Tab Content
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    8 replies | 138 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    Today, 06:24 AM
    I think they took away his pipe years ago.
    14 replies | 270 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 06:23 AM
    And what exactly is that "real message?" Iraq WANTS cooperation with Iran. So does the legitimate Syrian government. Neither the government of Iraq, which WE installed, nor the government in Syria, which we helped create a terrorist organization to topple, want us there. So....why are we there? How could anything but a total pullout of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan be a "good move?" What's next? We start bombing Vietnam again?
    24 replies | 230 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 06:19 AM
    The ghost of John McCain.
    24 replies | 230 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    Today, 06:16 AM
    Nobody going to steal my dogs. Some people have dogs to protect them. I could be wrong but I was always under the impression that issues with pets are considered trivial by the courts. A zya breed dog is worth $xyz. If your dog was hurt or killed you get $xyz. Obviously firing shots at or hurting the walker is a real crime. I am sure Lady Gaga lives a life of luxury. Does a dog need or care for such? My guess is a dog would just as soon ruin any grass or couch. Does the fact that the dogs were Lady Gaga's somehow make them more legally protected than the dog of the same breed owned by a homeless person?
    14 replies | 236 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 06:14 AM
    If you want to know what the bill really does you have to read the bill. Here it is: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5/text It's basically an amendment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It kind of seems redundant because the U.S. Supreme Court, even with its supposed 5-4 conservative majority, recently "amended" the 1964 Civil Rights Act in exactly the same way. So....this bill essentially changes nothing. It just puts the congressional rubber stamp on the SCOTUS action. Now the 1964 CRA has been around a long time. (Longer than I have been alive and according to my kids that's pretty old). Something I discovered in 1990, decades after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that there were still country clubs that barred black members. Shoal Creek country club was hosting the PGA in 1990 when this occurred. I then learned that the 1964 CRA does not cover all businesses. It just covers those considered "public accommodations." With that in mind, not only do you not have to be sexually or romantically attracted to LGBTQ, but if you REALLY want to you can, under the 1964 CRA, create your own all heterosexual, non-trans country club. So what happened to Shoal Creek? Well a few things. A national boycott of the sponsors of the PGA was organized. Also Shoal Creek is one county over from Birmingham Alabama which, who's police department had been contracted to provide security. Birmingham has a majority black population and at the time had its first black mayor. (And all subsequent mayors have been black). So there was pressure on the mayor to get out of the security contract. Ultimately the issue was resolved because Shoal Creek reversed its policy and got a token black person to join. (I bet he got a free membership). The PGA then changed its rules to explicitly require venues not discriminate on the basis of race. So this hypothetical non-LGBTQIA country club could legally exist, but it could face a social backlash in today's climate....which it would anyway regardless of this new bill. So what does change? Well...many years later in law school I read the Bob Jones University vs IRS case. BJU admitted blacks, but they had this asinine policy against interracial dating. Apparently they never read in the Bible where Miriam was struck with leporasy for complaining about Moses having a black wife. Anyhow the IRS stripped BJU of their tax exempt status over this. The SCOTUS sided with the IRS reasoning that the charity status was for promoting public policy, and all three branches of government had show support for the policy of desegregation. The POTUS had desegregated the military. The SCOTUS had struct down "separate but equal" in Brown v Board of Education. And Congress had passed the 1964 CRA. Reading that case sent chills down my spine. Up to that point I had supported LGBTQ rights. I still kind of do. I don't care who sleeps with who. And while I am certain BJU had no biblical grounds for its position against interracial dating, the SCOTUS ruling was not based on biblical grounds. I don't what places like Oakwood University, where I went for a couple of years in undergrad, to have to throw away their religious beliefs just to be able to participate in the Pell Grant program or to lose access to donors who want tax breaks. (Oakwood is so conservative that it kicked Brian McKnight out for getting his then girlfriend pregnant. He did marry her though and went on be nominated for 17 Grammy awards.) The silver lining to all of this is that the SCOTUS recently ruled that the "ecclessiastical exception" allows religious schools to fire teachers for any reason and that they are exempt in that regard from the 1964 CRA. Back to the whole "dating discrimination" thing. Researching Section 230, which many people here oppose, I ran across an interesting case. A "find a roomate" website was sued under the Fair Housing Act because it had "race" as a criteria one could select in...
    9 replies | 187 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:26 PM
    That's a GOOD question! I am thinking you are talking about people you have relationships with right? Here's my thoughts. Make sure you keep the relationship front and center. Don't try to cross every bridge at the same time. Find common ground in areas where you disagree. That last part is SUPER important! It's easy to find common ground where you agree. Much tougher on the other side. Be patient. Be willing to table conversations and come back to them. Understand that "winning" means any incremental change in position no matter how small. And don't take anything personally. You have to be the adult.
    34 replies | 1544 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:51 PM
    The man's on top. That's misogenist. And he's to the right. That shows that hetorosexualism is right wing.
    34 replies | 1544 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:46 PM
    Wait a minute. There's a trans-flag? I thought they were part of the LGBTQIA flag? This is so confusing. Did the trans-nation secede from the LGBTQIA nation?
