Happy Tax Day!
Tax Day greetings from
Murray Rothbard."forms of that one weapon, that one act of the public which our rulers fear the most: tax rebellion, the cutting off the funds by which the host public is sapped to maintain the parasitic ruling classes."
We are in complete agreement on the taxation issue.
The thing I would like to see is the system simplifed so as to expose to every schmuck in the country exactly how much the income tax system is taking away from your lifestyle and personal wealth.
Lets discontinue withholding for 2 years. The masses would be amazed. The gov't would be fearful.
It has long been my personal belief that the current system is purposely designed to confuse the average American. If the tax rate is truly fair, lets not hide it under scads of BS.
Oddly enough, the *paying* of the tax is not nearly as irritating as the forms that you have to sign under threat of death or worse if you happen to screw up. Thats un American and we should change it.
Originally posted by slang
Oddly enough, the *paying* of the tax is not nearly as irritating as the forms that you have to sign under threat of death or worse if you happen to screw up. Thats un American and we should change it.
I agree--I don't mind paying my fair share for government services. [Let's save the argument about what my fair share is for another time.] But it's beyond me how anybody could defend the tax code as it's currently structured.
Oh, wait it's not beyond me. The bureaucracy perpetuates itself. If all the complications disappeared, so would tons of IRS employees, not to mention the work that would be lot by accountants, publishers of tax books & software, etc. etc. etc.
By the way, I note that the President and Mrs. Bush had taxable income of $771,940 for 2002, and paid $268,719 in federal income taxes, a whopping 34.8% rate. What I wonder is: 1) how much NONTAXABLE income did they have? and 2) Did they tell their accountant to avoid saving a bunch of money for the sake of appearances?
they send me a form saying how i can do my taxes on the phone if im eligible, but then the phone tells me that im not eligible to do it on the phone and heres another number i can call to get the forms that i need mailed to me in a week or 2.
for crying out loud, why cant they just send me the paper forms anyway!!!!?
okay thats off my chest
What boggles my mind are people that want a flat tax. Many people get back a shitload anyway -- or avoid paying because they can squirt the puppies out. Flat means a perecntage disappears, no ifs, ands or buts. Bush and people in the 34% tax bracket would pay less. If we're talking about graduations in the "flat" tax, we're back where we started.
The problem is that our econonomy is a continuously running entitiy, non-stop, 24 hours a day. You wouldn't make major changes to a server while it was running would you? Tax reform would take planning and phasing that would span at least a decade, but that crosses presidential elections. What Gore would have in mind is not what Bush would have in mind, and definitely not what Nader would have in mind.
for crying out loud, why cant they just send me the paper forms anyway!!!!?
Can you print out the forms online??
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Can you print out the forms online??
<a href="http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/">Yeah.</a>
(They probably even have a nicer inteface than a directory listing. I just don't care to find it.)
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Can you print out the forms online??
yep but i didnt have access at the time so i had them mail the forms to me.
It was just annoying because they sent me the instruction book that the 1040 forms are usually included in.
Originally posted by Uryoces
What boggles my mind are people that want a flat tax. Many people get back a shitload anyway -- or avoid paying because they can squirt the puppies out. Flat means a perecntage disappears, no ifs, ands or buts. Bush and people in the 34% tax bracket would pay less. If we're talking about graduations in the "flat" tax, we're back where we started.
Funny...Slang and I had this discussion the other night...Slang for it, me against it. Of course, we all know I'm right on that one by default, since slang is a no good hillbilly. :)
Originally posted by sycamore
since slang is a no good hillbilly. :)
That is very easily confused by the current system. I can calculate beam strength and deflection, shear strength of most industrial metals and deformation of a wide variety of plastics. Accounting is perplexing for some strange reason (as well as the proper use of the English language).
I can handle the flate tax though.
The instructions for the short form - 1040A - are now longer than they were seven years ago for the long form - 1040. Cute ideas such as George Jr's tax rebates and tax cuts are designed so that they increase tax law complexity. So those who created the problem - Congress and president - blame the IRS.
Even that 34% tax on the rich is nonsense. As the Economist once demonstrated, even the rich only pay typically 20 some % taxes on their income. Tax loopholes are widespread, intentionally well hidden, and encouraged by an industry that can afford to legally bribe politicians for 'tax reform'.
In the year of tax simplification, I files a new record - 13 Federal forms. That same year, and for years afterwards, both Carnical Cruise and a TX baseball team paid no taxes either by outright tax exemption written tino the law OR by loopholes.
