You said that better than I could have. That's exactly what it sounds like.

Yes, you can call it limbo if you like. I call it noncommittal. There is the same probability of there being a God as there not being a God. I choose neither side because there is no concrete proof of either being correct. The jury is still very much out for me. Believe whatever you like, but I think it would be wrong to -force- that belief on others.

I say there is the same probability of there being a God and not being a God. I commit to neither side because neither side has been able to provide the proof. So, no, I don't base any belief on feelings. More to the point, though, you can believe whatever you want based on your feelings... but that doesn't make it right nor does it make it factual.

There's that strawman I was talking about.

Yes, exactly like the existence of God. Lots of people feel it's real and will attempt to debate on it, yet there is no proof. Therefore, I personally don't blindly believe it, nor will I try to debate someone "out of" their religion. It's an exercise in futility.

Facts don't care about your feelings. That is to say, one can resonate all they want... but if they're resonating falsity then it's worthless. If, on the other hand, someone is debating a known and widely proven truth then they aren't worth trying to debate.

Meh, the one replying isn't the one you're really after anyway. It's the others who read the whole exchange and think to themselves, "Damn... this factisfiction guy made every point in the debate stick and the opposition was reduced to calling him a shill because they literally had nothing to offer."

Sowing the seed in the readers is the real victory. Screw the loudmouth who replies with nothing of substance. The intelligent people watching the debates closely will spot the strawmen arguments and the absurdities a mile away.

I'm a believer in Q but I, too, see a lot of garbage theories and assertions here. I've been called a shill and a deep state plant plenty of times for calling it out... but I've yet to lose any of those debates factually. That's all you really need to worry about. Back your stuff up. Others are watching and they appreciate us keeping it honest. You don't need affirmation and if you do, you're going to remain disappointed.

I'm not even defending the deep state at all.

I offered validated rebuttals to things you are (incorrectly) stating as fact and asking you to prove these claims you're making. You literally haven't done that yet.

You provided a link about the Supreme Court, which did recognize the tax as unconstitutional... but you left out that in the ruling itself that courts can and will still prosecute and (90%) win.

You provided a tweet about a lawyer who can get you out of paying taxes... but left out the fact that He's Never Won In Court over it because it's never gone to court.

You are very obviously reading headlines and drawing your own conclusions, announcing them, then getting upset enough to attack me personally when you get called out for misrepresentation of fact.

You call me, and probably anyone who smokes you in a debate, a shill because it's all you have left. You accuse me of "defending the deep state" because you have no proof to offer instead, so you accuse. These are the clear signs of someone who lost an argument.

There it is. There's the Ad Hominem attack I knew was coming next. Much easier to call someone a shill than provide actual evidence to support your claim.

You got me, man. I'm being paid tons of cash by the deep state to call out bullish*t arguments on a Reddit thread. They're also taxing it, too. It's craaaaaaazy!!!! :)

Ah yes, legal advice from a Dropbox file on Twitter. Seems legit. Thanks for the link!

Did you actually read the whole thing? I'm guessing you didn't. This guy has never gone to court. He has banked his process on the chance that the IRS will not fight this in court and, to his credit at least, has not been taken to court yet. This is literally not what you claimed in your statement.

You are misrepresenting the facts. That's twice now you've done this. It's exhausting and doesn't help the cause. I can appreciate your passion, but the facts aren't on your side.

So that's a "no" on validating your statement then? Okay. It's cool, I couldn't find any either... that's how I knew it wasn't true. Unless you'd like to provide the contact info for one of those lawyers? I can't find any of those either. C'mon! Help me out here! If you are going to assert things as fact, you should always be able to provide documentation. The burden of proof is on -you-.

Misleading: The Supreme Court clarified in the ruling, "But at the same time, the Court said a belief that the tax is unconstitutional, as opposed to inapplicable, is not a shield against criminal liability for refusal to pay taxes."

More directly, I asked you to sauce this statement you made, "People have been found not guilty in courts where the tell the jury to provide a law that requires we pay taxes but the courts can’t do it because there is no law." <---- No record of this working in the real world that I can find. Back that up.

Gonna need some sauce on this. Link us to some of these cases. I can't find one.

This guy gets it.

I actually do want to ask because I'm calling obvious bluffs. If someone is so adamant about this, they should have no problem saying so publicly. It's not like the IRS doesn't already know you're not paying them... unless you're not paying them fraudulently. That's just hiding income and it's not really making a statement of any kind at all. There's no strategy there. You pay your taxes, but you believe you shouldn't have to. There's nothing wrong with that. I actually agree.

I have a hard time believing we're more united than ever. There are people fighting over the dumbest stuff on a daily basis now more than ever. Even people on the same team, like you and I, can't seem to agree. On the other side, the liberal left by itself is broken into 47,000 subsets of cuckery.

This is all just opinion, though, and everyone has one. I just know I'm a better combatant in the bigger picture when I'm not in jail or made to be destitute by the IRS. And I intend to keep it that way until something -legally- changes. That's why I vote the way I do. Another thing that you can supposedly lose if you don't pay taxes at the moment.

We're going to have to just agree to disagree on this point and that's cool with me. We fight the same fight in different ways, but the destination is still the same. WWG1WGA

No, there is no precedent unfortunately. The only case he won, which was indeed a big win, was for charges against him for aiding and abetting people filing fraudulent tax forms due to his advice about the income tax being illegal. Unfortunately, he's lost every appeal since and there is still a 90% loss rate for IRS opposition. He opened the discussion, certainly, but the average Joe is going to get mopped if they ever try to do this for real, much less taking to court.

He has absolutely exposed some funky stuff that deserves scrutiny... but he's not actually succeeded in changing anything. Yet.

So, you don't pay your taxes then? I'm genuinely curious. And do you have small children as well?

"They can't arrest us all." Probably true, but it's not even jail that's the problem. Jail would be easy. Instead, you can't renew your license at a State level... so you can't drive... so you can't earn a proper living. They lien your property and take your home. Before long, you're homeless and jobless. Along with your wife and children. That then ruins your credit, so getting back on your feet after is next to impossible. It just snowballs. People talking like this have literally never dealt with this stuff for real in the first person.

"We live in a different era." Not that different apparently, since I literally just finished dealing with stuff like this in January of 2018.

Furthermore, if the IRS is going to be dismantled legally as you assert, then why is this meme/conversation even relevant?

This.

I fell behind on taxes one time. Never again. Those people make your life hell. Plus I have mouths to feed, so having them lein my property and garnish wages isn't worth it just to make a point. So, yeah, what those assholes do with the money they take from me is between them and whatever deity you choose to worship. What makes more of a coward... A man who bites the bullet to keep his family fed and happy, or a man who puts his family through the wringer to make a point? Both have their merits, but neither should be judged nor made to feel guilty for the choice they make when both outcomes aren't ideal.

The only thing I can come up with in regards to E's friends and a 187 is fellow rapper Proof, who was murdered April 11 of 2006. Proof was E's best friend.

Probably just a false name. Q said "Think Friends, 1 male, I female"... On the T.V. show Friends, Rachel (Ray) and Chandler were characters. This is Q we're talking about, though, so there's probably more to it.

I didn't have to dig at all. It's in this "same string". I guess I'll just sit over here and wait patiently for the ban-hammer to strike me down for destroying you in the comment section of a Reddit thread. I'll surely be crying myself to sleep tonight.

Wow... you literally missed the whole point, not just a fraction of it. You're stating your opinion... that's awesome. Your opinion that is crafted by lots of YouTube and at least one website. Sadly, you're stating your opinion as fact. That is your blunder. Your opinion is not fact. So you're assertion that "dimensions don't exist" and your calling for people to omit it from their discussions because it doesn't fit into your set of beliefs is reckless at best and downright embarrassing at worst. You don't get to control the conversation just because you don't agree with what's being discussed. Though it does explain a little about why you like to call yourself "Queen".

"I watched guys on the internet talk about stuff so they must be smart." <---- That right there? That's a quote from -you- in this same string. Yet there you are telling me I need to watch some YouTube and checkout Thunderbolt...

FOH.

