You may view my opinion of radar's posts on Syc's forum. He tends to be annoying by the sarcasm, copied articles, and confrontational nature.

Forgive me Whit, I thought this thread was fairly cleaned up (for a radar post). Maybe I agree with his views more than you , but they dont seem as difficult to agree with lately because he's not calling everyone a cock smoker or slapping dick out of dissenters' mouths. *THAT* was fucking annoying.

The debate seems to be pretty rational to me, although some links would be nice.*

* - but then again, who has the time to supply sourses for every idea they post about.

BINGO!
He's absolutely right. Only idiots would keep trying to convince Radar he's wrong. Little engine's that couldn't. Stop taking the bait, people!

     I just don't get why he's always insulting me when I'm trying to figure out what the hell he's talking about. I'm just about the only one who hasn't given up completely on the guy. I don't believe he is capable of changing his opinions, but I'm not trying to convince him of anything. I'm just trying to figure out why he's so into it. His method of convincing me is pretty much, "I'm right and your an idiot!" Like that's going to convince anyone of anything.
     No Bruce, I don't think George Washington could effect Radar's opinions. Like I said, I'm still looking for the proof he keeps claiming he's given. It's all about what he or some guy says.

Trust me I haven't insulted you. I've pointed out a few of your moer obvious faults but if as slang noted, if the insults are unleashed, you'll know it.

I have explained my points clearly, intelligently, and in an easy to understand method yet you keep claiming you don't understand what I'm saying. What else am I to believe when what I've said is easy enough for an 8 year old child to grasp yet you can't?

I've provided you with evidence and proof showing that the 16th amendment WAS NOT legally ratified and was therefore unconstitutional. I have also pointed out other ways income taxes are illegal. I have also discussed where government derives it's powers from. Yet at each and every turn you claim that I haven't provided proof or that I'm only using my own opinion. You are simply lying. While I have provide my opinions, I've also backed them up with facts and locations for you to verify what I've said. Yet you continue to make baseless and false accusations.

I wish I could just put a brain in your skull so you could understand what I've said but no matter how easy I explain it, you're too dense to get it. I'm seriously not trying to be insulting but what else can I say? Obviously no amount of proof matters because you will just lie and say I didn't provide it or say you don't get it.

I really don't agree, and neither does dictionary.com.

It defines <b>entity</b> (in part) as:<blockquote> 1. Something that exists as a particular and discrete unit: <i>Persons and corporations are equivalent entities under the law.</i> </blockquote>If a corporation can be an entity, then why can't a government? I think this clearly shows that governments are entities.

The concept of "rights" is an invention of the human mind, and if the people collectively decide that they collectively have rights, then they do. Why? Because people invented rights. Therefore, they collectively decide who has them.

The government is doing these things you think they don't have a right to do. The majority of the people agree that it's okay for them to do it. The people collectively decide the definition and assignment of rights. They also have the power to enforce their will. Therefore, the government has the rights and authority.

If the government can force people to do something, then they have the authority to do so.

What does a corporation look like? It's nothing more than a logical organization of businesses and assets so you can't see it.

Can you touch a corporation?

You can't touch an idea. It's not tangible. You may be able to touch a building that a corporation owns, but you can't touch the corporation.

Absolutely false. All humans are born with rights. They get these rights from their respective creators and not from government or from other people. If a person were born on an island and was left there all by themselves, what rights would that person have? They could do anything they wanted. But when another person moves to the island now they agree to allow each other to live peacefully and not to infringe on each others equal rights. Each of them is born with the same rights. When governments are created the government only has those powers given to it by the people who have all rights. None of these people were given rights by the government but rather they were born with 100% of all rights and powers and only agree to give some limited powers to government to handle things like common defense.

There's no "collective". Government has no rights and "society" has no rights. Only individuals do. People didn't invent rights, people are born with the rights their respective creators gave them. People don't decide the definition or assignment of rights, nor does government.

The U.S. Government may only do those limited things that are listed in the constitution and nothing else because only those powers have been granted to government. And there are certain things that government may never do because government may only have the powers that individuals hold and have granted to it. The government is not above the people or above individuals. The government answers to the people, not the other way around.

That's completely false. The powers of our government are limited to what is specifically listed in the constitution. And no matter how many guns or nukes or anything else the government has, they don't have any more authority than that. If they exceed their authority they have violated the law and will answer to the people.

What do you do about disadvantaged people whose mothers did not give them as many rights as most mothers give their children? Should society give them these rights to balance it out, or should they be limited in their rights for the rest of their lives?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Well, most of my points came directly from your quotes. So yeah, they're basesless. :D
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If this is true then you can name the supreme court cases. If it's not a tax case then you've deliberately misleading this forum. If you can't name the case then you've lied outright. Case please? You responded with: So was the issue "taxes" or "Taxation without representation?" Oh wait you already said taxation. You sought to use the founding fathers to your advatage by lieing about the reason for the Boston Tea party, when asked for clarification you say they don't represent you. WTF? Then why did you bring them up then? And lie?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Um, with your vast knowledge could you address that you say the first time it's in court the court referenced a previous case? I think you're fibbin'.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This was supposed to be longer, but a chic-friend of mine needs someone to light her hot water heater. Don't ask why she doesn't know how, I don't know.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So, Radar, show me where I've lied. Quote it to me or I will accept your claim that I lied as another lie.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;One last thing.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I think somebody needs a hug.

