 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Therefore I will add a few more of my saved posts from the Freedom to Fascism Forum that is still offline for "maintenance".
“Unapportioned TAX”:
Falling into the mire of falsehood is a mistake in my opinion.
In simple terms:
A Tax can be a voluntary contribution into a mutual fund utilized much like any other insurance policy.
A Tax can be a fraud used to accumulate funds, control those funds, purchase a false loyalty and punish disobedience.
I raised the question of the American Indian, a race, and their status according to Brian Ragel’s professed authority.
Is the American Indian race required to pay income tax or suffer punishment?
No answer from the House Despot has been authorized.
Breaking news:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/798556737?z00m=93964&z00m=93964
“In 1992 Congress adopted a production tax credit as part of the Energy Policy Act, giving tax breaks to producers of wind power and renewable energy. Ironically Native Americans, one of the poorest communities that could most benefit from this act, were excluded from its incentives.”
Jesuit,
I’m not at all interested in arguments. My intention is the exact opposite. Finding agreement is my goal.
One can get confused in the process. Confusion can spread.
Argument can be confused with discussion.
I’m trying not to be vague.
Why is it difficult to discuss simple things like money?
Why do we have to think in terms of arguments?
The power to choose what one can use to exchange with anyone who will agree to exchange, ink and paper for ink and paper, for example, is unquestionably a right so long as no one enforces otherwise.
Is that vague? I’m finding agreement with the following:
“If you have the right to print money and loan out at interest, then the borrower should have the right to print money to give you back exactly what you loaned out - ink and paper. And if the borrower has that right, then he doesn't need to borrow ink and paper from you to begin with.”
In other words: A Bill of Exchange, Bill of Credit, Promissory Note, or a simple verbal promise, is no one’s business other than the people involved in the exchange.
Are we on the same page?
After reading the following, written by you, it appeared to me as if your argument was against Bills of Credit.
“To understand Bills of Credit being used as money, and how that technique enslaves people to a codition in the Bible known as "Slavery by Usury", (Usury is Outlawed in Islam) which in Biblical Times was offest by the Hebrew Holiday "The Jubilee", you have to understand usury. The Goldsmith fraud of the middle ages (wherein money is created simply by printing) lead directly to Fractional Reserve Banking and the legalization of that fraud.”
I’m simply trying to point out that an argument may exist within the words you write.
If the error is mine, then, please expose my error.
If the problem is enforced currency like enforcing that Bills of Credit are against the law, then, is the problem “Bills of Credit” or is the problem “Enforcement”?
Please consider answering my last question. It is not an argument. Either the problem is “Bills of Credit” or the problem is “Enforcement”.
Is that vague?
How about this:
Will you allow me to use whatever currency I find agreeable between me and anyone?
Or
Do you intend to banish certain forms of currency that I may prefer?
I’m trying to be as precise as possible, since, my ignorance concerning the words you have written lead me to conclude that your argument is contradictory.
P.S. That link to perfecteconomy.com is relevant to this Freedom to Fascism inquiry. In my opinion it strikes at the root of the problem. I’ll read more from that link and perhaps find out where my ignorance originates. Meanwhile your further help is requested and appreciated.
The above are taken at random and intend to show how that forum was generating dialog. It was not perfect.
In my view it is curious to note how difficult it is to maintain agreement; even at the simplest level where two or more people agree to disagree. Not simply walk off shaking heads mind you; something like this:
A: On that point we cannot agree.
B: Apparently you are quite correct; we cannot agree on that point.
A: Is there anything we can agree upon?
B: Obviously, my friend, we just agreed.
A: Well that is a start.
It is probably my failure to understand; however the evidence suggests that I am doing all I can to inspire agreement while those who disagree with what I try to communicate obviously intend to censure by attacking me personally.
I've been banned from more than one forum and the individuals who ban me have yet to offer a reason for the ban. I'm simply no longer allowed to post. Usually the communications leading up to the ban follow a predictable course. I am personally attacked. I am accused of not knowing how to write coherently. I’m blamed for starting flame wars despite pleas on my part to stick to the topic and avoid personal attacks.
Enough of that – my hope is that the Freedom to Fascism forum will go back on line and republish the discussions that were recorded. Who knows; the Freedom to Fascism people may even change their label around to: Fascism to FREEDOM. Wouldn't that be something worth the effort to find agreement?