10 votes

What do we agree on?

I have noticed the back and forth on many issues here on DP dealing with many of the deeper and more decisive issues that people here take a position on. I had an idea while reading Nystrom's post addressing these discussions in his "Everyone sees what they want to see"

I thought maybe it would be a good idea to attempt to find out what we do agree on. The idea here is this:

I, and hopefully you, will attempt to state seemingly simple self-evident "truth" that is singular in its scope in the comment section to find out what we do agree on.

Each top level comment will have the singular statement of "truth" and then votes apply as agree or not. I ask that those who do not agree with the statement please provide counter logic and reason that demonstrates the invalidity of the statement of "truth" in the response section of the comment . Please keep the top level comment singular and fundamental in nature so that the debate responses can be focused where necessary. This exercise should enable us to easily see what we do agree on.

I thought this might be a good exercise for all us to see what we do agree on and help refine our own understanding of what is true. It might also help reveal how many voting trolls are roaming the cyberstreets of DP by seeing obvious self-evident truth down voted without response.

I started the list below not to dominate the debate but as a means to give examples of the simplicity and singular scope and fundamental "truths". With proper participation we might be able to find modern day maxims of our movement that are so fundamental and commonly true that no one disagrees. Can this be done? Lets find out.

Hopefully this will help us see the fundamental truths that really matter to all of us in our quest to realize a just and happy America...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

NDAA

NDAA is one of my concerns. Federal reserve (sound money).

No Trespassing

No Trespassing

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

The Arrogance Here

is so astounding that I won't even comment further. Screw DP and most of the people THAT ARE LEFT on it.

skippy

I really do not understand your comments

Your post seems the most arrogant in this thread. You are here condemning a site you have so much activity on and the people that are here. I think the people here wish to make things better but you condemn them. What is arrogant about trying to find truth? Finding truth is exactly the opposite of arrogance because it is a process of humbling one's self before logic and reason.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

I would settle

for stop policing the world and letting irresponsible banks and businesses fail. I feel our greatest issue at the moment is special interests in the banking, military, health care, and other industries that pay our spineless politicians to vote in THEIR interests, not ours. Many people are seriously dying and suffering for the greed of a few.

What can we agree on?

Justice is a good thing and something we should strive for in thought, word, law, and action?

Nystrom is wrong on one front

We CAN have greater unity of PURPOSE. No, we won't agree on certain conspiracy theories. We might not agree on candidates, or on certain tactical approaches. Some of us are more uncompromising than others.

But we CAN, and SHOULD, agree to focus on the areas where we DO AGREE. We DO have unity on certain issues, even if we don't agree 100% on how to proceed or how far to go.

Do we not agree on:

-Lower taxes
-More freedom
-Less foreign intervention
-Monetary reform and transparency
-Less executive power
-Respect for the Constitution

?

If someone DOESN'T agree with those issues, or thinks those issues take a back seat to something else (e.g., "it's more important to expose the 'truth' about 9/11" or "it's more important to promote Christian values" or "it's more important to sell BitCoins"), then we get unity by politely escorting those people out of the movement.

I'm for a big tent. I'm for disagreement. I'm for talking with people who aren't even in the tent, but can work with you on a case-by-case or election by election basis. But if we don't have unity on those issues, and on those issues as PRIORITIES, then we won't win.

Daily Paul used to focus on those issues. Meetups and sign waves and local groups used to focus on those issues. When people would pretend to be part of our unified movement, but would show more interest in other distractions, we POLITELY moved them aside. "We're glad to have your support, but that's not what we're about here."

We need that fortitude now. We need to be able to tell people who either aren't on board, or have other priorities, that they're not part of the movement. I'll gladly march side-by-side with a Christian, an atheist, an anarcho-capitalist, a truther, or anyone who agrees on the core principles of this movement and makes them the top priority. And I'll gladly stay polite and civil with someone who agrees on some issues, but is more interested in promoting those other ideologies.

But I don't buy into this notion that we must be inherently divided the way some people spin it. GET ON BOARD WITH REAL POLITICAL ACTION TOWARD LIBERTY ABOVE OTHER POLITICAL CAUSES. If you can't, it doesn't make you a bad person, but you're not really part of this movement. And showing those folks the door doesn't make you intolerant or rude or make you a "censor" or a "government plant." It makes you a realist who wants to get things done.

