"Faith is a form of trust & recognition for the unseen"
how you can "feel" God without accepting it, you can feel the benefits of the cryptocurrency because you accept and believe it,
I can't explain the presence of God in detail but I always feel his presence when I'm having a hard time,
I respect if you think it's a doctrine that was planted since childhood,
but humans did not create themselves (through the merging of cells for millions of years).

Interesting opinion.  To me it sounds a lot like you are describing the US government.
By your logic, having slaves was not stealing as long as you bought the slaves and slavery was not yet outlawed.  Your moral compass is broken.  

When you absolve the people who create demand for stolen goods,  You are basically saying paying someone to steal something is not stealing.   This blurs the lines and if the stolen goods you are buying or receiving as gifts came from people who cannot afford to hire people to steal them back, then they will want to steal as well. They will have to steal. 

I'm saying "stealing" is not always a crime because I don't define stealing the same way you do.  Repeating "stealing is a crime" does not refute that. 

I respect every opinion they think about the existence of God,
but there is one thing we must know about the existence of God,
"God is in our hearts, its existence is like the wind, it cannot be seen but can be felt"
there are people who believe in cryptocurrencies, but there are also those who refuse to believe,
the choice is in us. slowly, sooner or later surely your heart and mind will accept God.

The issue is much more complicated than op suggests because of the fact t that everyone has different definitions of stealing.  In my time spent around the world, western, and mainly American cultures are the only ones who widely think stealing is ok as long as it is done through the law.  We don't really believe in morals just that might is right, legal is ok, illegal is not ok.  

Even if we settled on a uniform definition of stealing, we'd still have differences in our definitions of property.  

Taking a fair/survival portion of something that is not rightfully owned is not stealing.  Maybe if you took it all for yourself, it would stealing but if a hungry person takes food out of the grocery store and eats it, that is not stealing, because how could a person's food for survival belong to someone else?

If a person comes into your home and steals the food out of your refrigerator, that is probably stealing unless you were hoarding food.  


Another tough one is buying stolen goods.  

If you buy something that was stolen, did you steal?  
If you steal stolen goods, did you steal?
If you steal stolen goods and return them to their rightful owner, did you steal?
What if something stolen is given to you, you find out it is stolen and don't give it back?  Did you steal it?


If you steal from a rich person it may or may not be stealing.  For example, if a hungry person steals a sandwich from walmart, it is not stealing but if someone steals all of the tvs out of walmart, then they are just as bad as walmart for stealing stolen tvs.  A true robinhood would take all of the tvs from walmart and distribute them to families who could not afford tvs or sell the tvs and divide the money amongst the people who made the tvs.  That would be justice not stealing.  

"Video of Joe Biden admitting that he bribed the Ukrainian President with $1 billion dollars to fire lead prosecutor investigating his corrupt son"

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/alert-video-of-joe-biden-admitting-that-he-bribed-the-ukrainian-president-with-1-billion-dollars-to-fire-lead-prosecutor-investigating-his-corrupt-son-is-being-scrubbed-from-youtube-and-other-social/

I’m sure everyone here will be aware of the protests going on in Hong Kong, yesterday the protesters made the strangest request asking President Trump to liberate them. They didn’t just stop at this request, they chanted the US national anthem and even waved the American flag to send out a message to him. It’s pertinent to note that President Trump has not tweeted on this issue, and if he sends a positive message to them it’ll further damage US relations with China. While I know that it’s impossible for Trump to buy Hong Kong, what happens if he tables an offer to buy it will China agree to sell?.

Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/08/asia/hong-kong-us-protests-0809-intl-hnk/index.html

Don't tell me what I meant to say. Having sex is a choice. Having sex with no intent to procreate is a choice. Having sex with some one you do not intend to have children with is a choice. Both men and women can choose to have sex or to not have sex. Only mean have unwanted responsibilities resulting from sex, women can choose to abort a child, or keep it and force the man to provide for them both for at least the next 18 years. Women want all the freedom, but then want men to bear the burden of responsibility if they choose to force them to. This is not equality.