Congress don't even file their own taxes. Expensive tax lawyers are paid by government to file Congressman and White House taxes. Just another advantge when one lives in the ethersphere. They don't have a clue about the tax laws that they reform to make the economy productive.
Productive? Today, most people now hire tax accountants to file because laws are so complex. This increases GNP and reduces unemployment. Classic government solution. Train people in a complex game which means they cost more. Make it necessary for all citizens to have to hire these more expensive people. Therefore GNP increases and unemplyment goes down. Forget that this only makes America less productive. But Congress does not care. Those numbers make Congress look better AND affords many new fields to demand legalized bribery.
Tax lawyers and acountant and even all that tax software are really just more new taxes. Two years ago, Kiplinger Tax Cut took 6 months to finally refund my rebate check. Last year they billed me four times for the State Tax software - defective FTP software - AND then never did honor all the rebates I was do. Rebate programs have a percentage of 'not honored' application they must meet, know that many of those rebates will never be received, AND play money games (float) with all that money. Just another tax on a public. No wonder those tax preparation software companies don't complain about tax laws.
Maybe if we required Congress to file their own taxes, then they would be interested in learning what the word reform really means. But that too is an idea that lives in the ethersphere.
Something new in tax filing. Download each form from both State and Federal government with macros, so that information is typed in and stored directly on that form. Simply print (rather than hand write) that form. But again, another secret tax. If using free Adobe, then you cannot save the entries - only print them. Purchase the full Adobe 5.0 Reader to save your form - so that modifications can be reprinted.
Unfortunately, these Adobe forms still don't automatically add all columns (numbers). But a printed form that can be modified and reprinted is still better than a painful handwritten form.
These forms could be submitted FTP to the government. But tax preparation software companies will fight this. They want your tax costs to increase - for increased profits. Heaven forbid if the government would make tax submissions easier without them gettting a piece of the action. So and again, Congress has just another good reason to encourage legalized bribery - this time from tax preparation software industry.
Income taxation is indeed robbery. But many people don't know that the constitutional parts of government can be paid with the tariffs and excise taxes already collected and that income based taxes are unconstitutional and therefore voluntary.
The income tax is unconstitutional for several reasons. Probably the most important is that the 16th amendment was never ratified by the required number of states. Several courts have said that it is, but thier decisions violate the constitution and perpetuate a judicial conspiracy to continue the fraud of taxes.
Joe Bannister is a former gun-carrying IRS special agent who worked happily busted people for the iRS. He did this for years and became one of their top agents before he heard that income taxes were voluntary. Then he researched it and the more he searched the more he realized that there is no law in America that compels us to pay income taxes. He wrote up a 90 page report with his findings and gave it to his supervisors and told them that he swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States and requested them to please show him the law that compels people to pay income taxes so he could uphold that oath. After several years working for them as one of their top agents, did they show him the law? Of course not. They said they wouldn't give him any information and they'd accept his resignation. Joe and other IRS agents like John Turner have left when they realized the truth.
If you want more information check out some of these sites:
http://www.freedomabovefortune.com
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com
http://www.givemeliberty.org
http://www.livefreenow.org
http://www.freeenterprisesociety.com
http://www.patriotnetwork.infoThe income tax is like paying for magazine subscriptions.
No matter how much you send in, in doesn't REALLY pay for anything. Magazines are not supported by the subscription revenues ... in fact, all magazines and newspapers could be given away free with no perceptible change in the level of profit (which is generated through advertising).
Same goes for the running of the gov't. Taxes don't pay for the govt. The fear of what might happen for not paying taxes keep the people under control. The money the gov't really runs on is created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve.
That being said ... did mine. Way earlier than usual (I phoned in the state and federal last thursday, mailed the locals yesterday.)
So, radar, are you going to take a stand for the little guy, join the tax freedom movement, and refuse to file from now on? Let us know how it works out for you.
Originally posted by sycamore
since slang is a no good hillbilly. :)
Slang is a perfectly good hillbilly, and don't you forget it.
I happen to be one of the flat tax peoples as well. I think that there should be no wiggle room on it. No deductions for this, that, other, business expense, or higher numbers of progeny.
Make a bunch of money, send 15%.
So, radar, are you going to take a stand for the little guy, join the tax freedom movement, and refuse to file from now on? Let us know how it works out for you.
Actually, I already am involved in the movement. I'm working at one of the places I listed. :)
That's not what she was asking.
