Topic: Ross,my Hero Ross.[Video Inside on Silk Road] (Read 905 times)

@ hilariousandco, each post is getting too long so I'm going to condense it some.

One thing you said really boils down the issue for me. "You can't babysit her forever either as much as you probably want to."

Yes I can. I can do it even after I'm dead by making sure laws are passed limiting bad peoples access to really dangerous things that are currently used to badly hurt other people. The example I gave of a bad person spiking a drink with rohypnol, then hooking them on heroin for a profit happens now with very difficult access to the drugs. You really want these predators to have unlimited access to every drug available in the world? I sure as hell don't.

I said that to BADecker because he's clueless and thinks he can just skirt the law based on the word of some internet preacher that says he can. My example was like saying, Well BADecker if I can just ignore the law with no consequence you're the first one I'm going to use it on and here's what I'm going to do to you. Of course I wouldn't really do that because there are laws against it, it's horrible, and I'm the one that wants the laws to become more strict concerning drugs to begin with. How does he know that one of those internet fools that are interpreting the law without a legal degree won't come and hurt him first. Or someone that believes the internet fools won't hurt him first. It's easy to argue a point when it's not happening to you.

Smoking, alcohol and legal pharmaceuticals are abused too. I agree. How can you not agree. It happens, right?

I don't agree with smoking. I think it's a filthy habit that should be outlawed. I voted for those laws in California, and now it's illegal to smoke almost anywhere you are in sight of another person including in your own car with a minor present. That's a really good law. Why hook the next generation on smoking when you don't have to?

Alcohol has been tried. They attempted to abolish it and it failed. Alcohol actually proves my point about majority rule. Just find enough support for your way of thinking and change the laws. But alcohol doesn't need to be illegal to limit access to it by minors.  There are already pretty strict laws in place to do just that. The punishments for giving alcohol to a mind and body still attempting to grow to adulthood should be a lot more harsh.

Pharmaceuticals are already regulated and controlled by medical professionals for the treatment of illness and disease. It's already illegal for doctors to prescribe medicines to people just to get high. Do bad people become doctors? Sure they do, and when they're caught breaking the law we should put them in prison. Does that mean we should make all prescription medications legal for anyone without the proper training to just take whenever they like? No, that's rediculous. Most people don't even know what those drugs do until they ask their pharmacist.  

Fast food again? Well, people need to eat food and drink water to live. I don't know what to say about overeating fattening foods except don't do it. People have to eat and because they're foolish they end up eating lots of stuff that's bad for them (Americans are really bad about it). What people don't have to do to live is take black tar heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, desomorphine, PCP, scopolamine, GHB, ketamine, opium, LSD, psilocybin mushrooms or any of the other really horrible substances sold illegally on Silk Road. And yes, I want to force them to not be allowed to purchase those drugs because, as you pointed out, they are too stupid to know how to eat right. I don't want to force everyone to shop exclusively at Trader Joe's like I do but I don't want them to have unlimited access to really harmful drugs either.

Ron Paul is a fringe nutter. I should never have used him as an example. The things he believes in will never happen as long as rational people run the country.

Yes, people are preyed upon now. It's wrong and I don't want it to get any worse than it is now by allowing things like Silk Road to exist.

BTW: Speaking of stupid people, how do you feel about Ross Ulbrich running a drug flea market from inside the USA at a public library over government wifi? Is it possible to be any more stupid than that? How about burning candles on the hood of your car while filling it up with gas, is that worse or better than what Ulbrich did? LOL

America is a corrupt corporately controlled country. Tell me something I don't know. I can't change that. I can't change global warming either but that doesn't mean I'm going to want my next door neighbor to shoot up heroin and then talk to my kid in my front yard. That has nothing to do with our conversation.

Am I a socialist? Kind of but I never really thought much about it. I don't believe random people can be trusted to get together and agree to build the infrastructure of a country.

He simply setup a decentralized market, where goods could be brought or sold. And he was given life without parole for that "offence", by a corrupt judge (Katherine Forrest), who happens to be a stooge of the Wall Street mafia.

I'm not all over the place but you're right you don't know how to respond but that's not my issue. My arguments are quite simple and are ones that are brought up time and time again when people want to ban things just because people might do some harm with it. Remember, every tool is a weapon if you hold it right (so ban tools, right?). Your arguments seemed to be it's against the law so it's wrong and that makes you a criminal and being a criminal is wrong. I'm saying just because something is against the law doesn't mean it's wrong. Taking drugs does not hurt anyone else, therefore it's not a crime. If an adult wants to take drugs then that is their choice. Simple as that. There shouldn't be any argument here if you valued other people's liberty.


No. Your argument was it's against the law and people die because of drugs. So? People die from Burgers. Ban burgers because people die from them? Are we going to get the parents of morbidly obese kids crying in court trying to sue McDonalds on the basis that McDonalds are driven by greed in making burgers easily available to vulnerable people? Don't be silly. People are responsible for their own actions.