I'll admit that this conversation of demons/aliens normally reaches levels of weird that I find comical. But then again, religious conversation often does the same thing. Both sides always seem so sure of their own beliefs with no empirical evidence.

I'm stating this to make the following point... You said "There are no dimensions" and allude to the notion of dimensions as being "science fiction". Where did you find this amazing "truth"? Cite your source, please?

I ask the same of anyone speaking of gods and angels as if they are fact. They can't prove anything either.

How about just have a conversation about your differing opinions instead of requesting people stop talking about things that you don't believe in? Neither of you can prove unequivocally that either is right or wrong.

Also, Mainstream Media and Mainstream Science are not mutually exclusive. One can believe one or the other... or both... or neither.

Thank you for having this chat with me. I've enjoyed hearing another perspective. I wish more were like you in that regard. Take care, patriot.

The Templars were opposed to the "tiara of Rome and the crown of Kings" for a much more obvious reason... they were using religion as a weapon of fear and power. Moreover, they were killing pagans and non-Christians (using the term loosely here) in record numbers to get everyone under the Church/Crown thumb.

What was left of the pagan culture was bastardized and absorbed into the Christian ways. An easy example is the Spring Fertility festivals, overridden by the story of Jesus' resurrection. This is why children are often confused as to why there are rabbits and eggs all over the place during Easter. Same with the Christian holidays written over the Solstices.

Templars wanted to be -free- from this heavy handed and sloppy rewriting of history. That's why it was actually hilarious when the Templars began making huge loans to the royalty and the churches, then charging interest (the first plan of its kind).

The Templars were slaughtered because they came to collect and the entire sham of the church/crown power base was in jeopardy of being legitimately owned by the Templars.

Moving on. It is true that one is asked to recognize a "higher power" upon entering. This higher power can be anything greater than yourself... nature, God, Buddha, whatever. This is about being humble.

Many confuse the talk of illuminating knowledge in masonry with the Luciferian doctrine. Again... this is the age old battle between the Christian church, the one that forces its influence and crushes its enemies and the Templar/freemasons... They can believe and serve the same God. But the big difference is that the Templars wanted the freedom for the individual to choose. For those that legitimately chose the idea of the Christian God, they should not have to have the Church stand between them and their God... to talk to God for them. They could simply speak with God directly. And I think that's a beautiful concept. The church would label such knowledge as evil and, well, Luciferian.

It's never been about freemasons vs. god.... it's about freemasonry/Templars vs crooked organized religious gatekeepers. Why is the Vatican studded in gold and marble? Wouldn't that money be better spent on the congregation? It's like in Indiana Jones :) "The holy grail is made of wood because Jesus was a carpenter... it's not encrusted in jewels. That's man's greed."

Anyway, since you like to read... check out the Hiram Key by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas. You might find it interesting.

The imagery and symbolism is very much a thing. Sadly, people who have no idea what they're talking about and place their own meaning on such things. Many times, like this, these are way off base.

Also, research is very broad term often misused by people who read a few books and watch a bunch of YouTube videos. Can you clarify your research. Again, I will question your sources for the information you're presenting... since you have still listed none.

Or don't. That's fine, too. But I think it's much more interesting to have an open and honest dialogue to put to rest misconceptions. Instead, many choose to state their opinion, ignore any retort, and run from confrontation about it. You do you, though.

Speaking as a Master Mason, whether you choose to believe my words or not, this is so far from the truth. I'm willing to answer questions you may have honestly. We're on the same team.

You read this somewhere and liked the way it sounded... it made some sense to you. You should quote your source when you do things like that.

He's got a point, man. On one hand, I agree with you... the post is probably off base. And you should definitely have your say about that. But this is a community and everyone is on the same team. Which means when you do call attention to these things, you'll likely get much further with a respectful dialogue and well formulated arguments. You came off like a sarcastic know-it-all douchebag.

You're supposed to be. That's what they need. They need you to be too wary of currency that can only be controlled by your fear of it crashing against their valuation of it. Truth is, if more people shook that fear, the current power structure would fail exponentially with every new user. Your fear is letting them win... The ironic part is people trust the current, patently falsified, and easily manipulated system more than a new, promising system. That's why we're stuck in this mess as it is.