Comments by "Ego Brain" (@egobrain7349) on "The Government’s New Spying Powers Are TERRIFYING!" video.

  1. ​ @timmy-wj2hc As if we are Capitalist. 😂 The tens of thousands of regulations, rules, corruption, and interference disagree.
    3
  2. ​​ @fs127 Now that's a fact. Also, teach the ppl to value luxuries and services over freedom. Edit: Haha. Just got to the part in the video where the guy is arguing for big government...exactly my point. 😂
    3
  3. ​ @spacegirl226 The Constitution has never "bound" the citizens. It binds the government. That Constitution has been used over and over to undo things done by the government since that date, so that is silly. Someone needs to make a case against the government on this issue and get it up to the SC.
    2
  4. ​ @timmy-wj2hc Go talk to the ppl in nightgowns and flip flops across the world that do a good job at it.
    2
  5. ​ @philldewitt8809 Exactly.
    1
  6.  @secularnevrosis  derpppp
    1
  7. ​ @MrMagnaniman Shays Rebellion happened under the AoC. What was unconstitutional about the whiskey tax?
    1
  8.  @MrMagnaniman  How is a tax on whiskey a violation of that?
    1
  9.  @MrMagnaniman  The ability to tax things is under the Constitution. If it was an income tax, I'd agree with you, but it was an excise tax. You can just not buy the item if you don't want to pay the tax, so it isn't by force. A tax on tea isn't a violation of your rights. A poll tax is, yes.
    1
  10.  @MrMagnaniman  No, I said there was no force to buy/sell the whiskey and the tax is not unconstitutional.
    1
  11.  @MrMagnaniman  I already said that no, that is not the case. Poll tax violates your right to vote. Income tax is by force because it is mandatory. You have to have income to live. Your income is your labor. Your labor takes your time. Your time is your life. So, IT is taking your life. That is wrong. Taxing whiskey sales is not.
    1
  12.  @MrMagnaniman  Yea, that's a good point for excise tax. Sales tax goes to the buyer, so not there. Still not unconstitutional and never was. It didn't violate the BoR or Constitution.
    1
  13.  @MrMagnaniman  Yes, I just said with that it is against what I (ME) believe is right. Sadly, what I believe to be right/wrong is not what is considered unconstitutional or not. It is Constitutional. It always was Constitutional. Nothing in the BoR was violated, as you claimed. The Constitution gives the gov the ability to tax.
    1
  14.  @MrMagnaniman  What amendment of the BoR is at odds with the Constitution? Not feeling represented and not being represented are 2 completely different things. They were quite literally represented. Their representatives maybe not doing what they want could be the case, but that means you vote in new representation
    1
  15.  @MrMagnaniman  No, it doesn't. Where does it say power is limitless? The whole thing is about curbing power hence the separation of powers and checks and balances. This was what the federalists/antF were arguing about and federalists explained this. But they went with a BoR and clarified it. Doesn't meant they're at odds. At all.
    1
  16.  @MrMagnaniman  Except there is a separation of powers, there's checks and balances, voters, and a BoR, so no, it doesn't.
    1
  17. ​ @bobm9509 What does lockdown by executive order mean?
    1
  18. ​​ @jon.wilson That's pretty nonsensical. You guys are starting to sound like the Q tweakers. 😂
    1