I'm not sure what this has to do with not wanting the government locking people up for non-crimes. Theft is depriving someone of something. Somebody taking drugs doesn't hurt anyone else but possibly themself (and again, that's their choice).


Ron Paul seems to stand for liberty and people making their own choices:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Eca-INIOw

He just said pretty much everything I've been saying. I'm starting to like this guy more and more. This really isn't about breaking any laws you want; it's about unjust laws that hurt nobody else. Can you tell me why you or anyone else should have a say in what drugs I may or may not want to take? This isn't an argument about wanting to rape or murder. I just don't want people to be punished for something that isn't a crime.


I'm not saying chuck out the whole system and only extreme anarchists believe that but the system is flawed and corrupt so the chances of getting anything done is slim. Why do we still lock people up for petty drug possession? America is a Corporatocracy so unless you have the money to do so you're not going to get anything done. If an industry does or doesn't want a law to pass then they just lobby the government with their millions and they get their way so they can profit from it.


Are you a socialist? You can still have all those things without any government intervention though.


No, don't be silly. What does this have to do with anything? Is that what justice would be to you? Would you be beating people up and smashing their property up for merely stealing your parking space if this was permitted? My entire argument is something isn't crime if it doesn't hurt or endanger anyone else. Beating someone up or trashing their property hurts them.


Laws should exist to stop others from hurting you or depriving you of something ie theft. Taking drugs doesn't fall under that. People should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies just as long as it's not hurting anyone else. That is my argument. Yours is don't let people do what they want with their own bodies. Gov does not have a right to tell me otherwise. Do you believe in freedom or a nanny state where the gov needs to tell you what is right and wrong and police every aspect of your lives?


How so? Are weak people not preyed upon in society now?



Drugs being illegal isn't going to stop this from happening. I'm sure you probably don't want your daughter drinking or smoking either. Are you proposing that the gov should ban cigarettes and alcohol? I mean, your daughter could get drunk and have sex or be raped. Regardless, if she wants to take drugs then that's her choice but she should be your responsibility until she's an adult, not the governments. You can't babysit her forever either as much as you probably want to.


Just because you're the majority doesn't mean you're right.



I'm not sure why anyone would want to belong to that group.


Fair enough. It's kind of ironic though  .


You're starting to sound quite disturbed. Is this the sort of thing you would be doing if drugs weren't illegal or you could get away with it?

Certainly you can talk like this. But get into the law books, and see that what I am saying is the truth.

Further, the 9th Amendment says:
In other words, as long as a person doesn't want to be bound by the laws of the United States, he doesn't have to be. It's his right. The only way that he is bound is the same way that he would have been bound if there wasn't any United States. He would be bound by the laws before the United States came into being, and these laws have to do with some injury that he did to people... if it was proven that he did the injury. That's why the Rules of Court are written the way they are.

You and a whole bunch of other people are missing this. That's why so many are sitting in prison for simply smoking a joint. They didn't know about the Rules.

Wow BADecker, is it painful when you think too hard? Those online ways to usurp tax law and criminal law are bogus. Try one and I'll send you some vasoline in prison. You really should try a university education instead of the school of hard knocks.

There is one thing I'd like to try though. I'd like to try legally hooking you on heroin (available on Silk Road). I'd drug you at a party with rohypnol (available on Silk Road). Take you to my crib and shoot you up with Black Speedkitten (heroin mixed with Ketamine and crystal methamphetamine, all available on Silk Road) to make you're memory turn to mush. Then start having people come over and rape you, for a small fee of course. When you're so used up and fucked up that I can't charge top dollar for you, I'd turn you out on the street to bring me whatever little bits of money you can until you die or can't earn enough to buy any more of my Dr. Feelgood.

Here you are after a few years of Dr. Feelgood

Okay. Let's take you and me for a moment. Let's say that your law is that drugs are illegal. Let's say that my law is that drugs are not only legal, but they are required. Whose law wins?

Government is set up so that neither law wins, and both laws win. You can legally avoid using all the drugs, while I can legally use all the drugs I want. The only thing that separates us is, neither of us can cause any harm or damage (injury) to the other.

That's the way that Government is set up. The difference is that in some things people don't understand that Government is set up like that.

In both, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the courts are required to have 4 things before they even have a case. These are:
1. An accuser;
2. One being accused by the accuser;
3. REAL injury (harm or damage) done to the accuser;
4. Witnesses and evidence that clearly shows that the injury was done by the one accused.

In addition, the accuser is required to get on the stand under oath or affirmation and state his accusations into the record.

It's the law. The only time that this law can be bypassed is if the one accused allows it by not requiring it.