If you want discussion on the agreed upon topics in your list..

...Nothing is stopping you from commenting on those kinds of threads or from posting them yourself.

If you want to focus on the areas where we agree, then do that. Instead, just about all you focus on here is that in the liberty movement or on this site which you find objectionable and think shouldn't be discussed and needs to be purged, as if YOU are the decider.

When you say you're for a big tent, apparently you've appointed yourself boss of the tent, since you're talking about escorting people out of the movement and showing them the door if they talk about things other than your approved list of liberty topics.

You even slammed a respected member recently accusing them of propaganda when they posted a piece on aquaponics. Since Ron Paul advocates personal responsibility, not sure how you equate such matters of preparedness to propaganda.

If your niche is more political action, then go for it. But I've got news for you. Everyone else does not have to limit their liberty interests and involvement to political action or the six things on your list to appease you.

YOU are not the boss here or of the movement. It is not YOUR place to decide who is or isn't allowed in and what can and can't be discussed here, nor are YOU the decider for everyone of what activism they need to be doing.

Just because you and some others don't care for or fail to see the relevance of certain discussions doesn't mean they are irrelevant or that the movement or this site needs rid of them.

If you have a problem with this site and that Nystrom has a different and broader vision for his tent than you do, perhaps that more mainstream WCU4Paul "hub" would be more to your liking.

...Or was it too lonely there

The problem

I find the problem being manners, people throwing insults to left and right and hoping it will accomplish something. If I was a dedicated admin I would first warn then ban(if repeated incidents) when people does personal attacks.

Let's say someone posts something controversial like "I'm for local authority but not global". There are a lot of Anarchists here that tend to think all government and authority is bad. Wither or not you are for one or the other, we should at least be able to keep a civil discussion about it, instead of complete rejection and denial "my way or the highway style" it is not very uniting.

Our values are our own but they should not be set in stone, and most importantly not be forced onto others. Because then we are not better than what most of us here oppose.

-Lower taxes
-More freedom
-Less foreign intervention
-Monetary reform and transparency
-Less executive power
-Respect for the Constitution

All good points in my book, but should we be forced to share them or take a hike? I'd say have an open a discussion, share thoughts, share your perspective without too much prejudice.

Edit: I do however agree that focus should not be on promoting Christianity nor Bitcoin for that matter, but we should not ban people for having disagreements.

I am for local authority but not global (or national)

And I think your post has been down-voted unjustly. At some point I think the minarchists and the anarchists are going to have to go their separate ways. The minarchist has more in common with the localist or other constitutionalist than the anarchist. I mean every body who wants a Republic wants some rights agreed on that are not subject to majority vote, that are claims by the individual against the majority, correct?

The NAP minarchist, instead of giving a list where the government can't interfere, just says "here is the only areas in which the government CAN interfere." So the minarchist need only quibble with those other groups about adding more items to their list until it looks like the NAP. But the anarchists are a different sort altogether. It is not just a disagreement about the length of the list, but whether or not government itself can ever be a positive good.

Am I missing something here?

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

Fair points

I didn't explicitly say "ban" anyone. I'm a Christian. But I'm able to step into my liberty shoes when engaging in activism within this movement. I don't show up at Ron Paul rallies promoting a church (or Bitcoin, or chemtrails, or...).

It's not about banning people for having disagreements, or even marginalizing them for having disagreements. We can disagree on how far to take the reduction of authority (your local vs. global example), but come together in agreement that ending federal spying or the war on drugs comes first, before we talk about dismantling all government.

Likewise, I can disagree with conspiracy theorists about the Illuminati and we can work side by side for liberty. It crosses a line, however, when those folks prove that the ideas I listed in the bullet points come SECOND to their conspiracy theories. If they're unwilling to put their promotion of Loose Change on hold while we're passing out Ron Paul literature, then they have to go.

yes and no

As long as they behave, don't call people names for disagreeing with their perspective, I see no problem with them sharing their theories. But that is all most of them are, theories, without hard enough evidence to back up, not to mention the fact that it is political suicide to speak seriously about them.

If they do become puchy and try to force their theories on others using this forum for that sole purpose I agree with you. Spewing irrelevant theories in threads where they don't belong deserve a warning followed but ban if done repeatedly. But if they keep to their theory threads, let them be.

