect us...

2. The corporate-minded people want to boast about how the earth could never support the huge population without industry and laws that protect industry. That camp is the crazy people who call residents of camp #1 loony-tunes.

When the corporate society collapses (it will)
some of us (naturalists) will be expected to simply hand over the fruits of our labor to the people who occupy camp #2.
When we get there, if I'm alive, I will simply load the supplies camp #2 needs into a large home made cannon and shoot it to them.

Shoulda posted this in the political/ controversial and called the thread "universal law"
Olly? Can we do that? It really is about the content of the video.

You two can do anything you want. Olly/Flint 2016...remember?

Eric Haynes wrote:

FlintRiverFowler wrote:

aunt betty wrote:This topic is VERY interesting and our old friend assateague will surely make an appearance here soon.

Been reading the comments...all I could stand.

There seems to be two camps.
1. Naturalists who feel we are being held back from what our God has taught us about how to live.
We're farmers and if you read the bible...it's all about farming and how the kings should rule us justly, humanely, and protect us...

2. The corporate-minded people want to boast about how the earth could never support the huge population without industry and laws that protect industry. That camp is the crazy people who call residents of camp #1 loony-tunes.

When the corporate society collapses (it will)
some of us (naturalists) will be expected to simply hand over the fruits of our labor to the people who occupy camp #2.
When we get there, if I'm alive, I will simply load the supplies camp #2 needs into a large home made cannon and shoot it to them.

Shoulda posted this in the political/ controversial and called the thread "universal law"
Olly? Can we do that? It really is about the content of the video.

You two can do anything you want. Olly/Flint 2016...remember?

WTF you talkin about boy. I can call you boy now...

You still takin notes for that stupid book you're writing about internet chat room phenomenon?
pfft.
You bore me.

capt1972 wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:actually, this seems to hold true to the ideas laid out by John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government; that nature belongs to nobody until man expresses labor to harvest it, which then, by default, makes it his. that's covered under the law of nature.

He was an asshole on Lost.

what? I think you're thinking of someone else. Locke was a 17th century political philosopher, who countered Thomas Hobbes in his ideological concepts of government. Hobbes believed in a patriarchal structure of rule, whereas Locke believed that the only true Patriarch of man would be the blood descendant of Adam, since he was created directly by God. Since no ability exists to determine the true descendant, we rule either by nature or civilization, and if civilization, the government is subservient to the people in which it governs.

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:

capt1972 wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:actually, this seems to hold true to the ideas laid out by John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government; that nature belongs to nobody until man expresses labor to harvest it, which then, by default, makes it his. that's covered under the law of nature.

He was an asshole on Lost.

what? I think you're thinking of someone else. Locke was a 17th century political philosopher, who countered Thomas Hobbes in his ideological concepts of government. Hobbes believed in a patriarchal structure of rule, whereas Locke believed that the only true Patriarch of man would be the blood descendant of Adam, since he was created directly by God. Since no ability exists to determine the true descendant, we rule either by nature or civilization, and if civilization, the government is subservient to the people in which it governs.

For fucks sake!

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:

capt1972 wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:actually, this seems to hold true to the ideas laid out by John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government; that nature belongs to nobody until man expresses labor to harvest it, which then, by default, makes it his. that's covered under the law of nature.

He was an asshole on Lost.

what? I think you're thinking of someone else. Locke was a 17th century political philosopher, who countered Thomas Hobbes in his ideological concepts of government. Hobbes believed in a patriarchal structure of rule, whereas Locke believed that the only true Patriarch of man would be the blood descendant of Adam, since he was created directly by God. Since no ability exists to determine the true descendant, we rule either by nature or civilization, and if civilization, the government is subservient to the people in which it governs.

check out the big brain on MT

Bootlipkiller wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:

capt1972 wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:actually, this seems to hold true to the ideas laid out by John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government; that nature belongs to nobody until man expresses labor to harvest it, which then, by default, makes it his. that's covered under the law of nature.