In Ross's case, the accuser, according to the paperwork, was THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Could THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ever get on the stand and speak into the record under oath or affirmation, the injury that Ross did to it? Never! THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is simply paperwork. It cannot get on the stand and state anything, under oath or affirmation, or not.

In addition, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA could not have been injured by Ross, and if it was, there is no way that it could ever find witnesses and evidence that Ross did it.

The point is, Ross was screwed by the system, by his attorneys, and by his own ignorance. If at his sentencing, Ross, when he was asked if he had anything more to say, had simply asked for the injured party to step forward and show his injury, the whole case would have had to have been thrown out. Why? Nobody was injured by Ross that anybody knows of, and nobody would have stepped forward with any injury. And if somehow they had, there is no way they could have proven that Ross did the injury.

As soon as you folks realize what the Rules of Court Procedure are, you can get your family and friends out of prison. How? If the 4 things listed above were not existent in any trial, the judgment of that trial is a VOID JUDGMENT. The trial and court order that flowed out of it essentially does not exist. They are holding your friends and family members illegally, and you can require damages of Government for it. See http://voidjudgments.com/.

Although I think the sentence for Ross was too harsh I didn't like the video. The grimaces were inappropriate and to tell the truth I didn't manage to watch the video till the end. If you really have something valuable to say just say it. Who needs those rhymes and grimaces?

hilariousandco, you're so "all over the place" in you're responses that I barely even know how to respond to you. Most of your arguments are nonsensical and based on rationalizations. A drug racketeer is equal to Martin Luther King? A fast food restaurant is equal to a pusher getting someone strung out on heroin? You know what a rationalization is, don't you? A rationalization is where you tell yourself your hungry because society won't give you the tools to get a job but instead of stealing food you steal a Lamborghini. You rationalize stealing several hundred thousand dollars because you're hungry.

Nonviolent resistance and protesting work within the legal system to change the laws that are unjust. That's what Ron Paul stands for, not just breaking any law you want to break. Libertarians and anarchists to me seem like people that have a couple of laws that they want to break, like drug laws, so instead of working to get support to change the laws they don't like they just want to chuck out the whole system. That's very short sighted.

Yes, Ron Paul does support no taxes of any kind. I can't support that because I've become accustomed to street lights, paved roads, public education, fire departments, running water, electricity and all those silly little things that make my life more comfortable.

I guess the next time a 16 yo kid cuts in front of me to steal my parking space at the mall I'll just just break the law and baseball bat all the windows in his car because that would be justice, right? It wouldn't be legal but it could be considered civil disobedience to gain justice.

Laws exist because we can't just let anyone do anything they want. If we did the weak people in society would be preyed upon by the strong. I don't want my daughter to be strung out on drugs by some some guy for profit and forced to be raped by perverts to pay for her heroin habit. I don't want to live in your world. Fortunately for me, I'm in the massive majority and you are in the minority.

PS: I've had to explain this several times in the past so I should probably put it in my sig line. My name in society isn't QuestionAuthority. I have a real name that I use for the real world. My name in Bitcoinland is QuestionAuthority because I question the authority of people here that are passing themselves off as authorities. That started about the time that Zhou Tong was fucking everybody blue while little follower drones were singing his praises. Time and time again I've found examples in bitcoinland of so called "authorities" being nothing more than thieves and scammers (DeathandTaxes, Cypherdoc, Mike Hearn to name a few). My name is QuestionAuthority because I don't just believe the bullshit spouted by devs, Bitcoin business owners, pool operators and all the long con bitcoinland rep builders that everyone loves so much here. Satoshi didn't fuck Bitcoin up, the authority figures are doing that.


Rick, let me start by telling you that before the zombie apocalypse I was a libertarian. There's going to be laws but only a few and the first law is I can do whatever the fuck I want.

 

I wouldn't. I wouldn't expect the state or anyone else to look after my kids or tell them what's right or wrong.


He might be a criminal in the eyes of the law but just because something is against the law doesn't necessarily make it immoral or wrong. It's against the law to be a homosexual or atheist in some countries. Taking drugs shouldn't be illegal just like cigarettes and alcohol and all the prescription drugs you can legally buy to kill yourself with aren't. Not sure why the state gets to sanction some but not others unless you believe State is God. Besides, people breaking unjust laws is how progress is made. Rosa Parks was a 'criminal' for refusing to give up her seat for a white person, but look what her actions caused: a direct change in law. Every time you take down a market like Silk Road 5 more pop up to replace it. It's a futile war they cannot win and they know that but one that continues by fear-mongering to the naive masses. Hopefully one day they will see sense but I'm not optimistic.





I don't know that much about Ron Paul but from a quick Google search it seems he kinda did say that:


If I use drugs I'm a criminal in the eyes of the law but I'm not hurting anyone other than possibly myself but that's my choice. Ulbricht believed people should be able to buy and use drugs if they want and I agree with him in that respect. Places like Silk Road shouldn't need to exist in the first place but they do because of arcane and authoritarian laws.