We the People must Demand Truth and a New Investigation of 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5jr2a7Mpa4

Cliff Note # 1

Educate and Inform the Whole Mass of the People, they are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

http://www.meetup.com/ConstitutionPartyFlorida/pages/Cliff_N...

Cliff Note # 2

Gun Control Myths and a History of Gun Control

http://www.meetup.com/ConstitutionPartyFlorida/pages/Cliff_N...

On the 11th year Anniversary of September 11, 2001, Its time for Truth. Demand Truth.

Click on the first 3 videos below...only 25 minutes total... and watch what really happened to Building 7 on September 11, 2001.

You will see more truth here in 25 minutes than you have in 11 years of mass media coverage in this country.

Propaganda is both the Telling of Lies and the Hiding of Truth.

Cause the Problem, Get the Desired Reaction from the Masses,
Then Implement Their Solution

Demand Truth !

Remember Building 7: If you and your family do not help Americans study and remember Building 7, it will be lost in history forever.

http://www.meetup.com/ConstitutionPartyFlorida/messages/boar...

Please consider joining and supporting the Party that boldly brings you the truth and is working hard

"Uniting ALL Americans, not just one side,
based on historical truth".

http://www.cpflorida.com

WRONG

Not a consensus issue. The demand for a new 9/11 investigation is not something 100% of the movement agrees on.

It's not something 90% agree on.
It's not something 75% agree on.
I'd speculate that less than 50% would agree with you, although some who don't particularly care are willing to say "sure, no problem with a new investigation because it makes you happy." Others who might WANT a new investigation are NOT OK with it being a consensus issue because they KNOW it's politically toxic.

You have to do some Research Friend

Please do yourself a favor and look at the link I posted regarding 9/11 and Building 7. I think if you only take one hour of your time, you will be convinced of the need of a new 9/11 investigation. If you take the time to view the whole thread over a couple weeks, I know you will. Doesn't your nation and you deserve to know? Also, I wish someone sifted through hundreds of hours of info and put only the most compelling into a thread for me ! Take advantage of it.

You are wrong SanePaulFan when you say

"Not a consensus issue. The demand for a new 9/11 investigation is not something 100% of the movement agrees on.
I'd speculate that less than 50% would agree with you"

You are not even close. These figures below are regarding everday Americans and others around the world (thrown in for good measure).
You can see foreigners have a much higher doubt of the official fairytale because they get more honest information about this issue than we do. This more educated liberty group may not have a consesus, no group would, but I know it would be well over 50% if polled and 100% if every single person spent the time to view the links and thread I posted above.

84% Reject the Official Story.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/141006poll.htm

What about allied nation Germany? 90% Reject the Official Fairytale.

http://www.infowars.com/nearly-90-percent-of-germans-do-not-...

Polls Show Widespread Doubt About Official Explanations

The results of polls on peoples’ beliefs about 9/11 around the world might surprise you:

In its January 2011 issue, the popular German magazine “Welt der Wunder” published the results of a poll conducted by the Emnid institute on 1005 respondents. The poll indicated that nearly 90% percent of Germans are convinced that the government of the United States is not telling the whole truth about the September 11 attacks

A new poll conducted in England by ICM shows that more UK residents agree than disagree that the official account of what happened on 9/11 might turn out to be wrong in important respects. Only 8% strongly agree that they have been told the full story of the 9/11 attacks

A new poll conducted in France by HEC Paris shows that 58% of French people doubt the official version of 9/11, and 49% believe the U.S. government might have intentionally allowed the attacks to happen

A Zogby poll conducted in August 2007 found that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe Bush/Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks, two-thirds (67%) of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7

A poll conducted by CNN-IBN in August 2007 found that only 2 out of 5 of those polled in India – the world’s second most populous country – believe that al-Qaeda is responsible for the 9/11 attacks

Indeed, a poll taken by World Public Opinion, a collaborative project of research centers in various countries managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, College Park, polled 16,063 people in 17 nations outside of the United States during the summer of 2008. They found that majorities in only 9 of the 17 countries believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks. The poll showed that in the world’s most populous country – China – only 32% believed that Al Qaeda carried out the attacks.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/911-and-the-war-on-te...

Take the time to view the Thread that was put together for you.