According to the dictionary, a government or corporation qualifies as an "entity". Therefore, according to the dictionary, your statement that "There is no such entity as 'government'" is false.


Please prove this statement, or I won't believe you. This is what I mean when I say that you don't ask yourself if you could be wrong.


Please prove these statements. I respect your opinion, but you're passing this off as fact. And since I have high standards of proof, I must ask you for proof.


Obviously, the government <i>does</i> do these things (I hope we can agree on that). I think what you mean is that they're not ethically allowed to, because you feel that they're stealing from you. What I'd like you to understand is that morality and rights are a matter of opinion (not fact).



No, the government can do whatever it can get away with. It's power is not limited by your imaginary 'rights'. In reality, they DO have the power to tax people; the fact that they actually do is proof of this. Read the dictionary. It says if someone can force you to do something, then they have authority over you.

You know Radar I used to be like you, I used to think I was right about everything, no one could change my mind, and I didn't see anything wrong with that, then I GREW UP and understood that other people know what they are talking about. I still think I'm right most of the time, but if someone presents an argument to me I usually listen, I don't just throw the argument out the window and scream I'M RIGHT over and over again like a whiney little shit. That really pisses people off.

How can this be? Maybe the word entity isn't the best word for the government, I'm not going to argue that point, not saying your right just not going to disagree with you. But if, as I'm assuming your saying, there really is NO government where the hell do our rules/laws come from. Shit, I'm sitting in a library at this moment, one that was funded partly by government dollars, does that mean that the construction company that got paid was jipped out of a few mil becuase there is no such thing as government.

Then again maybe I misunderstood what your where saying, can't say that hasn't happened to me before.

And that, my friends, is exactly what he wants.

I don't think anyone is pissed here. Personally, I find it really interesting.

Heh.
 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Hey Juju, didn't I tell you what Radar's explanation of "no government" would be? I think I hit it within a few words. I didn't elaborate as much as he did, but I didn't think you wanted me to.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It's funny how a "brainless" guy like me knows these old lines. I've been hearing them for a long time.

Disadvantaged people don't have less rights than wealthy people. And nobody is owed anything simply based on their need.

I haven't lied. I said we would represents people all the way to the supreme court and we will. I can name hundreds of cases we've done but as I've said the supreme court won't hear challenges to the 16th amendment. But we have a legal defense fund and lawyers waiting for the opportunity. Should I tell you about a case we won against the California Franchise Tax board (far more aggressive than the IRS) for over a quarter million dollars? Not that it would matter to you.

No, I said INCOME taxation.

No I didn't. Again I have never lied in here and have no reason to. I said this nation was built by tax protestors and that is the truth. The members of the Boston tea party were tax protestors. The fact that they were protesting taxation without proper representation doesn't change the fact that they were protesting a tax. Don't try to twist things around, you're not bright enough to slip anything past me. And for the record the American people don't have adequate representation.

You said that about the first time in court, not me. Don't try to setup straw men and then knock them down because that doesn't fly here. There have always been corrupt judges and officials especially with regard to taxation. And there have always been sleazy little people who will look for loopholes or ways around the constitution. All they need is one corrupt judge's ruling to make a precedent for another. But in the end case law is irrelevant. It all comes down to the constitution.

You're a liar. You have no friends.

First answer this question if you believe people get their rights from government. What rights would a person on a desert island have if there were no government to bestow those rights on them?

After you're done figuring out that natural rights are self evident you can read the following:

The Law - By Frederic Bastiat

The Law by Lysander Spooner

The Declaration of Independence

Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do - By Peter McWilliams

The works of John Locke

Or you can read any number of other books on the subject.

See above for proof. Either that or look at the world around you. Natural rights are self-evident.

We do agree on that.

No, that's not what I mean. The government is not only prevented ethically, but legally. They may not legally do anything that isn't specifically listed in the constitution. Morality and ethics aren't the issue.

That's 100% false. The government can only do those things specifically listed in the constitution. The constitution defines and limits the powers of government and is prevented from attacking our civil rights. Your imaginary all powerful government doesn't exist and as long as people are alive it never will.

No, you read the dictionary and not just the parts you like. Read the part that says "One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials: land titles issued by the civil authority" or the part that says, "Power assigned to another; authorization: Deputies were given authority to make arrests.". The government only has those powers given to it by the constitution and NOTHING MORE period.

Government is an idea. It's not a physical tangible thing. You can't touch government. You can't see "government". You can see and touch the guns and soldiers working for the "government" and even sit in a government owned library, but government itself can't be seen, touched, smelled, touched, or tasted because it's an intangible.

And yet they haven't sunk in to your thick skull.