Something new in tax filing. Download each form from both State and Federal government with macros, so that information is typed in and stored directly on that form. Simply print (rather than hand write) that form. But again, another secret tax. If using free Adobe, then you cannot save the entries - only print them. Purchase the full Adobe 5.0 Reader to save your form - so that modifications can be reprinted.
Which would be resolved nicely if they created an Excel 97 form. It could be read and saved by just about anyone.
Note: Download
Open Office if you need a free, 95% MS Office compatible office suite. I've been able to open most Word and Excel XP docs I come across as well. Comes in *Nix, Win32, and OSX flavors.
I had open office on Red Hat linux, then I switched to Slackware which doens't come with it. But I can't donwload it from the site on antying but a FTP connection. And for some god awful reason the uni decided to cut our FTP bandwith to nothing, I'm lucky to get 1kb a second out of it.
Cam, I think
this would do it for you very nicely. $4.67 for source and binaries for just about any system you can think of. And friends off campus w/CD burners. Spread the love!
added:
Or this link:
http://freewarecds.com/gnuwin.htm. $4.95
Forget about the flat tax. I was for it when I was a renter, but now that I own my own home _I WANT MY DEDUCTION_. I suffered through years of supporting the mortgage-interest deduction of those wealthier than I, and now I demand my right to screw those poorer in return.
<cloak mode=Republicans>
There, that ought to get me an invite to the Republican party events, then I can cause some real trouble.
</cloak>
A flat tax would just cause the government to instantly lose gobs of money. Then, in order to make up for the loss, they'd jack it up to 50% for everyone! Screw that!
Besides, how are we supposed to conquer all the Middle Eastern countries with no defense budget?
Originally posted by juju
Besides, how are we supposed to conquer all the Middle Eastern countries with no defense budget?
Bonds backed by future oil revenues. Bwahahahaha.
That's not what she was asking.
I thought it was rather clear. But just to make it abundantly clear, I'll state the obvious.
There is no law in the United States that makes income taxes mandatory. In fact income taxes are unconstitutional and according to USSC decision Marbury vs. Madison any laws that are unconstitutional are null and void.
Being a patriotic American who knows the law and his rights, I won't be filing any income tax returns ever again and I'm not paying income taxes either. I'm working for an employer that doesn't withhold any taxes and pays me in cash.
I won't go to jail and I won't pay any money. In fact I have absolutely nothing to fear from the government in this matter since I have the law on my side and they have the burden of proof on thiers.
We can visit you in the penitentiary if you like. When you get prosecuted let us know which one you're going to and where it is, and we'll try to dispatch the nearest Cellarite to visit you every so often. It's the least we can do for a fellow poster.
Originally posted by Uryoces
Cam, I think this would do it for you very nicely. $4.67 for source and binaries for just about any system you can think of. And friends off campus w/CD burners. Spread the love!
Thanks Uryoces, I'll be sending off for that early this summer when I get my first paycheck, slowly weening myself from all dependence on windows, tackling printing, and figuring out how to use my modem is first priority after finals week. :)
Let's see.. you're in Los Angeles. Does anybody here live near there?
I'll make the trek if no one does, next winter I need some excuse to get away from the cold.
Originally posted by Radar
I won't go to jail and I won't pay any money.
While I agree totally with your position, I am fearful that the gov't will arrest people and confiscate property on a *non-law*. The non-law is enforced only through the acceptance of the "volunteering" majority.
I had the opportunity to talk with some low level organizers of the tax rebellion of the late 70's in Mi.. Some did jail time. Most were just forced through the threat of finiancial ruin to repay the back taxes, legal or not.
The object nowdays for this type of protest is to shed light on the system and to show the fallacy of it. Tens of millions of people are feeling like Thomas Anderson regarding the system. They know something is wrong but they are too busy watching TV to search for the truth. It is likely that more people will take the red pill in the future as the tax code, and the agenda of the gov't, gets more confusing.
I think most of the citizenship of the US hate paying taxes, and most feel at least once a year the desire to just say screw the government. But then they come to the realization that those dollars they pay to the government go toward things such as roads, law enforcement, and education.
I agree the system is bloated though, I think everyone should get a letter in the mail in January stated the amount they owe, you should have all year to pay that amount, in increments of your choice if necessary, and if you disagree with the amount your given the government must provide you with whatever calculations they did to come up with the amount for you to look over and dispute if you feel necessary.
Obviously there are tremendous problems with this idea, I'd share the rest of my ideas on taxes with you but I'm still working them out. Maybe someday I'll throw them out to be torn apart .