    29 replies | 470 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:02 PM
    Good for Mike Rowe, but he's being kind here. Fauci flat out lied. When he was asked about his mask flip/flop he said that the reason they said don't wear masks was to save them for the first responders. But the initial story he said was that it was because "Masks are ineffective." He lied. He's still lying. I trust science. I don't blindly trust scientists. It's like I trust God but I don't trust everyone who claims to be a man (or woman) of God.
    2 replies | 199 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:51 PM
    At 2:04 "The specific question was about minors. Let's be a little more specific since you evaded the question." WOW! And yes. Rand is 100% right on this. And it's not just about "against the parents consent." What happens when you have one parent that consents, or worse is PUSHING the child to do this, and another who objects? Rand Paul 2024!
    21 replies | 317 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:33 PM
    There were contracts before there were states. They were called "covenants." You can read about them in the Bible. For example the covenant between Abraham and Lot dividing up pasture land. How were covenants enforced? Mostly by honor. If you were known to be a covenant breaker then other people wouldn't want to do business with you. Loss of reputation, or "loss of face", was how things were generally enforced. Yeah...you could get a bunch of people with swords to enforce your covenant. But even if you didn't have the manpower to do that, simply letting everyone know "You can't trust Mr. X" was a powerful weapon. Now, back to corporations. Why do you believe it is necessary to have a legal entity that you need to have a government license to form called a "corporation?" Are you REALLY a minarchist? Here is a definition I found. https://www.lexico.com/definition/minarchy Minimal government; specifically a (hypothetical) form of government that does not interfere with individual rights and civil liberties, and that has itself no right to levy taxes upon legitimately acquired property. A government created license to limit liability, the very definition of a corporation, interferes with the individual right to have full redress for damages done to him by another individual or individuals who put their assets in that government licensed entity but maintain control over them for their own financial gain. So...how is that compatible with minarchy?
    33 replies | 482 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:22 PM
    You mean like Gab or Parler swooping in to take on Twitter? Yeah. Then Gab got kicked off the Apple and Google stores. Then big tech went even further and kicked Parler off of Apple, Google and their hosting platform at Amazon. Sure, they can get another hosting platform. (In fact as of this post they seem to be back up). Still, without a presence in the app stores they are at a significant disadvantage. Of course there are ways around that. Mastodon is a protocol, as opposed to a platform, and it's impossible to ban a protocol. But Mastodon hasn't caught on yet. Meanwhile...as the now infamous Time magazine admitted, this "cabal" (Time's words, not mine) of big tech, big labor, Wallstreet, and "wokestreet" conspired together to control the narrative after (and really before) this last election. I am not sure if anything admitted in that article is per se illegal. But it sure feels wrong.
    33 replies | 482 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:28 PM
    Corporations have MORE rights than individuals. That's the problem. Would agree with what? In the above video Dr. Paul was disagreeing with the fact that corporations get a tax break for healthcare spending on adults that individuals in general do not. Do you agree with Dr. Paul? And do you agree that corporations should get liability protection that people who come together and create a partnership by contract do not? Are you a statist? I'm not asking that question as a perjorative. I'm just curious. Do you believe that the state, itself, is necessary? Because without a state, all state created entities, including corporations, could not exist. As long as we have government protection for corporations, and by definition their very existence is a government protection, there should be some government protection FROM corporations as well. Antitrust laws fall into that category. If the state went away there would be no corporations and no antitrust laws either.
    33 replies | 482 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:23 PM
    That is, in fact, a partnership. To be a corporation you have to have a GOVERNMENT charter. Period. End of story. And yes, that's true even for non-profit corporations. You can be a church, for example, and never apply for a 501 c(3). You are tax exempt simply by being a church. But you can't apply for those gubmit grants unless you fill out the paperwork, jump through the hoops and become a corporation. Back to your example. None of the contracts these hypothetical individuals draw up can REALLY limit their liability the way a corporation can. The issue with liability isn't just with the people you contract with. It's with people you DON'T contract with! With contracts you can create something called a "limited partnership." But even with a limited partnership, at least one partner always has FULL liability. Let's say persons A, B, C and D form a limited partnership. By contract they can say "Persons B, C and D don't have liability if the partnership gets sued." But person A still has the FULL liability. I learned about all of this when I was a teenager. My aunt and I went to one of those "Start your own business" con-job "we'll sell you a business for $19.95 a month" seminars. The business we decided to buy was one where they would daily fax you a list of distressed and returned merchandise that you could sell. (Yes this was pre-internet). I started reading about corporate structures. I thought a corporation was too complicated and didn't like the idea of double taxation so I looked into limited partnerships. What I was really looking for was an LLC, but those didn't exist at the time. (We ultimately quit the business because. Yeah you would get faxes of stuff you could sell....but without a store to sell the stuff...and pre the internet where you could put up an e-commerce store...it just didn't make sense.) Now, consider the LLC part of the equation. Once again that is something that you have to apply to a GOVERNMENT to start. It just can't be done by "contract." With an LLC or an S-Corp or any other corporate structure, if the driver for your company crashes into a Rolls Royce some full partner in your partnership is personally liable. So when the partnership runs out of assets, the unlimited partners assets become attachable. Yes you can have insurance, but insurance has limits. Sure the unlimited partner can declare bankruptcy, but that affects his PERSONAL credit. By contrast, if the LLC goes bankrupt, everybody in the LLC can walk away clean thanks to the GOVERNMENT CREATED benefit that simply cannot be created through contract. Even if you contract with ALL of your customers and EVERY institution that loans you money and say "You can't come after my personal assets", that doesn't protect you from liability from third parties that don't contract with you. What is the ultimate benefit of this GOVERNMENT protection? Well...corporations can take risks that individuals, or even groups of individuals (partnerships) would never dare take. And that's WHY they can grow so big. Further they can be owned by investors all around the world who don't give a rip what they do in the countries where they operate. Some GOVERNMENTS are the biggest shareholders in the world. But thank you for asking the question. I think that helps to clear up the confusion.
    33 replies | 482 view(s)
  • Dr.3D's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:36 PM
    That's probably why they come up with such bills, they are frustrated with themselves.
    3 replies | 102 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    0 replies | 58 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:13 AM
    Ron Paul is also against you on this.
    33 replies | 482 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:10 AM
    Nope. Corporations are NOT inevitable. They would NOT exist without government. They are no more inevitable than drug laws. Marriage? Marriage was a religious institution long before we had the governments we have today. Terrible analogy. The libertarian position on marriage is to get government out of marriage. How do you get government out of a government created institution like a corporation? Rhetorical question. You can't. People coming together to pool their resources are called partnerships. Partnerships existed prior to governments. Corporations are not persons. Oh, and Ron Paul agrees with me on this. See starting at 4:30
    33 replies | 482 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    17 replies | 241 view(s)
  • Dr.3D's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:10 AM
    A person is supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty. So is it proper for law enforcement to search the home of an innocent person, without a warrant?
    17 replies | 241 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:25 AM
    I would bet you all the money that is supposedly in your bank account that MOST people do not understand how the banking system works or that more money has been lent out then there are deposits. But at any rate, contract law does NOT operate under the assumption that "well most people know this." And if it did that would be wrong. Right after the civil war many freed slaves put the money they earned in the "Freeman's bank" which collapsed 9 years later from risky and speculative investing. Ummm....that's what I said. I will repeat it. Maybe I should rephrase it. When putting your money in the bank, if the bank is engaged in fractional reserve banking, the bank should disclose that all of the deposits could disappear tomorrow if things went wrong. People put money in banks not to earn interest (the bank interest, if any, is pitiful), but for their money to be "safe" and available when needed. Now since most banks are FDIC insured that's not so much of an issue. Of course the FDIC is "federal" which creates the moral hazard, thanks to the repeal of Glass-Steigal, that banks which are just "safely holding people's money" try to act like investment bankers at the same time, taking risks knowing they'll get bailed out.
    33 replies | 482 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:07 AM
    If everybody understood when then "voluntarily" agreed to put their money in the bank that it wasn't really there...then yeah. But if that is not disclosed there is no real meeting of the minds or contract. And all of this is propped up by the government fiction of corporate personhood. People can come together and pool their capital for joint ventures. Those are called "partnerships." Corporations should not exist. There is nothing libertarian about them.
    33 replies | 482 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:26 AM
    Yeah....Rand wrong on red flag laws too. (He actually went along with them for a hot minute after Trump floated them). Here's the deal. Get rid of corporate personhood and you won't need laws to reign in the power of out of control corporations. A corporation is a legally created entity. A legal fiction if you will. As long as that legal monstrosity exists, legal mechanisms to reign them in should also exist.
    33 replies | 482 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:30 AM
    I would go for one six year term for POTUS. Forget all the campaigning for term 2.
    7 replies | 133 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:54 AM
    If you look like a duck and quack like a duck you are a frog.
    15 replies | 653 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:47 AM
    Is not one election enough? If you do not approve of the VP do not vote for the POTUS.
    7 replies | 133 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    02-24-2021, 08:56 AM
    Did this plane take off in Denver, have an engine fail and pretty quickly return and land in Denver? How did they recover a fan blade on a soccer field in Bloomfield CT? Never mind. Somebody asked about that toward the end of the video. He meant to say Broomfield Colorado.
    21 replies | 523 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    02-24-2021, 08:20 AM
    The President has donated seven checks, $78,333 after taxes each, to different government agencies. He has not yet announced who will receive his final check from 2018. He received a salary and donated it. Is it possible that if Trump donated his salary to the swamp, the swamp had more money to waste. I would bet that the budgets for all those organizations increases frequently and never decreases.
    47 replies | 1129 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    02-24-2021, 07:26 AM
    I can only speculate that if toxic waste falls from the sky and lands on your property it would be the homeowners responsibility to clean up the toxic waste. If some valuable items fell from the sky, the homeowner would have no right to the items but would be responsible for fixing any and all damage on their property.
    21 replies | 523 view(s)
More Activity

49 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Please stop trying to "out" Erowe1. Let it go.
  2. I know. Like I said I was going to yank your chain but realized that in the current circumstances it would be bad taste even for me.
  3. View Conversation
    At least until every county or so willingly decided to submit to Christ, which I think will happen eventually because I'm a postmillennialist.
  4. View Conversation
    I wish things were a lot more local too. I'm really not looking for a country of 300 million at all. I think that's too big. Those who didn't want to live by Christian law could live somewhere else and choose God's judgment over his blessings.
  5. View Conversation
    And while I do believe the BIble requires civil authorities to punish homosexuality, and with death as the maximum penalty, I don't think it would be legitimate even for the government to just round up people in a gay bar.

    My reasons on the bearing arms bit are much closer to yours (resistance against tyranny.)
  6. View Conversation
    To be perfectly clear, I absolutely oppose vigilantism. I know you were joking around but I just want you to be clear on where I stand.
  7. View Conversation
    Will you kindly give a tongue lashing to the racist of the board, AmericanSpartan? Thank you. I'd like to see it.
  8. Sorry, but you have failed. That verse does not contain the words "Grace is irresistible." You can interpret it that way, but that's not what the verse says. You had to admit there was "relational language" in the Bible. Yet you have stuck to your guns that there isn't a verse that says "Have a relationship with Jesus." Likewise there is no verse that says "Grace is irresistible." If you were honest you would simply admit that. But you aren't honest.
  9. View Conversation
    Acts 13:48
    And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 49
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
About jmdrake

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Select if you "Stand with Rand":
I Stand with Rand (This will add a "Stand with Rand" badge by your name badge by yourr name in all posts.)
Select if you do not support Trump or Hillary.:
No Trump. No Hillary. (This will add a "None of the Above" badge by your name in all posts.)

Signature


9/11 Thermate experiments

Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
44,880
Posts Per Day
8.95
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
49
Most Recent Message
11-05-2016 03:40 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Today 07:58 AM
Join Date
06-06-2007
Referrals
5

38 Friends

  1. affa affa is offline

    Member

    affa
  2. bobbyw24 bobbyw24 is offline

    Banned

    bobbyw24
  3. bv3 bv3 is offline

    Member

    bv3
  4. Cap Cap is offline

    Member

    Cap
  5. Captain Shays Captain Shays is offline

    Member

    Captain Shays
  6. Christian Liberty
  7. cjm cjm is online now

    Member

    cjm
  8. Crowish Crowish is offline

    Member

    Crowish
  9. DGambler DGambler is offline

    Member

    DGambler
  10. DiverseSegregation
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 38
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
View jmdrake's Blog

Recent Entries

How Ron Paul could smack down Iran critics

by jmdrake on 05-15-2013 at 08:34 AM
Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
Ron needs to quit playing defense and go on offense. It's not enough to say "the Soviet Union was worse than Iran." If he could point out the following documented facts it would shut the naysayer up for good or at least make them back-peddle.

1) In 2003 Iran was the only Muslim country to help us fight and remove the Taliban from power.

See: Jane's Defense Weekly India joins anti-Taliban coalition. "India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

The new bill of rights.

by jmdrake on 05-15-2013 at 08:33 AM
Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
This parody is an attempt to "rewrite" the bill of rights in keeping with the current application by our criminal government. Original text will be in italics followed by a list of possible options.


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

Federal Reserve advised gold standard for Russia

by jmdrake on 05-15-2013 at 08:32 AM
Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
I ran across this information by accident (providence?) while looking for something else. The first link is an essay from Jude Wanniski who went with fed governor Wayne Angell to Moscow right after the collapse of the soviet union. Note that Angell advocated the new Russia to go to a gold backed currency! The second link is an online Google book from the Mises institute that talks about the same essay. I've excerpted the essay bellow. (It's too long to post directly). It's interesting to note

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

Washington Post 2002 : The U.S. pushed jihad on Afghan schoolchildren.

by jmdrake on 09-13-2011 at 01:15 PM
Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad
Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts


By Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 23, 2002; Page A01

In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

02-26-2021


02-25-2021


02-17-2021

  • 02:31 AM - Hidden

02-13-2021


02-09-2021


02-04-2021


01-31-2021


01-21-2021


12-09-2020


12-07-2020


12-06-2020


12-04-2020


11-13-2020


11-05-2020


10-13-2020


08-28-2020


08-27-2020


08-15-2020



Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

11-17-2017


Page 1 of 290 1231151101 ... LastLast

02-26-2021


02-25-2021


02-23-2021



Page 1 of 290 1231151101 ... LastLast