Why is it men are responsible if they have sex, but some how women are magically absolved of all responsibility of choosing to have sex with a partner they don't intend to conceive with? Do you think sewing women's pussies shut is a funny solution? Why would you joke about castrating men to prevent responsibility for the bad choices of women? Either women are equal or they aren't. Freedom and responsibility are irrevocably linked.

"You have to ask yourself when a fetus becomes a person."

Just because a human embryo changes dramatically for the first few weeks, does not mean that it is NOT a person, a human being. Anyone with half a brain should see that the embryo at least MIGHT be a human being, and err on the side of not taking the life of a human being.

Women should have the right to not get pregnant at all. Oh, that's right. They DO have that right. So, get married and raise the kid, or forego having sex in the first place.

Okay, this is a very sensitive topic.

I've made my stance on abortion not by seeing on the options but from instinct and my inner beliefs.

I'm someone who you would call as pro-life. But I don't support that there should be shootings in abortion clinics. I don't support a complete ban on abortions either.

Lemme explain my stance : I've been against abortion even before I knew there was a debate and terms like pro-choice/pro-life existed.

Why am I pro-life?
I believe that abortion is the killing of a potential human being. No matter how you define it, it's a living being which is killed and it is pure and hasn't committed any, any crime.

Now, when do I support abortion?
1) Rape cases. 2) Cases where the mother's life is in danger. 3) Cases where the parents "literally" can't afford to have the baby. (although I believe adoption is a very good option).

Lemme explain point 3.
In this point am talking about really really really poor couples who did a one night stand and can never really afford a baby. Althought I believe, adoption is a good choice.

When do I believe abortion should happen in of the above cases?
Within first four weeks. The exception is mother's life in danger.

Within first four weeks, given a "reasonable" reason, one can abort by saying "it's just a fetus".

Sure.

Where do I disagree with pro-choice people?

"My body, my choice, I can abort my baby for any reason or no reason at all, as long as it is in my womb, even at 8 months"

I disagree with this ideology as much as I disagree with the ideology of pure murder, rape and genocide.

Girl, maybe it's your body. But, after a few weeks that fetus also acquires a moral right.
One can't simply say, a 8.5 months old fetus is just a mere clump of cells, it is as much human as a 9 month old born baby.

Also, really, you can abort your 8 months old baby in womb for whatever reason you want? Who are you? Queen?

Now, I know, these cases are rare. Where they abort a 8 month old fetus for mere reason.
But again, this is not a debate of what happens. This is a debate between ideologies. If you believe "a girl has the right to abort a baby for whatever reason they like as long as it's in womb" then I disagree with you completely. Because that won't make it pro-choice, rather pro-abortion!

And my position isn't from religion but from my own conscience.

Comment what's your opinion

See this is what [THEY] want.  Instead of being angry at the people making you pay a fine, you are angry at other poor people who are in a worse position than you.  In reality, everyone should be getting the healthcare for free and no one should be paying fines but its better for them to tricking you into  scapegoating immigrants.

The law of the land is private property, and the right to contract based on it. This is shown by the jury in court, and the 9th Amendment.

Just because you say that all US citizens and permanent residents are subject to the federal income tax, doesn't make it true.

If some government agent or agency takes your property away, either you don't know how to protect it, or they are disobeying the law. Your labor is your property. Your income is simply a representation of it.

It's the fact that I agree with the laws that I don't pay income tax. If you would like to focus on a section of the law that talks about how much you should pay, rather than the section of the law that shows you that you don't have to, that's fine with me. Along with me, most of the rest of the people who focus on the non-paying parts of the law, don't pay, either.

The question is, Can YOU read without assuming?

A1 in the link starts: "Some taxpayers assert that they are not required to file federal tax returns because the filing of a tax return is voluntary." And that statement is absolutely true. The fact is that you can find taxpayers and non-taxpayers all over the place who assert all different kinds of things.

