john cena

Go ahead and issue your currency. Tell people up front you're going to steal some of it through inflation. Do you think the consumer when faced with a choice would buy into such a scheme? I certainly wouldn't. How can this even be conceived to work except in a statist environment? The consumer/wage earner wants money to be as deflationary as possible, so that their savings buy more and more over time. In the specific case of the USA.. Yes, we do benefit from the debt in some ways. That certainly would not ruffle my Austrian feathers! We are printing worthless dollars and the Chinese are handing over products like mad for them. We are selling bonds that will never be repaid for real goods and services. So yes, in effect, the lazy unproductive masses get free stuff, just because other countries think our dollar will be strong in the future and the debt will be repaid. There is already a name for this method the video describes, and it is called a ponzi scheme. The foreigners will wise up, and when that happens, we will have no factories left to produce products we need, only methods of consumption. That is when the evil of such a system is fully displayed. You cannot eat money.

Because I don't understand which it is. Stefan repeatedly calls what happened to milo rape/molestation in the podcast, yet you are telling me that it is in fact not rape if the child consents, which Milo says he did. I vaguely remember him talking about children not being able to consent in the past but I can't remember which podcast it was. Sorry again for imprecise language. What I mean by the NAP justifying ostracism such as in the case of murder. You aren't very likely to be ostracized for ostracizing a murderer, while you are likely to be ostracized for ostracizing all people of a specific race. In a free society my goal would be to ostracize as little people as possible, IE only people breaking the NAP. Were those teenage brides sold off by their fathers to the highest bidder or forced into arranged marries? If so then obviously yes. But if no, the case could be made that children today are infantalized and coddled all the way to college. People of age 13 in that time period were much more mature and capable of making rational decisions, since often they worked full time jobs and took care of families, while 13 year olds in our society are prevented from doing so. But that's really a tangent from my confusion, although an interesting discussion. Right but I assume in a free society you would want to ostracize as few people as humanly possible while still adhering to ethics. This would be the most profitable option. Again an interesting discussion for another time but really tangential to my confusion. In the podcast Stefan refers to what happened to Milo as rape/molestation. If stef invents a time machine, goes back to that moment, and subdues the priest, has Stefan violated the NAP? As such, in calling the priest a rapist while Milo declared it was consensual, is Stefan not implying that force was moral to use against the priest? Is he in the podcast expressing a will to violate the NAP stefs subjective idea that a 13 year old should not be with a 29 year old? Or is there some logic I am missing? This might not be a question you can answer but I appreciate the dialogue so far.

Thank you for absolutely destroying my question. (Really) I certainly used the incorrect wording. Let me be more clear. For example, If I am being raped, the NAP allows me to kill my rapist. The NAP also allows for self defense for any other agent, IE I can morally kill the man raping a helpless person. To keep it simple I will stick to Milos example wherein he was 13 with an older priest. If the NAP says nothing about age of consent, and your 13 year old son is in the process of what I would consider being raped, how could one morally use force to stop the rape if the action is claimed to be consensual by both parties? The NAP says nothing about age of consent. In which case, it would seem to me that ostracizing someone for being in a relationship with a minor would be logically equivalent to ostracizing someone for drug use, racial differences, or any other subjective preference. Would this not simply lead to the ostracizing party being ostracized themselves? Basically what I am asking, is if the matter is entirely subjective, the ostracism only coming from unprovable aesthetic whims of those who have a problem with pedophiles. Again not trying to justify any of this. Just confused on if it would actually be immoral to have a "consensual" relationship between someone 13 and 29. Or 5 and 29 for that matter. If you forcibly intervene to stop sex between someone of age 13 and 29, have you not broken the NAP? Rephrasing the original question, 1. How does the NAP justify ostracism against those over age that have relationships with minors 3. IF there is no logically derivable age of consent, then how could these cases where there is no force used by the assailant ever be ostracized in a free society with any degree of fairness?

The most relevant question to me, is where was the video sourced from? Why does a random twitter account have podestas secret recordings? If it is real it would indicate to me that there are many more videos like this and if some random twitter account has them then they must be passed around a lot between these sick fucks. Who is the person recording? John himself or someone else? If someone else why did they not intervene? If john himself why does it appear the people are on the other side of the glass and why don't we see them? Or maybe i am missing something in the video. It's hard to watch without muting. Despite being disgusting and enraging people to do more research, I think this only serves to confuse people more. Maybe it's only me.

After watching the MILO video, I am very confused. I had never actually thought about how the NAP relates to age of consent. Specifically in the case of milo at age 13 and the priest. I am not disagreeing with stefans interpretation, I fully understand where he is coming from, especially about Milo not reporting the people hosting "parties" with underage boys. My confusion more specifically, is if a 13 year old consents to sex with an older man, how has the older man broken the NAP unless it is a forced event? I am assuming from stefans tone that YES it does, however I can't seem to find his arguments on the subject. In the podcast Stefan refers to what happened to Milo as rape/molestation. If stef invents a time machine, goes back to that moment, and subdues the priest, has Stefan violated the NAP? As such, in calling the priest a rapist while Milo declared it was consensual, is Stefan not implying that force was moral to use against the priest? Is he in the podcast expressing a will to violate the NAP stefs subjective idea that a 13 year old should not be with a 29 year old? Or is there some logic I am missing?

I see no posts on the forum about this yet, so I'll start off with the MSM view of what's going on, for those who aren't familiar with the situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFwhucvZ9D8 http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/09/493280504/judge-rules-that-construction-can-proceed-on-dakota-access-pipeline http://thefreethoughtproject.com/water-protector-dapl-grenade-destroys-arm/ Now.. I have NEVER seen a topic with such intense virtue signaling. Which why I am making this a video request as well as a thread for general information. I don't know how much this really contributes, but this is my rant on the subject, from the perspective of a descendant of Cherokee indians. (Not targeted at the audience of this forum) Considering the federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction over those lands according to the constitution. Consider the constitution also makes no provision to delegate rights to a fictional entity called a corporation. Consider the federal reserve has a duty to keep the value of the dollar stable over time. What are we left with? In the case of the landmass acquired by the Louisiana purchase, which includes N and S Dakota, that would total to 530,000,000 acres for a price of $11,250,000 USD, or $0.02 per acre as the final cost of the land. Land, purchased with the peoples purse, belonging to them and morally redeemable for said amount. WHY does this matter? There are several reasons. First, the basis of their legal case in the current DAPL situation is based upon violations of the Clean Water Act, National Historic Protection Act, and National Environmental Policy Act. All of these policies are based on one thing: federal ownership of those very public lands which as I said above is absolutely illegal according to the document which gives the federal government ANY power. The acts themselves are illegal and by coincidence immoral, since ALL of the land belongs to the states and respectively to the people for the price of $0.02 per acre, provided the land was put to use not just hoarded by the first people to show up. [You can read common law to understand how ownership of land can be assessed from a neutral standpoint without governments.] Their virtue signaling names [the acts] don't change the facts of what they do: steal the land from ALL Americans, not just the land in question in this current DAPL case. How do we solve this problem of corporations stealing land from people? how do we solve this problem of the government constantly allowing said corporations to pollute the land? Simple. We allow the TRUE ownership of the land to be manifested, which is ownership by the states and the people, NOT allowing Washington to sell the land to corporations that have no legitimate claim to use the land. If the tribe owned the water source that they drink from, any company that polluted that water supply would be destroying their property and CRIMINALLY liable for the damages just as if someone came and dumped oil on your house or in your glass of water. Instead today, the government owns the land, so the people have absolutely no recourse to this problem. The government lets the people off the hook with only minimal cleanup fees, usually taking the money from the taxpayer. Since corporations are not criminally and civilly liable for the damages they commit due to government stealing the land regular people live on, they will keep spilling, until they are held accountable by the owners of the land. The government will NEVER be a good steward of the land. So in the end, if they end up winning this case by blocking access to the pipeline being built using the arguments based upon the acts outlined above, it will solidify in precedent that the Indians do NOT own or control the land, that in fact the federal government owns and controls ALL of the land. This is the only way for the acts to be enforceable. I admit on the surface, this does seem like a clear cut case where the protesters are in the right and should win the case. However, that would be DEVASTATING for future tribes, as it would allow the federal government to be the due arbitrator of how those lands are allocated. They could easily repeal the acts, then using the president set by the case that the federal government owns the land, then go in and build as many pipelines as they want, without consulting the tribes in any way. So this case has very far reaching negative consequences not only for the natives that live in the areas but ALL Americans who wish to work and live off of the land, myself included. What's the solution? Well ideally they would be allowed to purchase the land for basically nothing, and then they would have FULL negotiation rights with the oil companies, NOT having to go through the FAKE owner and arbitrator of the land, the SAME federal government, which is currently blowing peoples arms off with grenades at the site. Yeah, I'm sure they're going to give them a great deal!!! Just like the last THOUSAND deals the Indians made with the government!!! WHAT COULD GO WRONG? I disagree with the protesters motives because they are taking actions that will cripple the tribes in the future. Not just that tribe, ALL of the others too. But i disdain some of them, for the simple fact that they are falling into the SAME trap they have been falling into for hundreds of years. What is the answer? The answer is to stop using violence as a means of organizing society in the form of government. We're getting there, but not very soon. So what to do NOW? Well we can look at extremely similar cases that turned out very different. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Bundy standoff and the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. It was similar in the sense that both parties had contracts with the federal government. One was an Indian tribe, the other cattle ranchers whose families had been living in the area growing free range grass fed cattle for hundreds of years. Just a little back story for context: They OWNED the grassing rights to the land, yet the BLM and federal government came on their property, and lit entire fields on fire, burning cattle alive, killing cattle with tractors and burning them in the ground. They threatened to kill the ranchers, and lit fires near their houses. Some ranchers lit backfires so that their cattle and homes would not be burned alive and destroyed. They were arrested on federal terrorism charges, even though the government had set fires on the same grassland on the same day purposefully. Anyway enough backstory, there is a lot more to that of course, but it's enough to illustrate where the differences begin to appear. How did the bundys and others respond? Thousands of people on horseback and foot showed up with hundreds of AR-15's AK-47's Barret .50BMG sniper rifles, and various other weapons. Not threateningly, merely in self defense against aggressors. They knew they owned the land and they were willing to die to defend it. They knew the government is rooted in evil, and they knew the BLM would kill them if they had the opportunity. In fact, they did murder one of them in cold blood in an ambush later on during the Oregon standoff which failed for a variety of reasons, including lack of grassroots support in the area and government infiltration of the camp. Nevertheless, not once did any of the protesters point a gun at police, despite police waving AR-15s at unarmed women and children. Nobody was injured during the event. Why? Because the FEDs knew that if they shot an innocent person or harmed one of them, the people would defend themselves and make VERY short work of the de facto terrorists known as the BLM, or die trying. For days they peacefully advanced to occupy the ranch. Eventually, the cattle that had not been mercilessly slaughtered and left to bleed out underground and their meat left in the sun to rot, were returned to the bundys, and the land was returned to them. Two VERY similar situation, two VERY different outcomes. Why? Racism? No. Two VERY different kinds of people. One camp is a "gun free zone". So much so they are willing to attempt to commit vehicular homicide against DAPL employees driving on their owner properties while armed. This group effectively does NOTHING except argue for MORE federal control over their lands, increasing the problem. The other group, the bundys, approached the issue from a totally opposite perspective. The perspective of we KNOW we own this land. We KNOW you are the aggressors and terrorists against us, and we will DIE not helplessly, but DIE defending the ones around us from your senseless violence. They were not asking the government to protect them against someone, they were telling EVERYONE they owned this land and if you want it COME AND TAKE IT. Why do the protesters ultimately not gain my respect? Because they cower at the evil of government. The FEED into the power of government by doing so. They ENSLAVE themselves and the future generations even further with the precedent this case would sets. /rant Thoughts appreciated.

