MT?

Place for general and off topic Waterfowl talk.

MT?

Postby FlintRiverFowler » Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:08 am

User avatar
FlintRiverFowler
 
Posts: 6386
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 1:08 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: MT?

Postby aunt betty » Tue Apr 29, 2014 8:58 am

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. :lol:
I've heard that it's incredibly stupid to fuck around with a crazy man's head.
User avatar
aunt betty
 
Posts: 14634
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:37 pm
Location: East Side

Re: MT?

Postby FlintRiverFowler » Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:29 am

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. :lol:

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.
User avatar
FlintRiverFowler
 
Posts: 6386
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 1:08 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: MT?

Postby (MT)Montanafowler » Tue Apr 29, 2014 10:13 am

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.
Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:18 pm
huntall6 wrote:MT is right.



totally sig worthy!
User avatar
(MT)Montanafowler
 
Posts: 3707
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:19 pm

Re: MT?

Postby R. Chapman » Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:51 am

Very good video. Told her fuck you in a polite way.
assateague wrote:Sometimes the quickest way to put out a fire is with an explosion.
R. Chapman
 
Posts: 6138
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 11:48 pm
Location: Helena, MT

Re: MT?

Postby capt1972 » Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:31 pm

(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.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

The Tree of Liberty Must be Refreshed From Time to Time With the BLOOD OF TYRANTS
User avatar
capt1972
WFF Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5582
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:33 pm
Location: Where the ducks arnt

Re: MT?

Postby Eric Haynes » Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:55 pm

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. :lol:

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?
Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded man shall say to his assailant, "If I live, I will kill you. If I die, you are forgiven." Such is the rule of honor.
User avatar
Eric Haynes
WFF Supporter
 
Posts: 8350
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:59 pm
Location: Ogdensburg, NY

Re: MT?

Postby aunt betty » Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:05 pm

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. :lol:

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. :mrgreen:
I've heard that it's incredibly stupid to fuck around with a crazy man's head.
User avatar
aunt betty
 
Posts: 14634
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:37 pm
Location: East Side

Re: MT?

Postby (MT)Montanafowler » Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:56 pm

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.
Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:18 pm
huntall6 wrote:MT is right.



totally sig worthy!
User avatar
(MT)Montanafowler
 
Posts: 3707
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:19 pm

Re: MT?

Postby Bootlipkiller » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:03 pm

(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!
AKPirate wrote:The sins of Boot and Gaddy are causing the Cali drought and knowing they have no limits to their depravity... :mrgreen:
User avatar
Bootlipkiller
 
Posts: 14361
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:47 am
Location: you stay classy Sutter County... Im Ron Burgandy???

Re: MT?

Postby Redbeard » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:08 pm

(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
gila-river wrote:Great, now the cops want to install dishwashers to. Just do your job Red and stop encroaching on our rights to replace appliances. That is not the responsibility of police.:lol:
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 20636
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:09 pm
Location: Humboldt County

Re: MT?

Postby Redbeard » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:08 pm

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
gila-river wrote:Great, now the cops want to install dishwashers to. Just do your job Red and stop encroaching on our rights to replace appliances. That is not the responsibility of police.:lol:
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 20636
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:09 pm
Location: Humboldt County

Re: MT?

Postby FlintRiverFowler » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:11 pm

(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?
User avatar
FlintRiverFowler
 
Posts: 6386
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 1:08 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: MT?

Postby Bootlipkiller » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:13 pm

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!
AKPirate wrote:The sins of Boot and Gaddy are causing the Cali drought and knowing they have no limits to their depravity... :mrgreen:
User avatar
Bootlipkiller
 
Posts: 14361
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:47 am
Location: you stay classy Sutter County... Im Ron Burgandy???

Re: MT?

Postby FlintRiverFowler » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:14 pm

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?
User avatar
FlintRiverFowler
 
Posts: 6386
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 1:08 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: MT?

Postby (MT)Montanafowler » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:14 pm

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.
Sun Jan 12, 2014 4:18 pm
huntall6 wrote:MT is right.



totally sig worthy!
User avatar
(MT)Montanafowler
 
Posts: 3707
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:19 pm

Re: MT?

Postby Bootlipkiller » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:15 pm

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
AKPirate wrote:The sins of Boot and Gaddy are causing the Cali drought and knowing they have no limits to their depravity... :mrgreen:
User avatar
Bootlipkiller
 
Posts: 14361
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:47 am
Location: you stay classy Sutter County... Im Ron Burgandy???

Re: MT?

Postby Redbeard » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:17 pm

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?
gila-river wrote:Great, now the cops want to install dishwashers to. Just do your job Red and stop encroaching on our rights to replace appliances. That is not the responsibility of police.:lol:
User avatar
Redbeard
 
Posts: 20636
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:09 pm
Location: Humboldt County

Re: MT?

Postby FlintRiverFowler » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:18 pm

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.
:lol:
User avatar
FlintRiverFowler
 
Posts: 6386
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 1:08 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: MT?

Postby AKPirate » Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:49 pm

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.
YouTube Prostaffer
User avatar
AKPirate
WFF Supporter
 
Posts: 9139
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: MT?

Postby FlintRiverFowler » Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:52 pm

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.
User avatar
FlintRiverFowler
 
Posts: 6386
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 1:08 pm
Location: Georgia

Re: MT?

Postby capt1972 » Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:53 pm

(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!
Image
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

The Tree of Liberty Must be Refreshed From Time to Time With the BLOOD OF TYRANTS
User avatar
capt1972
WFF Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 5582
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:33 pm
Location: Where the ducks arnt

Re: MT?

Postby Eric Haynes » Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:55 pm

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. :lol:

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. :mrgreen:


Yawn
Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded man shall say to his assailant, "If I live, I will kill you. If I die, you are forgiven." Such is the rule of honor.
User avatar
Eric Haynes
WFF Supporter
 
Posts: 8350
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:59 pm
Location: Ogdensburg, NY

Re: MT?

Postby Bulldog0156 » Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:20 pm

(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!
User avatar
Bulldog0156
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:04 am
Location: Monfuckintana

Re: MT?

Postby Bulldog0156 » Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:21 pm

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
User avatar
Bulldog0156
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:04 am
Location: Monfuckintana

Re: MT?

Postby gila-river » Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:22 pm

P

M
EAT YOUR VEGETABLES

#coonass in the cactus
User avatar
gila-river
 
Posts: 2639
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 2:01 pm
Location: The desert

Re: MT?

Postby WisconsinWaterfowler » Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:39 pm

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.
User avatar
WisconsinWaterfowler
 
Posts: 1086
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:20 am

Re: MT?

Postby AKPirate » Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:43 pm

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
YouTube Prostaffer
User avatar
AKPirate
WFF Supporter
 
Posts: 9139
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: MT?

Postby RonE » Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:28 pm

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.
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
User avatar
RonE
 
Posts: 3379
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 7:33 pm
Location: Rockport, Texas

Re: MT?

Postby FlintRiverFowler » Wed Apr 30, 2014 6:26 am

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.
User avatar
FlintRiverFowler
 
Posts: 6386
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 1:08 pm
Location: Georgia

Next

Return to The Blind

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests