Skyler

@T619414 @USAttyEssayli As the old adage goes "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". I'm sure most people's intentions are good but being blinded by the light allows the darkness to fester, then grow until it seizes control beyond our sight.

@Physquant @USAttyEssayli Not to mention the money they got from Biden human trafficking by allowing millions to enter this country. Has any clergy or faith leaders spike out about tge 350,000 unaccompanied minors? Or the 25,000 children rescued from slave labor or sex trafficking. Nope not 1

The President won the election and gets to decide who serves in the executive branch, not the party that lost. That’s how democracy works, Father. A federal judge ruled that I’m lawfully serving as the First Assistant. We treat everyone equally. We charge anyone who violates federal law without consideration of race. The people we charged violently assaulted federal agents. If you don’t agree with our immigration laws, take it up with Congress, not the men and women removing criminal illegal immigrants from our communities.

Oh, okay, speaker is a Protestant. The original post said "Father" so I presumed priest. There have been plenty of priests who have publicly denounced immigration enforcement as well and to me all religious faiths represent the same institution of man, different substance.

Emmanuel Shaleta is Protestant? According to the SD Sheriff's own announcement Shaleta is a Catholic Bishop not Protestant and I explicitly remember the Pope accepting his resignation. If so, getting the facts mixed up doesn't help the appearance of credibility.

@SpecNews1SoCal "The workings of democracy" when have religions (especially Catholicism) functioned under the "workings of democracy". Keep preaching your hypocrisy, sir, and let it shine a spotlight on the religious institution's own irrelevance and absurdity.

Clergy leaders from multiple faiths are calling for the resignation of Bill Essayli, who has been leading the federal prosecutor’s office in LA. They say he has a record of targeting immigrant communities, violating houses of worship and bringing prosecutions disproportionately a

@WKCosmo 2) "gender affirming care" via medical intervention has even less evidence to support it and far more long-term consequences. Whoever wrote that article puts on blast how "science" is used as dogma to indoctrinate by zealots and fanatics just as much as religion.

One of the most Orwellian linguistic sleights-of-hand in modern science communication is to label telling confused and vulnerable children "Hey, you're just great the way you are, and you don't need invasive, irreversible medical intervention" as "conversion therapy."

@WKCosmo This article isn't just misleading its misrepresentation. Therapists don't practice "medical conduct" whatever that even means. Therapy isnt regulated under medical boards or a medical license. A therapist engaging in "medical conduct" is practicing medicine without a license.

@amazing_physics Since energy cannot be created or destroyed I'd say the earth, sun, water, moon, stars and everything else made of matter (including us) are the same exact age. We've just taken different forms and cosmic structures since the beginning.

@TallPhilosopher @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty 3) I might disagree with you in substance but I agree with you in principle

@Physquant @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty Because we have not created the administrative mechanisms and the A/B testing process that could make this happen. You expressed the idea that people should not begrudge having to contribute to society.

"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good." — Ayn Rand

@TallPhilosopher @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty 2) even the mere act of questioning the system we live in, and genuinely wanting a structure that brings the benefits beyond ourselves is a valuable. Its the groupthink or absolute deference to authority no matter the harm or consequences that causes the greatest destruction

@TallPhilosopher @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty As a personal belief, no, I don't think people should begrudge contributing to society. I also don't see taxes or other monetary contribution as the only, or most important, form of contribution.

@TallPhilosopher @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty To clarify, for myself, is it direct democracy youre speaking of?

@Physquant @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty 'Anarchy' means 'no rules'. But the rule stipulated above is that people can only move funds UP THE GRADIENT, toward support of things that are widely recognized as more important or valuable than the thing being defunded. The respect individuals have for their gov't would grow

@TallPhilosopher @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty 2) wanting something is different then getting it. Simply wanting tax money to not be used for war and expressing it is a freedom. Being granted absolute authority over it though is not.

@Physquant @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty In your view, if I am reading you correctly, a person who says, "I want to move the money that I pay in tax that goes to supply weapons that are being aimed at civilian targets, toward support of emergency medical relief of civilians injured in war", is practicing totalitarianism

@TallPhilosopher @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty I'm agreeing with you about this. Its a collective decision and I'm pretty sure our country is supposed to bases on this exact principle even if though it's not how it works in practice

@Physquant @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty I'm not asking whether people should be free to stop paying taxes. The question is whether people should be able to focus their support where they think it does the most good, provided that community standards agree that the money is being well-used. gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2025/07/respec…

@TallPhilosopher @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty Yes, I agree with this but I don't see this a individual sovereignty. Its a social effort not a sovereign individual effort. But who is in control of the funds? It can't be hundreds of citizens all with direct access and equal control. It would be a free for all

@Physquant @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty I was asking specifically not about 'total sovereignty', but about the possibility of allowing latitude to move funds in the direction that aligns with what most people would say is an improvement--toward more valuable public services. (An A/B testing process is described above.)

@TallPhilosopher @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty This reads contradictory. It opposes radically ideology but promotes rejection of anything that offends the conscience. It proposes an alternative "philosophical" system. These alternatives are the same radical ideology as they are abstracts and beliefs, not practicalities.

@Physquant @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty The proposal is to allow taxpayers latitude to decide what their tax payment is in support of, not whether they face a tax obligation Rather than force people to aid something they think is harmful, it is forced support of what ppl want to support anyway (or @ least don't oppose)

@TallPhilosopher @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty 4) if there a tax that you object to so much that you demand not to pay then you are free to recruit a majority of members who agree with you to oppose whatever you object to. Taxpayers vetoing taxes is a majority decision, one taxpayer having absolute veto is totalitarianism

@Physquant @DeactivateTry99 @sfliberty No opinion on the 'Respect individual sovereignty' idea that would allow taxpayers a veto on how their tax money is spent? I think the type of immoral action that we would associate with a Machiavellian State is exactly what respect for individual sovereignty could foreclose.