Have them watch this video: Then, ask them to point out the time at which the government was a critical step.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8IXhd2GbP8 Thank me later. Isn't it amazing how easily the media just plainly lies about a story to distract people? It seems the more absurd the lie, the more people believe it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/peta-behind-the-leather-fake-pop-up-store-animal-cruelty-2016-5 *See video Why is nobody going to this much effort for a legitimate cause, like fake dead bodies and gore when you go to the voting booth? Are we philosophers just too selfish?

Just because you can not ask the person of their history, doesn't mean that they do not have history. Their DNA has already been constructed, and is a representation of billions of years of evolution of a chemical molecule based on previous life experiences. Such a chemical not only has history, it could never be constructed without history. The trial and error process of creating new DNA from scratch would be comparable to all of our evolutionary history. So not only does it have a history, it has a unique and irreplaceable history which wholly defines the entirety of it's functional structure, and will probably never be arranged the same way again on this planet. New science shows that epigenetics is controlled by behaviors and experiences. It's practically a cold storage for easier rebuilding of memories/behaviors. A baby one day old has no change in moral responsibility from a "fetus" inside the womb at any point because it never has any conscious history. Do you also support killing unwanted children until they develop moral autonomy?

Appoint Ron Paul as chairman of the Federal Reserve. Thoughts?

http://www.ijreview.com/2016/05/597758-high-school-student-faces-grown-up-felony-charges-after-yearbook-prank-goes-to-press/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=owned&utm_campaign=ods&utm_term=ijamerica&utm_content=life Ok let's look at the charges at hand. 1. 69 counts of indecent exposure (a misdemeanor) This seems like a reasonable charge at first, yet he only exposed himself ONE time. That is double jeopardy, sixty nine eight times over. 2. class 4 felony count of furnishing harmful items to minors. The problem here is, he did NOT furnish any harmful item to minors. The school did. Everyone involved with the yearbook staff did. Why are they all not being charged? The offense is not "posed in a picture indecently that was then furnished to minors by some other party". Why does the school have absolutely no responsibility to vet the yearbook contents before releasing it? If I distributed an anarchist information booklet without reading the entire thing to a school full of minors and it turned out that there had in fact been nudity in the booklet, I would certainly be jailed for decades. What are your thoughts on this? Am I off base?

I have had the same thing told to me countless times. In fact every time by women. Would they rather us be wrong just to make themselves feel better? I have never once felt the need to tell someone they're always right just because they had knowledge that I am missing. Maybe that's why they are wrong a significant portion of the time.

I'm planning on it, with a few friends. Would also like a porcvet to chime in!

If there is a person born with two heads and one body, is it morally permissible for the right head to use the right arm to blow the other's brains out? Is it morally permissible to kill a person who has been in a coma and had his memory erased, but after rehabilitation would become a fully functioning person? If you answered no to those two questions, then abortion is morally wrong unless you've got some other defining characteristic of what is human other than DNA and potential consciousness. If you answered yes to either of those questions, why?