He was an asshole on Lost.

what? I think you're thinking of someone else. Locke was a 17th century political philosopher, who countered Thomas Hobbes in his ideological concepts of government. Hobbes believed in a patriarchal structure of rule, whereas Locke believed that the only true Patriarch of man would be the blood descendant of Adam, since he was created directly by God. Since no ability exists to determine the true descendant, we rule either by nature or civilization, and if civilization, the government is subservient to the people in which it governs.

For fucks sake!

HAHAHA

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:

capt1972 wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:actually, this seems to hold true to the ideas laid out by John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government; that nature belongs to nobody until man expresses labor to harvest it, which then, by default, makes it his. that's covered under the law of nature.

He was an asshole on Lost.

what? I think you're thinking of someone else. Locke was a 17th century political philosopher, who countered Thomas Hobbes in his ideological concepts of government. Hobbes believed in a patriarchal structure of rule, whereas Locke believed that the only true Patriarch of man would be the blood descendant of Adam, since he was created directly by God. Since no ability exists to determine the true descendant, we rule either by nature or civilization, and if civilization, the government is subservient to the people in which it governs.

Wouldn't we all be a blood descendant of Adam?

FlintRiverFowler wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:

capt1972 wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:actually, this seems to hold true to the ideas laid out by John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government; that nature belongs to nobody until man expresses labor to harvest it, which then, by default, makes it his. that's covered under the law of nature.

He was an asshole on Lost.

what? I think you're thinking of someone else. Locke was a 17th century political philosopher, who countered Thomas Hobbes in his ideological concepts of government. Hobbes believed in a patriarchal structure of rule, whereas Locke believed that the only true Patriarch of man would be the blood descendant of Adam, since he was created directly by God. Since no ability exists to determine the true descendant, we rule either by nature or civilization, and if civilization, the government is subservient to the people in which it governs.

Wouldn't we all be a blood descendant of Adam?

What do you expect from the guy from Lost. He couldn't even figure out how to get off a damn island!

Bootlipkiller wrote:

FlintRiverFowler wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:

capt1972 wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:actually, this seems to hold true to the ideas laid out by John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government; that nature belongs to nobody until man expresses labor to harvest it, which then, by default, makes it his. that's covered under the law of nature.

He was an asshole on Lost.

what? I think you're thinking of someone else. Locke was a 17th century political philosopher, who countered Thomas Hobbes in his ideological concepts of government. Hobbes believed in a patriarchal structure of rule, whereas Locke believed that the only true Patriarch of man would be the blood descendant of Adam, since he was created directly by God. Since no ability exists to determine the true descendant, we rule either by nature or civilization, and if civilization, the government is subservient to the people in which it governs.

Wouldn't we all be a blood descendant of Adam?

What do you expect from the guy from Lost. He couldn't even figure out how to get off a damn island!

What's Lost?

FlintRiverFowler wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:

capt1972 wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:actually, this seems to hold true to the ideas laid out by John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government; that nature belongs to nobody until man expresses labor to harvest it, which then, by default, makes it his. that's covered under the law of nature.

He was an asshole on Lost.

what? I think you're thinking of someone else. Locke was a 17th century political philosopher, who countered Thomas Hobbes in his ideological concepts of government. Hobbes believed in a patriarchal structure of rule, whereas Locke believed that the only true Patriarch of man would be the blood descendant of Adam, since he was created directly by God. Since no ability exists to determine the true descendant, we rule either by nature or civilization, and if civilization, the government is subservient to the people in which it governs.

Wouldn't we all be a blood descendant of Adam?

I thought of that too. I think he was referring to direct blood lineage. not sure though, I'm gonna read it this summer while I'm in the desert, so i'll let you know when I get back.

FlintRiverFowler wrote:

Bootlipkiller wrote:

FlintRiverFowler wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:

capt1972 wrote:[quote="(MT)Montanafowler"]actually, this seems to hold true to the ideas laid out by John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government; that nature belongs to nobody until man expresses labor to harvest it, which then, by default, makes it his. that's covered under the law of nature.