Sincerely

Challenge to the downvoters...

...disagree with me. Post here that you disagree with what I've written above. Don't downvote in a quiet, anonymous act of cowardice. Boldly state that you feel either:

1. Your conspiracy theory is a consensus issue within the movement;

or

2. That you don't care if it's NOT a consensus issue, you're going to keep propagating it under the banner of the liberty movement, even if it means jeopardizing the causes we all DO agree on.

Come on. Show yourselves.

I don't think you get it...Watch the Video Friend.

You're obviously not getting that if 9/11 was the catalyst to start:

1. the biggest ramp up to Federal Debt - over $10 Trillion in 11 years...we had less than $1 Trillion in the first 200 years of our nation.

2. The biggest ramp up to a police state

3. etc etc etc

It is not something we can push under the rug and it also one of the biggest and easiest events in our lifetimes to wake up the nation to how truly manipulated they are by government and the compliant media.
These people are criminals and if they are not exposed, you are leaving yourself open to more false flags, more distruction of this nation, and allowing them to continue down their road to world government and complete tyranny.

This is the fight my friend. Quit standing on the sidelines or else you'll be claiming your rights soon with absolutely no way to defend them. They will never stop trying to come for the guns and false flags will be a catalyst for their propaganda. Hell, 9/11 and the war were both complete lies. No weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear bomb, no ties to al queda and none of the 19 highjackers were Iraqi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGDmoh3yHgM

watch everything I posted and then get back to me friend.

Sincerely

Ron Paul Rox!

Ron Paul Rox!

Global warming is a communist plot

This somewhat humorous, but otherwise very serious video quickly explains how Obama, his Administration, members of Congress, and worldwide Communists are employing a Global Warming hoax to fool Americans into giving away US sovereignty and national governance to the United Nations. Featured clips from Progressive Traitors, Crooks and Communists Obama, Gore, Carol Browner, Van Jones and Nancy Pelosi. Also featured in the Climategate exposé is Joe Barton, Rex Murphy, Lord Monckton, Weather Channel Founder John Coleman and Shelley Moore Capito: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVm5-6H_sH4

jhon

something we can all agree on is that the minimum wage needs

to be repealed. The minimum wage sounds nice on the surface: workers earning $8 per hour would certainly be better off if they were earning $12 per hour instead. But economics professor Antony Davies explains that this view of the minimum wage overlooks an important detail: The minimum wage does not force employers to pay a particular wage to every worker; it forces employers to pay a particular wage to every worker they choose to keep. While the minimum wage may be well-intentioned public policy,it often huts the very workers most in need of our help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ct1Mo...!
Yuri Bezmenov (former kgb) Psychological Warfare Subversion & Control of Western society. KGB Defector Accurately Predicts America's Future in 83! ( U.S edu censored it!)I'd say this guy knew exactly what he was talking about. It is practically prophetic. Psychological warfare is very real and Yuri Bezmenov does a fantastic job at explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZnkULuWFDg
albert pikes 1871 plan for three world wars: http://libertyforlife.com/nwo/albert_pike.htm

jhon

The leading technocrats of

The leading technocrats of the Federal Reserve System currently do not have a sound argument as to why they should be able to retain the audit restriction that exist in the United States code (under section 714 title 31). This is particularly the case if a time lag is allowed before complete audits were released.

The central argument of the Federal Reserve as to why they should retain these audit exemptions is based on a false dichotomy. Their argument is that the removal of the audit restrictions would amount to a loss of their "independence", which would then result in our nations monetary policy being controlled by short-sighted politicians. They argue this would be extremely bad for our economy and then they refer to history as evidence of this "truth".

However clearly this is a false dichotomy. There are indeed many other options besides these two. For example, a time delay can be given between the full audit and release time. This alone essentially does away with their inadmissible argument, i.e., that they should be able to have elements shielded from public examination for ALL TIME.

And of course, their false dichotomy leaves out the real option that NEITHER the Federal Reserve NOR Congress governs the fiat money supply. :-)

The peculiar audit exemptions that the Federal Reserve System currently enjoys is inconsistent with the rule of law.

Here's the problem.

There is a lot we agree on.

It's not really what we disagree on that is the problem. The problem is how we do it.

There are those of us who want some more freedom and those that want a lot more.

