Nope, I don't bother with Boobtoob crap anymore. They're rarely worth the click (especially after the 9/11 & Star Wars equivocation you posted )and it still wouldn't change my post.

Note: "Are we a Democracy or a Republic?"

Democracy is a political system and a Republic isn't. Do you see the problem with the question?

I recognise the validity of his questions, but then, perhaps I don't share your confirmation bias.



Incorrect, the funds are awarded to the FSA via the SNC who aren't affiliated with Al-Qaeda or the Nusra Front.



This is a myth put about by those who merely hate the US and don't know what they are talking about. I'd just ignore it.

Many just parrot the rhetoric without understanding the nature of 'imperialism'.

The US is both, a republic with elected representatives.

The word 'Republic' doesn't define a political system (Res Publicae, 'matters' or 'affairs' of the people, Latin). China is a 'Peoples' Republic and Rome was once a Republic, but it was ruled by an oligarchy.

I think that is merely perception. Is western society actually in 'decline', or is it merely changing? Is this perception driven by a nostalgia that too, may be idealised? Look at the social impact of the Industrial Revolution, and the subsequent reactionary groups that looked back to an agrarian society with nostalgia. Is any of this new?

,,,,and they never wore 'dresses'.

Well, you're free enough to whinge about your lack of freedom.

So, the whole sad affair was a false flag attempt in order to build a FEMA Death Camp?

Self-Proclaimed “President” of Sovereign Citizen Nation Convicted in Alabama of Federal Tax Crimes

A federal jury in Montgomery, Ala., found James Timothy Turner, also known as Tim Turner, guilty late Friday of conspiracy to defraud the United States, attempting to pay taxes with fictitious financial instruments, attempting to obstruct and impede the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), failing to file a 2009 federal income tax return and falsely testifying under oath in a bankruptcy proceeding, the Justice Department, the IRS and the FBI announced today.

Based on the evidence introduced at trial and court filings, Turner, the self-proclaimed “president” of the so-called sovereign citizen group “Republic for the United States of America” (RuSA), traveled the country in 2008 and 2009 conducting seminars teaching attendees how to defraud the IRS by preparing and submitting fictitious “bonds” to the United States government in payment of federal taxes. Although the evidence at trial revealed the bonds are fictitious and worthless, witnesses testified that Turner used special paper, financial terminology and elaborate borders in an effort to make them look “real” and more likely to succeed in defrauding the recipient. Turner was convicted of sending a $300 million “bond” in his own name and of aiding and abetting others in sending fifteen other “bonds” to the Treasury Department to pay taxes and other debts.

The evidence at trial also established that Turner taught people how to file retaliatory liens against government officials who interfered with the processing of fictitious “bonds.” Turner filed a purported $17.6 billion maritime lien in Montgomery County, Ala., Probate Court against another individual. Finally, evidence presented at trial demonstrated that the FBI began an investigation after Turner and three other individuals sent demands to all 50 governors in the United States in March 2010 ordering each governor to resign within three days or be “removed.”

“The jury’s verdict in this case sends a message that defrauding the government and others through the use of bogus financial documents will not be tolerated,” said Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Tax Division Kathryn Keneally. “Disagreement with the law is no excuse for the real harm caused by these self-interested tax defiers.”

“These sovereign citizen groups use these retaliatory tax liens and fraudulent tax schemes as weapons against the United States and its citizens,” stated Acting U.S. Attorney Sandra J. Stewart. “It is only the hard work of law enforcement that can stop these criminals from using these financial weapons. I would like to thank the law enforcement officers who worked vigilantly on this case to bring this criminal to justice.”

“Those who create elaborate schemes and fraudulent tax elimination tactics run a high risk of prosecution,” stated Richard Weber, Chief, IRS Criminal Investigation. “Mr. Turner’s attempts to thwart the IRS, as well as the assistance and training he provided to others, was not tax planning, it was criminal activity. IRS-Criminal Investigation is committed to vigorously pursuing those who promote illegal financial transactions designed to evade the payment of taxes. For those who would consider similar behavior, let this case be a strong warning that there is no secret formula for evading the payment of taxes and no one is above the law.”

Turner remains in federal custody pending sentencing. Turner faces a potential maximum prison term of 164 years, a maximum potential fine of $2,350,000 and mandatory restitution.

“The prosecution of individuals who intentionally impede the IRS by submitting fictitious and frivolous documents, in an attempt to avoid paying federal taxes, is a vital element in maintaining public confidence in our tax system,” stated Veronica Hyman-Pillot, Special Agent in Charge of IRS Criminal Investigation. “Hopefully the verdict will send a message to other individuals like Turner, that this conduct will not be tolerated.”

“This joint investigation exemplifies the government’s commitment to investigate and prosecute those, who through tax schemes, attempt to cheat and steal from the government,” stated Stephen Richardson, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI, Mobile Division.