He was an asshole on Lost.

what? I think you're thinking of someone else. Locke was a 17th century political philosopher, who countered Thomas Hobbes in his ideological concepts of government. Hobbes believed in a patriarchal structure of rule, whereas Locke believed that the only true Patriarch of man would be the blood descendant of Adam, since he was created directly by God. Since no ability exists to determine the true descendant, we rule either by nature or civilization, and if civilization, the government is subservient to the people in which it governs.

Wouldn't we all be a blood descendant of Adam?

What do you expect from the guy from Lost. He couldn't even figure out how to get off a damn island!

What's Lost?[/quote]
So cool

FlintRiverFowler wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:

capt1972 wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:actually, this seems to hold true to the ideas laid out by John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government; that nature belongs to nobody until man expresses labor to harvest it, which then, by default, makes it his. that's covered under the law of nature.

He was an asshole on Lost.

what? I think you're thinking of someone else. Locke was a 17th century political philosopher, who countered Thomas Hobbes in his ideological concepts of government. Hobbes believed in a patriarchal structure of rule, whereas Locke believed that the only true Patriarch of man would be the blood descendant of Adam, since he was created directly by God. Since no ability exists to determine the true descendant, we rule either by nature or civilization, and if civilization, the government is subservient to the people in which it governs.

Wouldn't we all be a blood descendant of Adam?

we agree on something?

Redbeard wrote:

FlintRiverFowler wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:

capt1972 wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:actually, this seems to hold true to the ideas laid out by John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government; that nature belongs to nobody until man expresses labor to harvest it, which then, by default, makes it his. that's covered under the law of nature.

He was an asshole on Lost.

what? I think you're thinking of someone else. Locke was a 17th century political philosopher, who countered Thomas Hobbes in his ideological concepts of government. Hobbes believed in a patriarchal structure of rule, whereas Locke believed that the only true Patriarch of man would be the blood descendant of Adam, since he was created directly by God. Since no ability exists to determine the true descendant, we rule either by nature or civilization, and if civilization, the government is subservient to the people in which it governs.

Wouldn't we all be a blood descendant of Adam?

we agree on something?

Nothing to agree on here.
There's just no way around it.

MT's walkabout this summer is going to end with him heavily bearded sitting crosslegged on a high peak in Utah muttering this kind of stuff.

AKPirate wrote:MT's walkabout this summer is going to end with him heavily bearded sitting crosslegged on a high peak in Utah muttering this kind of stuff.

I hope it ends about half way thru bc he got homesick and "couldn't take no more"
Then we get to give him hell. Forever.

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:

capt1972 wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:actually, this seems to hold true to the ideas laid out by John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government; that nature belongs to nobody until man expresses labor to harvest it, which then, by default, makes it his. that's covered under the law of nature.

He was an asshole on Lost.

what? I think you're thinking of someone else. Locke was a 17th century political philosopher, who countered Thomas Hobbes in his ideological concepts of government. Hobbes believed in a patriarchal structure of rule, whereas Locke believed that the only true Patriarch of man would be the blood descendant of Adam, since he was created directly by God. Since no ability exists to determine the true descendant, we rule either by nature or civilization, and if civilization, the government is subservient to the people in which it governs.

Don't tell me who I was thinking about!

aunt betty wrote:

Eric Haynes wrote:

FlintRiverFowler wrote:

aunt betty wrote:This topic is VERY interesting and our old friend assateague will surely make an appearance here soon.

Been reading the comments...all I could stand.

There seems to be two camps.
1. Naturalists who feel we are being held back from what our God has taught us about how to live.
We're farmers and if you read the bible...it's all about farming and how the kings should rule us justly, humanely, and protect us...

2. The corporate-minded people want to boast about how the earth could never support the huge population without industry and laws that protect industry. That camp is the crazy people who call residents of camp #1 loony-tunes.