We should all agree that we don't have enough. But some people can't leave it there.

I won't point fingers at who does it more but there's a tendency for some people to try to shut down debate and vilify or ostracize people who disagree. That is what is divisive.

Whatever you believe you're not going to force that belief on the rest and trying is destructive. Constitutional conservatives, minarchists, and voluntarists are all libertarians.

What I find offensive is when someone insists some kind of libertarian isn't libertarian and they should go away.

Essentially it boils down to some people are rude jerks. And rude jerks tend to result to invective and as well take disagreement as a personal affront.

The solution is people need to stop being rude insecure jerks. Sadly I have no idea how this can be accomplished.

What do YOU think the problem is?

What is it that threatens your "freedom", and what do you want to do about it?

What purpose do you serve?

I promote liberty. The threat

I promote liberty.

The threat is the religion of the state, which indoctrinates people that for some men, us, it is immoral to be thieves, murderers, rapists, or slavemasters, but for for others, the state, it is moral to be thieves, murderers, rapists, or slavemasters.

Our morality, just as our rights, come from our creator, whatever you believe that to be, and they are the same for all of us.

Whatever is moral for one man is moral for all men.

What is immoral for one man is immoral for all men.

No exceptions.

That is liberty.

You don't know what the problem is.

Injustice doesn't need government thrive. Injustice will flourish with or without government, or "the religion of state"... You don't know what the problem is and oppose those who do.

"Dedicated to restoring Constitutional government to the United States of America"

Anarchists are victims of causality.

Sorry. There are no easy solutions to this problem. There's no quick fix. The real problem is beyond your sphere of control. You can't destroy the problem by destroying government or faith.

You'll eventually have to tell me about your real purpose and how it is that you're going to serve justice in Anarchy. It's not enough to just say liberty is good. (Three cheers for liberty!) How are we going to get liberty in a world filled with people who covet the spoils of injustice?

You're not an advocate for liberty. You're just an Atheist who sees nothing but dogma, but it's YOU who serves broken dogma.

ANARCHIST DOGMA

#1 - injustice comes from the state, not from ourselves.

I don't believe in quick

I don't believe in quick fixes. You do. The fix of armies. Your army and enforced compliance. Now.

I don't believe injustice can be eliminated on earth. You want to perfect injustice on earth. Write it into law.

I don't believe in perfection on earth. You do. The perfection of compulsory conformance.

Your god is not Jesus. It's the state, ie satan, no matter what you think. Perhaps you even know, and it's why you are so upset at the truth.

I would like to restore the Constitution, ie the Rule of Law. But that is not going to solve the problem. So long as you statolaters want to build society on theft, murder and slavery.

You are wallowing in evil. You feel it. You took a bite from the apple and want more. You must crush anyone who opposes your plans for them. You must shout down anyone who dares speak the truth.

The truth is we are all created equal by our creator. That means no man may steal lest all may. That means no man may murder unless all may.

Show me where in the Ten Commandments it says, Thou Shalt Not Steal, unless you gain a majority in Congress. Show me in the Ten Commandments where it says, Thou Shalt Not Kill, unless 9 men in black robes rule that killing a preborn baby is just fine.

Show me where the Ten Commandments have exceptions for politicians and their goons.

You can't. You aren't following the god of the Bible. You're following someone else. Who tells you sweet lies about how you can fix the world if only you had the power to make people listen.

The evil in you will make you shout at me and threaten.

Reject satan. Reject anyone who says morality is not the same for all men. Whoever says that is speaking lies.

Thou shalt not steal = Thou shalt not be a POS freeloader

"You want to perfect injustice on earth. Write it into law."

So you oppose writing any law or enforcing any law that defends liberty? Which do you oppose, the concept of law, or the idea of justice? Both?

Where did I advocate "perfecting injustice on earth and writing it into law" Anarchist? I say you can't, and that you're a two faced liar and a fraud, a dime store Anarchist agitator.

DO IT NOW, SHOW ME WHERE I ADVOCATE INJUSTICE!?

"Your god is not Jesus. It's the state, ie satan, no matter what you think."

You know nothing about faith, least of all mine. I know a lot about an Anarchists dogma though. Like I said, you're victims of causality who don't know what the problem is. Most of you are just two faced liars and frauds who can't back their words. Anarchists are a repellent force, something that attaches itself to what people want; liberty.