Since I wasn't talking about taxpayers, your link is probably not applicable. I didn't read it all, because I found the word "taxpayer" throughout, and I didn't find "non-taxpayer" or "not a taxpayer."

When you look into it, you will find that taxpayers are people who have a voluntary contract or voluntary agreement with the IRS. The word "taxpayer" isn't a normal word in the dictionary, except that it might gradually be becoming one. Rather, "taxpayer" is a legalease word. It is legal language, and you don't really know what it means, because judges can change it's meaning any time they want in court, because it is a legal word.

People on a simple job sign a W-4 in a standard way. They are taxpayers because they agreed to be such by voluntarily filling out and signing this form. There are ways around this, and still filing a W-4 in the regular way. One of them is by becoming a State Citizen rather than a U.S. citizen, as spoken about in the OP and other areas of this thread.

But the way to get around it when you ARE a U.S. citizen, is to write "n-a" on all the blanks of the W-4, "Exempt" on line 7, and sign it "non-assumpsit, Your Signature." To make this even stronger is to sign it "non-assumpsit, By: Your Signature, Agent, Man."

Now, if you have other documents that you have signed with the IRS, depending on what they are, you might still be a taxpayer. But if you don't have any other agreements or contracts or signed documents with the IRS, and only the W-4 as I have outlined above, you probably aren't a taxpayer, no matter where you live or work. Btw, if there is pressure on you to fill out a 1040, fill it out the same way: "n-a" on all the lines, and sign it "non-assumpsit, Your Signature."

You do it this way because you are not a taxpayer, and you don't really have any right to be filling out their forms. Just be sure to maintain the fact that you are not a taxpayer in any of your letters or other paperwork with them, and by signing: "non-assumpsit, Your Signature."

The "Frivolous Tax Arguments in General" at https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-a-to-c is absolutely correct. It is for taxpayers, and if you want to be such, pay your taxes. In addition, if you use IRS forms in ways other than I have provided above, you might be making yourself into a taxpayer. If you are a taxpayer, pay your taxes. You have volunteered into the system by certain IRS documents you have signed. Don't break your contracts and agreements.

Of course, devoid of any valid argument, you once again for the third time default back to accusations of racism and sexism shortly before running away like a coward so you don't look even more stupid trying to craft a sensible reply. Very convincing.

I did read what you said. Now you try. All life should be treated with respect. All life is not equally important. Is a rapist mass murderer's life equal to that of an innocent child? You see how quick your moronic statement breaks down? The reality of the real world, not just the fantasy land you live in, is that choices have to be made some times. If choices have to be made, then humans are superior to and more important than animals.

BTW, I love that you repeated the accusation of this being related to racist ideology as if by not making myself equal to a cow I am down a path to Nazism. You are blind deaf and dumb (the stupid kind not the mute kind). Also the projection and mirroring of comments I just said to you, back to me as if you thought it up is a nice touch too. In a few decades? I am probably old enough to be your daddy little boy.

Don't believe nonsense you might see on the internet.

https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-a-to-c

You can kinda disregard most anything that af_newbie says. After all, we all focus on the things we accept as real and believe. It takes a lot of discipline to be able to focus critically on stuff that isn't part of our pet theme in life, and change when we find out that we were a bit off-base.

In the case of af_newbie, if he found that the exact opposite of the way he thinks and believes, was suddenly a lot more beneficial to him in life than what he believes now, he would do a complete 180, and might even apologize for the way he talked before his personnally beneficial revelation.

My value system is based in simple logic which you clearly have trouble grasping. Please do regale me with my alleged crimes against animal kind. You think you are progressive, but you are actually regressive and anti-human. You are so completely assured of your superiority, so completely engulfed in narcissism that you are blind to the fact you are advocating for standards that will leave humans treated as farm animals. Now saying humans are more important than animals is the same as being racist or sexist? Just being contrarian is not being advanced. You aren't evolved, you are an insane degenerate masturbating your ego with your favorite hubris lube, the blood of free humans.