When the corporate society collapses (it will)
some of us (naturalists) will be expected to simply hand over the fruits of our labor to the people who occupy camp #2.
When we get there, if I'm alive, I will simply load the supplies camp #2 needs into a large home made cannon and shoot it to them.

Shoulda posted this in the political/ controversial and called the thread "universal law"
Olly? Can we do that? It really is about the content of the video.

You two can do anything you want. Olly/Flint 2016...remember?

WTF you talkin about boy. I can call you boy now...

You still takin notes for that stupid book you're writing about internet chat room phenomenon?
pfft.
You bore me.

Yawn

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:

capt1972 wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:actually, this seems to hold true to the ideas laid out by John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government; that nature belongs to nobody until man expresses labor to harvest it, which then, by default, makes it his. that's covered under the law of nature.

He was an asshole on Lost.

what? I think you're thinking of someone else. Locke was a 17th century political philosopher, who countered Thomas Hobbes in his ideological concepts of government. Hobbes believed in a patriarchal structure of rule, whereas Locke believed that the only true Patriarch of man would be the blood descendant of Adam, since he was created directly by God. Since no ability exists to determine the true descendant, we rule either by nature or civilization, and if civilization, the government is subservient to the people in which it governs.

Jesus Christ you're going to be unbearable after a summer spent out in the wild. Self proclaimed "mountain man" hippie!

FlintRiverFowler wrote:

AKPirate wrote:MT's walkabout this summer is going to end with him heavily bearded sitting crosslegged on a high peak in Utah muttering this kind of stuff.

I hope it ends about half way thru bc he got homesick and "couldn't take no more"
Then we get to give him hell. Forever.

+1

P

M

AKPirate wrote:MT's walkabout this summer is going to end with him heavily bearded sitting crosslegged on a high peak in Utah muttering this kind of stuff.

Pretty sure he can only grow 8 chin hairs and the pedofile 'stache of all 'staches.

WisconsinWaterfowler wrote:

AKPirate wrote:MT's walkabout this summer is going to end with him heavily bearded sitting crosslegged on a high peak in Utah muttering this kind of stuff.

Pretty sure he can only grow 8 chin hairs and the pedofile 'stache of all 'staches.

12 inch scraggly chin hairs is even better

FlintRiverFowler wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:

capt1972 wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:actually, this seems to hold true to the ideas laid out by John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government; that nature belongs to nobody until man expresses labor to harvest it, which then, by default, makes it his. that's covered under the law of nature.

He was an asshole on Lost.

what? I think you're thinking of someone else. Locke was a 17th century political philosopher, who countered Thomas Hobbes in his ideological concepts of government. Hobbes believed in a patriarchal structure of rule, whereas Locke believed that the only true Patriarch of man would be the blood descendant of Adam, since he was created directly by God. Since no ability exists to determine the true descendant, we rule either by nature or civilization, and if civilization, the government is subservient to the people in which it governs.

Wouldn't we all be a blood descendant of Adam?

Nope, some are descendants of Ham.

RonE wrote:

FlintRiverFowler wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:

capt1972 wrote:

(MT)Montanafowler wrote:actually, this seems to hold true to the ideas laid out by John Locke in his Two Treatises of Government; that nature belongs to nobody until man expresses labor to harvest it, which then, by default, makes it his. that's covered under the law of nature.

He was an asshole on Lost.

what? I think you're thinking of someone else. Locke was a 17th century political philosopher, who countered Thomas Hobbes in his ideological concepts of government. Hobbes believed in a patriarchal structure of rule, whereas Locke believed that the only true Patriarch of man would be the blood descendant of Adam, since he was created directly by God. Since no ability exists to determine the true descendant, we rule either by nature or civilization, and if civilization, the government is subservient to the people in which it governs.

Wouldn't we all be a blood descendant of Adam?

Nope, some are descendants of Ham.

Adam came before Ham.
Ham was a son of Noah.