Originally posted by Cam
they pay to the government go toward things such as roads, law enforcement, and education.
I think a major problem now is the fact that the intended tax no longer goes directly for the gov't service. They all go into the "general fund". That way no one is really sure what the hell which is paying for what.
The gas tax was originally intended to pay the repair and upkeep of roads. What does it pay for now? It goes into the general fund. We need a total overhaul of all tax accounting, which is very unlikely to happen.
A dude I am familiar with in the movement just got his house raided. He was one of the guys who made sure his ps and qs were all in order, too.
What the question really boils down to is: whose interpretation of the law is the one that counts: yours, or a federal judge's?
What does the Constitution say on THAT matter?
You can claim you say what the law is and what it isn't, and quote passages all day long, but until you get a court to agree, it doesn't matter at all.
Originally posted by Undertoad
but until you get a court to agree
Or maybe 50 million people not "volunteering". There is safety in numbers, but the chances of that kind of unity are slim.
You can claim you say what the law is and what it isn't, and quote passages all day long, but until you get a court to agree, it doesn't matter at all.
On that you're correct. There are many ways to win other than arguing about the law. You can move the burden of proof to them instead of yourself, keep their evidence out (for instance if they use copies of W2's they're inadmissable because copies can be tampered with. If your employer tells them how much you made it's heresay and can be kept out)
I feel badly for your friend. Unfortunately there is a lot of mininformation in the tax freedom movement. Unlike the other groups who claim they're a sovereign state citizen, or not a tax payer, who use all caps in their names, etc. I use actual law. The group that I'm a part of has a team of lawyers and represents people all the way to the supreme court. Not one of the people in this group has ever gone to jail, or even lost money. Some have won money. One of them won over a quarter million dollars. We've got people who are doctors, lawyers, policemen, former IRS agents, mechanics, truck drivers, and people from every walk of life and none of them has lost. Some people like Irwin Schiff, and others give poor advice to their people and they are harmed because of this information. Our group doesn't
TELL anyone what to do. We teach the law, how to use the law, courtroom procedures, paperwork, etc. and always tell people not to take our word for it, but to verify it for themselves.
I have no fear what-so-ever because the burden of proof is on the government and they must prove that there is a law that requires people to pay income taxes. They can't do this because there is no such law.
I got in on this late, and my comments are probably waayyy behind the conversation curve here, but...
I've used TurboTax for the past five years now, and have done pretty damn well so far. It reduces my need to think substantially, and I haven't been audited yet. I spend about $60.00 or so for the main program and two states after rebates, and it takes me about three hours to do everything from first sit-down with the receipts to licking the envelope closed or clicking the 'E-File" button.
Am I paying too much tax? Not really, but I have a mortgage and three kids to deduct, plus I over-withhold (having had some tax due issues that would scare the pants off of an IRS agent in the past).
All things being equal, I'm not nearly as unhappy about my income tax rates as I am about the fact that every damn dime you make is taxed about forty-seven different times. Jeez, they even make you declare tax refunds as income. What the hell is that about? Wasn't it taxed the first goddamn time?
Originally posted by Radar
I won't go to jail and I won't pay any money. In fact I have absolutely nothing to fear from the government in this matter since I have the law on my side and they have the burden of proof on thiers.
Well, before you find yourself collapsing under the burden of their proof, make sure you post here, so that we can come and watch the fun. I'll bring the popcorn.
Here's the argument for the 16th amendment not being properly ratified, and
here's Congresses' refutation of said argument (scroll to part 4).
It's interesting stuff. I must admit I find Congresses response a bit confusing. Maybe I'd have to be a lawyer to really "get" it.
Actually I heard a former IRS guy talking about this a year or two ago on NPR. He said that the enforcement arm of the IRS has become so weak that they don't bother fighting companies with deep pockets. It's not worth the fight. He gave examples of when they had, and won, but it's been far too long for me to remember them. Anyway, according to him the IRS only goes after little guys that work for companies that will turn over any info the IRS wants easily.
So, if all that is true then Radar's pretty safe. It's just not worth their time to actually fight it.
Originally posted by juju
Maybe I'd have to be a lawyer to really "get" it.
One shouldn't need the mental capacity of Einstein to grasp a concept that is the foundation of the tax system.
Was it ratified? This is a simple answer, yes or no will do. This is another tactic of the gov't, make something simple so fucking complicated that no one really knows for certain. It's bullshit. Whether or not the 16th was ratified or not the system is bullshit due to several conflicts with the BOR.
