Indeed, yet propaganda is usually the purview of the government and their allies, implying (as has been said before) a large chunk of media is in their sphere now, and thus the "rule of immunity" should not apply to them.

The mangle John, the mangle....

Look at the video they dug up today, anyone who does not realize all these people have their little chit chats, jokes, etc, has failed to follow any news the last 20 years after the hundreds of scandals. Trump was not a public figure, so it is of no relevancy, yet it will be used (and was probably in their hands for the last year, waiting for the "right" moment.

Agreed, the system of value for value should be the base of all transactions, including government. When they fail, you fire them.

Exactly, and that is what leads us down the road to oppression, as privileges become the province of those who can pay, most of the time with others money.

I don't think a proper constitutional government can "grant privileges at its discretion" except in very limited and well-defined circumstances. And it depends in part on how the term "privileges" is employed.

At a minimum, "no taxation without representation" should be sufficient to allow the payer to participate in an election. Our current tax system would be even less legitimate without voting. We should at the very least get to draw lines across a ballot at the price of a luxury compact sedan... each year.

Technically, I like to make this distinction: our constitutional government accepts that it's obligated to honor our rights so long as we refrain from criminal acts; but it may grant privileges at its discretion, and revoke them if necessary. The system doesn't work perfectly, with government muddying the water between rights and privileges (hence the incorrect comparison between ownership of arms and drivers licenses).

OUCH!

Perhaps you're right. I had the IRS pay a surprise visit to my home at one time, but no FICA folks. Why didn't I know this 50 years ago?
I've had so many run-ins with the IRS I suppose I attributed the same power to the SS people. Such is the fearsomeness of the all-powerful government.

On an even-money bet I would put my money on Trump.

Okay, let me amend that to say that rights can be revoked upon conviction of a crime. For example, once such a person is in prison, he is denied many protections of the Bill of Rights. He cannot have access to a gun. No protection against warrantless search and seizure. No privacy. A person who violates the rights of others forfeits certain rights – morally upon commission of the crime, and legally upon conviction for that crime.

Women will elect Hitlery, just as they elected Obama, and Bill Clinton (which also gave Al Gore his platform to destroy the world's economy with his witch doctor rubbish global warming.)
Women have a history of voting for the greater of two evils.
Men on the other hand have a history of voting in fear of that evil for the so-called lesser evil encouraged by GOP propaganda.
Sometimes I think universal suffrage is the greatest evil.

I have lived in Wash a few times. Spent much time on Whidbey Island. It was quite a place back in the 70s for a kid who loved the outdoors. I sure miss it.

For the past three years I have been placing bets with people that Hillary Clinton would be the next President. I have predicted 100% of the presidential elections for the past 20 years. When I first started trying to place this bet people were confused because, of course, she was nowhere near declaring her run. But, I knew. Now, the past year, it's gotten very hard for any takers for my bet. I get the impression that, deep down, most people know the fix is in. If she goes into a coma today she'll still win the election. I am that convinced it's rigged. If I'm wrong I stand to lose a little money. But, I'm still betting I'm right. This will result in AT LEAST 28 years of Clinton/Bush and the stupid Americans LOVE it. I have a good friend who says this will be the last presidential election. There will be no more after this. I'm not placing that bet...yet.

To the best of my knowledge, you can't withdraw from a contract (soc sec) as legally allowed and still receive the payments that staying under the contract allow. Even if millions all withdrew their consent at the same time it would still fall back to the contract as written. It is not a fund that returns your "contributions" later. (Jet, please correct me if I am in error.) If you are "in" by consent then you have privileges and obligations that limit your liberty under the contract. If you are "out", i.e., withdraw consent, you no longer have privileges and obligations that limit your liberty and you may gain ability to hold "private property" (as opposed to real "estate"), but you no longer qualify for the contracts that the banksters and governments require for modern convenience, e.g., bank account, credit card, state driving license. It is a tangled web.

You are not correct that a criminal revokes his rights upon commission of a crime. The whole purpose of the 4th and 5th amendments is to prevent hasty conviction. An individual under indictment still can't be subject to unjustified search and seizure, nor can they be forced to testify against themselves. The whole purpose of a search warrant is to establish that legal search is justified. I don't think you can name one amendment in the Bill of Rights that is revoked, for any criminal act. Privileges can be revoked. Rights cannot.

People are going to start thinking I can't quote anything but Starship Troopers, but... Voting is authorizing political force. You only have a natural right to vote in as much as that right doesn't violate the rights of others.

I.E. You don't have a right as the majority to vote to take away anyone else's rights or properties.

The founders never granted a universal right to vote. And they didn't intend to. And, if you read the constitution, you do NOT have a guaranteed right to vote (in there).

The founders always intended for those that vote to have some skin in the game. The easiest way they could quantify that during those times was to be a Landowner, which was the surest guarantor of paying taxes. These days with computerized accounting platforms, you could easily set it so that only those that have a net positive contribution to society get to vote.

I.E. All the taxes you pay (voluntarily or involuntarily) MINUS all the benefits you get from the Government (welfare, social security, govt. contracts, salary). If it's above 0, you get to vote.

"It's the P word stupid." When a reporter believes the job is to influence rather than inform they have abandoned journalism and have become propagandists. The so called "Main Stream Media" is no longer an objective source of information (assuming that it ever was). It has become (and maybe has been for a long time) the propaganda arm of the liberal-progressive movement. As a result there should be no hesitation in calling them out for what they are. "Propagandists!", They are such in the same sense that Gobbels was for the third Reich. They use the same techniques of misinformation and slanted reporting with the intent to sway the electorate which results in democracy being nothing more than a carefully crafted illusion. When the sheep patiently wait in line to be shorn, or worse yet slaughtered, the tyrant has achieved his goal. Propaganda plays an essential role in establishing this kind of unwitting compliance.

it's just one more of the thousand excuses to get
people hooked on voting D. -- j
.

I only had a younger sister. . what would hurt? . are
we talking about holding a photo up with one hand? -- j
.

Ironically, women aren't 'equally liable' for mandatory civic duties.

I have yet to find a case of eminent domain that involved private property. . . only estate.

I would say that the idea of private property was railroaded out with "eminent domain", way too many cases where it has been allowed and deemed legal. Part of the fiction?

Does that include a conspiracy of huge proportions that is a giant fraud, where all this is theater for the masses? That does go back to a whole lot of the "crazy" conspiracies that don't seem all that crazy. Too many things today are so discordant and illogical, that they make no sense, unless intentional. The election we are presented is a perfect example, there are several suitable, honorable candidates that could have run, and we ended up with religious zealots, perfectly sensible black men who then go off the rails about God and creationism, a socialist/communist with patently unworkable ideas that was railroaded in plain sight, and a political hack who seriously thought he was the chosen one. Where was one, rational, responsible, even semi honest person in that crowd? Fraud does seem to describe this best, as well as the obvious fraud perpetrated in last few years (Hillary, Obamacare, the Iraq war). Almost enough to believe the You Tube videos....