Anarchists are kinda like David Icke, something that turns peoples stomachs once they come to know them.

Why else would you post under the name "Faithkills" other than to be what you are, a skid-mark running his Godless Anarchist mouth trying to piss people off? Do you think you're helping the liberty movement? I don't think so...

I say you know you're a two faced fraud and you can't back up that statement: "You want to perfect injustice on earth. Write it into law."

"I would like to restore the Constitution, ie the Rule of Law. But that is not going to solve the problem. So long as you statolaters want to build society on theft, murder and slavery."

Than you're not an Anarchist, but you are. You simply know that you need to equivocate, and I don't think for a second that you support or defend the Constitution. You just need to pretend you do while you fling your chimp shit at people talking about "perfecting injustice on earth and writing it into law".

"Thou Shalt Not Steal, unless you gain a majority in Congress."

Taxing you is not stealing. You get compensated for your taxes whether accept that fact or not. You had a chance to win the debate, to run for office, and to vote. You can spread your influence, but you've lost. Anarchists ALWAYS lose the debate.

Being a freeloader like YOU is stealing. That's why I tell freeloaders to stop trying to "opt out", and instead 'GET OUT while you can'. Do it before justice finds you.

There's a reason you should pay your taxes, even if you don't agree with how the money is spent, because if you don't, damnation awaits from those who do. All you're capable of doing is sewing discord, so I say: "GTFO freeloader!" You don't have your own country. Either leave, win the debate, or pick up a gun Tin Soldier.

Thou shalt not steal = Thou shalt not be an ANARCHIST FREELOADER

Jesus told you to pay your taxes for a reason, but than again, why would a guy like you care what Jesus said? It's called Romans for a reason. What should you do when you find yourself ruled by Romans, become a POS freeloader attacking people of faith?

Nope... Bad move. Damnation awaits.

The Rule of Law is better

The Rule of Law is better than the rule of man which we have. I don't think you understand the Rule of Law. Because something is written down and stamped with a high seal doesn't mean it's the Rule of Law.

The Rule of Law means whatever the laws are, they must be obeyed by all. However some laws are inherently counter to the Rule of Law. If a law codifies different treatment for different classes of people, eg affirmative action, that is not the rule of law. That law itself violates the Rule of Law.

Of course most important thing about the Rule of Law is that the government must be subject to the law, and may not vitiate the law in special circumstances. Our Constitution has been essentially turned into a scrap of paper which is never invoked except to increase government power.

That said, the Rule of Law is only a half measure in securing freedom. One could outlaw all cars for everyone, and if the government also had no cars, the Rule of Law would be in effect. But that would not be freedom.

You seem to have a thing against freeloaders. I share this, but I blame you state worshippers more than I blame the 'POS freeloaders'.

You steal the money in the first place. You have set the example. You have said, theft is ok, the Ten Commandments do not apply to me.

You surely assert that theft is ok only for you, because you are the ruling class, or would be, but most people understand you are breaking yet another commandment with this lie.

So sure, I condemn sloth. But I condemn the theft that enables it and encourages it even more. You merely need to stop stealing, and there would be no more freeloaders.

But ultimately you do not want that. You do not want to stop stealing. Being evil, you feel better about yourself by telling yourself that at least you aren't a 'POS freeloader'.

But the truth is you are certainly a freeloader, using the money you stole from others as well as being a thief.

You want me to buy into your theft. I won't. When you send men with guns I will pay, knowing that I am bowing to your evil under duress.

But I won't call your breaking the commandments something it is not. I won't lie in turn and tell you that you are anything other than a thief.

Agree on...

Getting rid of the TSA?

Ending the drug war?

Bringing troops home?

Opting out of Social Security?

Getting rid of income tax?

Getting rid of the FDA...or at least reorganizing them to actually work FOR the people and not corporations?

Ending corporate tax loopholes so companies like GE can't realize negative tax rates.

And finally...and perhaps most importantly...cutting the head off the snake by ENDING the Federal Reserve!!!!!!

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
- President John F. Kennedy

All interactions between people should be by mutual consent.

All interactions between people should be by mutual consent.

“Although it was the middle of winter, I finally realized that, within me, summer was inextinguishable.” — Albert Camus