Radar already said it wasn't. What more do you need? And don't go spouting any nonsense about congress, or the supreme court either.
What more do you need? And don't go spouting any nonsense about congress, or the supreme court either.
I'd be more than happy to talk about congress and the supreme court. In fact the first supreme court said that any laws that are contrary to the constitution are null and void (Marbury vs. Madison).
And if you want to talk about congress let's talk about how congress didn't ratify the 16th amendment. There were 48 states in 1913 which means 36 votes were required to pass the 16th amendment. Several states re-wrote the amendment before signing which eliminates thier votes, several voted against it but were counted for it, etc. Philander Knox committed fraud and claimed it had passed when in fact it didn't pass. And nothing that the supreme court says can make less than 36 votes into 36 votes.
The amendment also goes directly against the body of the constitution (it states we all direct taxes must be aproportioned) which makes it null and void. Also there's a little matter of signing a 1040 (tax confession form) goes against the 5th amendment. Having government take your income means you're working as a slave for much of the year which is against the 13th amendment. The IRS grabs your bank records and forces people to report certain transactions which goes against the 4th amendment. And it goes on and on.
The courts work for the government and it's in their interests to rule in favor of the fraud of income taxes.
The simple and undeniable truth is that income taxes are unconstitutional and therefore null and void but the courts conspire with the government to perpetuate this fraud. Also not one person with our organization has ever lost money or gone to jail.
juju showed Bob Schulz's website for the We the People foundation which are a great bunch of people. I'll be seeing Bob on the 26th of this month in Irvine. The original research for the fraud committed by Philander Knox was done by Bill Benson at
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com
Paying income taxes isn't our patriotic duty or even the right thing to do. America was built by freedom loving tax protestors (Boston Tea Party) and those who value liberty are still protesting unjust and unconstitutional taxes. Especially when they're not needed to run a constitutional government like income taxes.
Originally posted by juju
Let's see.. you're in Los Angeles. Does anybody here live near there?
got it. already have one friend in, I'll get the group pass and bring lunch.
-sm
Originally posted by Radar
I'd be more than happy to talk about congress and the supreme court. In fact the first supreme court said that any laws that are contrary to the constitution are null and void (Marbury vs. Madison).
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that only the supreme court would/should be able to "null and void" laws. Otherwise, there would be no law because it would all be open to interpretation. Take the bible, for instance. No one can agree on what that damn book means. Are we to make the U.S. constitution into another bible? Do you see where this line of reasoning takes you? Anarchy!
It's all well and good to try to change the supreme court's mind, but I think there has to be a final arbiter of interpretation. Otherwise, there is no rule of law at all!
As to the other arguments, there has been an impressive amount of research that's gone into that stuff. I'm not even gonna touch it. :)
The simple and undeniable truth is that income taxes are unconstitutional and therefore null and void but the courts conspire with the government to perpetuate this fraud
OK, let's try again...
The Constitution (the one you claim you love so well) granted the judicial branch the job of interpreting the law.
You say they "conspire to perpetuate", but obviously, what you really mean is that the court has repeatedly interpreted that the 16th is the valid law of the land* -- and you disagree.
Now again, if you differ from the courts on what the law means, or whether it is law at all, it is THEIR interpretation of that matter that counts, not yours. Constitution says so! You can jump up and down and scream that the constitutionality of the law is "simple and undeniable", but that is SIMPLY NOT YOUR CALL TO MAKE.
[SIZE=1]* And it has. You could do the research.[/SIZE]
Are you suggesting that individuals can't interpret the law as they see fit? Not even reinterpret what the Court system has already interpreted? Damn. Well that ruins my plans for the weekend...
The Constitution (the one you claim you love so well) granted the judicial branch the job of interpreting the law.
No it didn't. Nowhere in the constitution's description of the powers and duties of the judiciary is the word "interpret" mentioned. Why is that? Because that's not their job. The constitution doesn't require interpretation. It's not written in Swahili, it's written in simple English. It means EXACTLY what it says; no more, no less.
It's all well and good to try to change the supreme court's mind, but I think there has to be a final arbiter of interpretation. Otherwise, there is no rule of law at all!
The final arbiter is the constitution itself. The supreme court doesn't define it or interpret it. They answer to it just like all other parts of government.
You say they "conspire to perpetuate", but obviously, what you really mean is that the court has repeatedly interpreted that the 16th is the valid law of the land* -- and you disagree.
