TakeYouToTasker

My issue is with the audacity to state education is a public interest, and to threaten to lock me in a cage for not contributing against my will; and then to tell me that I’m not a stake holder. I think “flesh-turds” is malicious, and unnecessary; and counterproductive to the conversation. Please consider this position.

Everyone who pays taxes is a stake holder. Free me of the tax burden, and my position is irrelevant to that issue.

I said that this would happen years ago when the renaming/statue removal debate began. The goal is to implement Marxist social structures. In order to to do this they must tear down everything which came before.

Abolish public schools. We’ve done just fine without them that past several months, Families and communities are adapting.

Yes. I’m sure the 80 murders in the City this weekend we’re bread related.

Kemp’s not much in thinking. He’s a devout intellectual coward who flees from the mirror when it’s placed in front of him.

You’re hoping Stone gets exposed to double jeopardy?

Have any of you seen this disgusting Wayfair stuff breaking?

My preference would be to abolish the Department of Education, and return those responsibilities to the states and municipalities. Short of that, paying Federal assistance directly to families, and offering tax credits for any money spent on education over and above the subsidy would be ideal.

If we’re going to have public funding for education, and at this point we’re backwards enough that we are, I’m 100% on board with Betsy DeVos’ suggestion that Federal funding should go directly to the families of students to pursue alternative education, especially while public schools won’t be open.

Booooooooooo!!! Boo this man!!!

There is a cultural privilege which has nothing to do with race. Such a privilege will manifest itself in any area where there is a large majority of any culture.

The same way all reservations work, Joe. I‘m not arguing that it’s particularly convenient, or that it won‘t present some unique challenges. Only that it was decided correctly.

Wholly different situation, Joe, and you know it. The Gadsden Purchase was a legal exchange between to nations. Reversing it would literally be the *opposite* of the Oklahoma decision. The US government willingly entered into a domestic treaty. They never dissolved it. It is now being enforced. That‘s how the Constitution works.

It was the correct decision. The US entered into a treaty which was never dissolved by the Federal government. Per the Constitution, such treaties hold the weight of the Document itself.

So... you believe counterfeiters have large impacts on inflation?

This is something I’ve been warning about for years. A monopoly on control over the money supply is where government derives its power, hence its ruthless prosecution of counterfeiters and consistent opposition to barter transaction and cryptos. As Leviathan continues to grow, and expand it‘s power over the masses, new mechanisms of control become ever more important to the puppet masters. A cashless society affords then the ultimate control mechanism. You cannot, without the government‘s knowledge and consent, engage in any normal human behavior. Interacting with the world is transacting with others. Being able to do so without government intervention is what freedom actually is. This also directly enables a wealth tax on all savings via negative interest rates, and this tax wouldn‘t even require congressional debate, but rather would simply be enacted through Fed policy. This on top of everything Rob has listed.

There is no national coin shortage, and if there were, it would be reason in and of itself to abolish the Federal Reserve.

Police don’t keep you safe. Guns keep you safe. Police enforce gun laws.

Old blood Scotland (essentially Vikings), Ireland, England, Africa, and some of them were already here when the Europeans arrived.

Requires a Constitutional Amendment. That Amendment would require the states whom the EC protects to vote to give up those protections. The popular vote is not supposed to yield the winner by design. This is a feature, not a flaw. It’s why we have the EC rather than a popular vote by construction. Now, if you don’t mind, please explain why the citizens of the states the EC protects would vote to give up those protections? Or are you not familiar with how the Amendment process works?

No. It’s the old Marxism.

Makes one think, doesn’t it.

Of course I’m not. Kemp is a devout intellectual coward. I’m simply putting that cowardice on a pedestal for him.

Hi there! Can you speak to your thoughts on the concept of self-determination, and the philosophy that just government derives from the consent of the governed?