And this is why democracy is a flawed system. Why should others get a say in what I can or cannot do with my own body? If I want to take drugs that's my business not yours or anyone else's and I certainly shouldn't be punished for it.


Barack Obama and George Bush are US citizens but they're not in prison for murder, corruption and war crimes. McDonald's and Coca Cola are also American companies with American CEOs but are they accessories to murder and responsible for all the people they kill? No. They don't force people to consume their products. If you want to kill yourself with a Big Mac or heroin that's your choice. The US government shouldn't have a say in that.


Your name should be ObeyAuthority. I'm surprised you buy this sort of thing because it's just a biased sob story to emotionally sway the jury. Ross didn't kill those people. Just as Smith & Wesson are not responsible for gun suicides or shootings, Ford is not responsible for people driving dangerously, and Coca Cola and McDonald's are not responsible for obese people giving themselves diabetes and heart attacks.

Yeah, that's going to happen. America can't wait to free Ross. If you give money to this effort you may as well just flush it down the toilet. ROFL


Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/nyregion/ross-ulbricht-creator-of-silk-road-website-is-sentenced-to-life-in-prison.html?_r=0

Re-cap of Free Ross-A-Thon event held this past weekend...







See the pictures at https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/208425-2016-12-06-re-cap-of-free-ross-a-thon-event-held-this.htm.

I think when you have kids you change your opinion about drugs a little. I don't know if you read this but Ross Ulbrich started Silk Road by selling his own home grown magic mushrooms. It really has nothing to do with my opinion or anyone else's opinion, he broke the law and he's a criminal.

I also don't know if you know that the politician Ron Paul is a libertarian. I've never heard Ron Paul say, "break any law you don't like because we're libertarian and laws don't apply to us". Being libertarian isn't an excuse for being a criminal.

There are lots of laws that exist to keep stupid people from killing themselves. If people want to take heroin on the streets legally then they should vote to make it legal but I don't think you're going to find a lot of support for passing that law.

Ross Ulbrich is a U.S. citizen and as such was an accessory to murder for every death that occurred from the heroin he facilitated in selling just as drug lords are.

A fall guy for who? As far as I can tell it seemed to be largely a one-man operation and he was the architect from the very start right up until he got busted (though he did cowardly try pass the blame on to others to save his own skin).


There's no doubt they made an example out of him and the time he got was ridiculous for the charges, but if the murder for hire attempts were true (which to me they look like they were), then I lost pretty much all respect for him and if he's the type of person that will carry out hits then he deserves his time regardless of the charges they actually sent him down on.


I don't know about 'humanitarian' but his original ideology was libertarian and if he'd have stuck to that then I would have had a lot of sympathy for him but the power/money probably went to his head. I don't really buy the argument that drug dealers (or Ross) help destroy lives either (though they do knowingly break laws (whether you think those laws are just or not)). Nobody forces people to take drugs nor should it be illegal to do so and if people want to take drugs then they should be allowed to (but that's a whole other argument).


You can't really compare him to drug lords like Pablo Escobar either (disregarding the murder for hire charge a second). Escobar was responsible for the murders of thousands of people and would kill innocents if he thought he could take out one enemy. Escobar did also directly sell drugs, whereas Ross just facilitated their sale by creating a website to do so (whether you think that is right or wrong is down to personal opinion/politics).

You're right, he broke the law and ignored the rules of society for a profit. He did it without regard for the lives he helped destroy just as a drug lord would. That doesn't exactly scream "humanitarian". People say that he only ran a website so he wasn't responsible but that argument kind of breaks down when your websites design and only job is to allow illegal trade in drugs and contraband. That same argument has been used by drug lords like Pablo Escobar. He only ran the company, he never sold drugs to anyone himself.

You're also right about law enforcement. No one knows how to break the law more effectively than those enforcing it. There's a special level of hell reserved for dirty cops.

If he was actually guilty of trying to hire hitmen to kill people, he deserves to be in jail.
But personally I have a hard time believing the investigation against him. Several of the FBI agents stole huge amounts of Bitcoin during the investigation.
Do you really think someone who would steal money on the job is above making up charges against someone?
I've dealt with corrupt police in the past and they will make up charges, lie under oath and do anything to make themselves look good and hide the fact they are the ones committing crimes.

Ross was the fall guy, because there were some other people working with him...but they could not find them. { This does not rhyme, but it's

true. } Ross was also used as a warning from government, to show what will happen to other people... that wants to duplicate these types of

sites. I do not condone his actions, but the sentence do not fit the crime. 

Found this random video while browsing reddit.This guy shares some valuable information about Ross and his thoughts on Founding Silkroad with a #FreeRoss!

Mods may move it to service discussion if this is not the right place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpbJmssk8IA