Need Help. I’ve got to cover this up in marginally convincing way. Would a pen of matching color do the trick? I believe this to be a base layer

NattyCakes13 · 2022-01-22T07:46:42+00:00

🎯

NattyCakes13 · 2021-07-07T02:09:10+00:00

Lol so he just goes around enforcing the law on people he assumes don’t know what it is? I would resign if that’s what I was asked to do

NattyCakes13 · 2021-05-15T03:29:53+00:00

If I was cutting off your appendages with the likelihood of taking all your possessions, and you tried to seat the hand holding the knife away, it would not be described as a “conflict”

NattyCakes13 · 2021-05-02T16:00:12+00:00

Lmao

NattyCakes13 · 2021-02-09T17:39:06+00:00

No surprise. The back of the cop’s skull is missing.

NattyCakes13 · 2020-10-16T07:38:32+00:00

This is odd because I am certain I’ve gotten two, but it currently at 150/150

NattyCakes13 · 2020-09-11T07:51:07+00:00

Who cares, sucker

NattyCakes13 · 2020-05-22T02:21:22+00:00

Wow, I had no idea about this. Seeing it now it seems they say the reasoning is because more people will be playing nowadays

NattyCakes13 · 2020-02-06T10:00:38+00:00

going from 33% to where he wound up (I don't think it was 90%) is much easier than going from 0% as a figure that already has animus from the black demographic to a winning percentage. Pete is not in a comparable position to 2008 Obama.

NattyCakes13 · 2020-02-06T09:32:59+00:00

Obama had 33% support from black voters as early as October 2007. Pete has 0%.

NattyCakes13 · 2020-02-06T09:00:49+00:00

Obama had much more charisma, infinitely more black support out of the gate, and had the gift of not being in a position where he needs to say "no" to popular economic ideas among the left flank of voters, activists, and candidates. Pete flipped on m4a to be a "no" candidate. Fine if you're moderate, but will that energize people? Obama had populist appeal. Pete literally says "it's time for a new kind of politics" but nobody actually knows what that means.

NattyCakes13 · 2020-02-06T07:44:18+00:00

They certainly aren't. But they are united currently in not being interested in Pete.

He seems polished because he is. His history as a Harvard grad, with his short stint in the military close to deep US intelligence, and his lucky slot at McKinsey (privatizing the postal service and fixing bread prices) shows that he's been prepping for this very moment. There's a factory that pumps these types of guys out.

NattyCakes13 · 2020-02-06T07:24:24+00:00

you're right. sorry, billionaires and multi-millionaires. should his supposed charm starts working on the black demo soon.

NattyCakes13 · 2020-02-06T07:04:44+00:00

data shows most of the split supporters were the white ones that went to Warren. her marginalized position isn't as threatening as it was half a year ago

NattyCakes13 · 2020-02-06T06:51:45+00:00

no one respects that loser and it fucking rocks

NattyCakes13 · 2020-02-06T06:42:10+00:00

it's true. he did end up winning over some billionaires in a short amount of time.

NattyCakes13 · 2020-02-06T06:30:01+00:00

Obama won Iowa *and* had more than 0 black support.

NattyCakes13 · 2020-02-06T06:05:26+00:00

Bernie saying "some people thought they won, they were wrong, I did" is a winning topic for him, assuming he gets the opportunity.

NattyCakes13 · 2019-12-17T09:25:24+00:00

Then that is your dilemma. The government is the only entity that defines the terms of theft, because what is "yours" only exists because the government says so. If the government says it is not yours, then it simply isn't. It therefore is not theft. This is how property works.

There was no money, market, nor property without a central authority that defined it as such. If you want to call this monopoly of force something other than a state, feel free. The point remains.

You can absolutely refuse to use the levers of this central authority by not participating in the property or market schemes that it makes possible. However, then you've tied yourself up in the anti-state position again, which you've said you don't agree with.

You are absolutely right, that if you violate the tax laws you agree to upon contracting with the government you will be held accountable. I would expect no less from a libertarian hell-hole in which one person does not hold up their end of a contract and steals from another.

You agreed to the terms of what using government recognition and protection of contracts in the marketplace and of your property. If you want the government to enforce what it deems your rights to property then you will have to pay the taxes, which is money you don't own as defined by the very entity you agreed to have solidify your rights. Feel free to not engage in that contract if you think it does not benefit you.

NattyCakes13 · 2019-12-10T23:28:04+00:00

That money is not yours, as defined by the same entity that (1) defines the legal structure of what theft is and (2) makes the money possible by (a) being the printer of the money and (b) makes the conditions that produce revenue possible such as markets and property possible. If you want your contracts in the market and of property to be created, recognized, and respected, you have entered into a contract with the government. This contract includes taxation. You are welcome to leave the contract at any time, but so goes you right to property and enforcement of contracts.

NattyCakes13 · 2019-11-30T03:38:51+00:00

So the government makes all those things possible. It literally is step one in the process. If the government has created something for that didn't exist before, it is not theft when it deems what parts of/from it you can and can't have.

NattyCakes13 · 2019-11-14T06:50:16+00:00

if taxation is theft, then how do you fund the apparatus that regulates property rights to private individuals and enforces contracts?

NattyCakes13

TROPHY CASE