This case was investigated by special agents of the FBI and IRS-Criminal Investigation, and is being prosecuted by Tax Division Trial Attorney Justin Gelfand and Middle District of Alabama Assistant U.S. Attorney Gray Borden.




http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2013/March/13-tax-344.html

So, a representative of the so-called 'Republic of the United States', who believes he is a member of the 'true' government, lost his case against the US government.

Who couldn't see that coming?

I know that is the ideal, but history denotes otherwise. The emancipation of slaves; property rights for women; voting rights for women; abolition of segregation and apartheid; workers' rights arising from the union movement etc., all prove that rights were hard won. You can see it in the Magna Carta and even Roman History, where the Plebeians gained a voice in government and various property rights under the tribunates of the Graachi.

Meaning France and Germany, not Australian soldiers.

I know, as a citizen of a former colony, I have ancestors buried on those very fields. If they're ever stupid enough to go again, God help you all.

I must admit, you are right there. We have weathered the recent economic turmoil rather well, however, a slowing economy in China does not bode well for us at all.

They say, "money doesn't buy happiness", but it goes a long way to relieve suffering, that's for sure.

In light of European history, I'd suggest it's more equitable and stable than any other period. I mean that militarily and socially, not economically, and I do see your point in regard to some of the radical financial measures put forward recently.

Well, history supports that view.



That is somewhat naïve. There will always be the bully, or thug that will capitalise upon such a situation.



I do see that, but I recognise it as an ideal, and not practical. Moreover, educated and enlightened according to whom?



And I agreed with it to a point. Fundamental rights cause certain limitations of freedom.

It would appear that I didn't explain myself clearly.

I know, I never said she did. I don't think we are quite on the same page here.



I concur. I don't see where I contradicted that, nor where the OP suggested otherwise.



You know I abhor such a scenario.




Do you really view Western society in such a fashion? I know it has flaws, but history cannot provide us with a equitable example on a national scale (i.e. not a city state of antiquity).

You are discussing inalienable (or natural) rights, which is fine, but not the same as freedom in its pure sense. However, historically the term 'inalienable' is only a fairly recent development and still hardly universal (freedom of religious practice; equality under the law; freedom of speech etc.). The fact that fundamental human rights have been hard won challenges the notion of 'God-given'. I'm fully aware of Rand's position, and this reinforces my earlier statement regarding idealism and realism. A truly 'liberated' and free society would be anarchistic and dysfunctional

'Without law, there can be no freedom'

If all the possible political systems can be viewed on a scale, we would have no government on one side, and totalitarian oppression on the other. Obviously, neither is desirable, and we are lucky enough to live under governments that occupy the middle ground. 'Freedom' in totality cannot be achieved, as we are all dependent on some fundamentals for our survival. We have to relinquish certain freedoms to survive and to interact with others in order to maintain our survival. As clans formed tribes and tribes formed states, the need for laws increased in order to preserve the society.

To enjoy participation in a society, certain 'freedoms' were relinquished, and certain obligations were adopted and the individual became part of a regulated society. The individual is constrained not to rob or kill the neighbour, and in turn, he or she is secure in the knowledge that one is protected in a like manner. Laws exist to deal with the transgressors of these 'rights'. In turn, the citizen pays taxes to enjoy life with the remaining freedoms (or rights) intact, administered by the taxpayer funded organs of government.

The relinquished freedoms are often less desirable than those retained, hence, there is agreement and stability within the society (excluding transgressions outside the law or international hostility). The aggregate freedom for an individual in a regulated society is much higher than in an anarchical one.

So the above quote can be amended to 'Without law, there is much less freedom.'

I've read where some complain about the compulsory wearing of seatbelts being an infringement upon their personal liberty. The reasoning being that if they have an accident, they have no-one to blame but themselves and there is no victim apart from the driver. This is nonsense, as Police and Fire-fighters have to deal with the trauma of cleaning up their corpses; medical staff have to try and reassemble their mangled remains. If they die, their family members suffer, and if they die without proper insurance, their family members inherit the funeral costs. There is even the remote possibility that the corpse becomes a projectile that injures another.

Members of an electorate often expect the government to react to various situations, hence the seatbelt laws in various countries. We can compare this to the recent gun regulatory proposals after Sandy Hook. Whatever people believe about this incident, the fact is that kids died, and citizens lobbied their representatives for action. The government responded with legislative proposals and they are seen to be doing something about the situation. Realistically, they are not trying to take your guns, or usher in a totalitarian state, but to satisfy those who are outraged by these massacres and to make an effort to protect other kids.

Is it a limitation on freedom, or is it an effort to prevent future slaughters? Whether it will or not is not the point (this is merely an often misrepresented example, and not a cue for further gun debate-we've had far too much of that). But the point being, that the government is trying to preserve the right to life for other kids in the future.

I ask the conservatives, what rights have you lost that can be considered oppressive?

Playing Devil's advocate, I just threw myself to the lions.

Following in Daddy's footstep?

Stem Cell research gone wrong!