No, what I mean is what I said; just like the constitution. And the constitution also says it takes 3/4 of all states to pass an amendment which didn't happen with the 16th amendment and the supreme court has no authority to ignore that requirement.
Are you suggesting that individuals can't interpret the law as they see fit? Not even reinterpret what the Court system has already interpreted?
No, I'm saying it's not anyone's job to interpret the constitution. It doesn't require interpretation and isn't ambiguous. It's very clear in its meaning and the courts aren't granted the authority or power to do "interpretation" of the constitution.
I was kind of under the impression that amendmants were considered part of the Constitution. Otherwise things like freedom of speech and the right to bear arms aren't in the Constitution. Therefore, doesn't an amedment that adds the right for the Goverment to tax mean that it's in the Constitution now?
I understand that there is some question as to if it was legaly ratified or not, but I'd like to address that as a seperate issue. After all, untill it's proven to be illegitimate it's still in effect. The Marbary vs. Madison case might be an arguement to throw it out, but where has that arguement been made? I mean in a place that means something legaly.
Please keep the issues seperate.
I was kind of under the impression that amendmants were considered part of the Constitution.
You were under the correct impression, however the 16th amendment was never legally ratified and thus is NOT an amendment to the constitution.
After all, untill it's proven to be illegitimate it's still in effect.
You've got that backwards. It must be proven to be legitimate and that's impossible since the required legitimate 36 votes to pass it were not obtained and nothing the supreme court says can change the number of votes cast or the validity of the votes that were cast improperly.
Collectivists often think that government gives rights to the people and powers to states. The opposite is true. Government derives its power from the governed. A nation is made up of millions of individuals. These individuals grant a limited amount of power to government to take care of things like common defense. Since government gets its powers from individuals, it may not have any powers that individuals themselves don't have. A goup of individuals don't have any more rights or authority than a single individual. So if the government makes a law regarding drugs, suicide, or abortion, they have no such authority because we as individuals have no authority to tell our neighbors they may not smoke. We as individuals DO have the authority and power to stop our neighbors from attacking us, murdering, stealing, etc. As individuals we have the right to defend our rights and our lives from injury but don't have the right to tell others what they must or must not consume or to reach into our neighbors pockets for our own needs.
Income taxation is unconstitution for several reasons and one of those is that the government has no authority to tax income even if the majority of Americans voted for it.
The word "interpretation" is just a way to avoid the longhand of "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and..."
No matter how clear or unclear the wording of the law, someone has to be granted the power of decisions about it, and in the US that power is vested in the courts. In trying Case law part of the decision is whether or not the 16th IS law. The courts have decided that it is, again and again.
Here's a good summary of how the courts have decided on this matter.
Gotta be clear, I personally don't mind you not paying, and I like tax protest. I was kind of hoping that the "Not In Our Name" people would extend their protest to "Not With Our Money" because I think that would make some very interesting statements.
But the only thing keeping you out of jail, really, is the blessed incompetence of the IRS -- not some voodoo misinterpretation of how the law works.
I'd also like to add that the framers of the constitution explain their intentions further in the Fedaralist Papers, excerpted below:
<blockquote><i> The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.</i></blockquote>
source According to this:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment16/01.html#2 the sixteenth amendment is a recognized part of the Constitution. You say it was never ratified, but it's clearly in effect. Are you saying it's not?
Also, I agree that the government gets its power from the governed. That being said I don't know many people that feel as you do. Most people accept the fact that without taxes the government would collapse and the would no longer be a United States. Do people like taxes? No, absolutely not. Do they prefer it to anarchy? Well, I haven't seen any good polls on this but I believe so. My point is that there has been no great rise against taxation because people understand it's function. So yes, it is the will of the people that there is taxation.
While were on the subject Radar has said:
America was built by freedom loving tax protestors
I find this interesting since I thought the bitch was "Taxation without Representation," not just not wanting to pay taxes. So either my books in school were intentionally misleading or you are. Somebody has taken to telling half-truths.
I looked it up on Juju's link and it says Secretary Knox Certified Adoption. You say he perjured himself. Hmm, well guess what? Congress accepted it. I'm sure you can show me where he was charged with perjury though right? No? Then this is your opinion and nothing more.
It wasn't stricken, and now the 16th Amendment
is part of the Constitution. I read it. It's in there. You telling me that it's not legit does not remove it. So, you disagree with the government, the civil lawyers and most of the US population. And you state it as a fact. Dude, read the Constitution with the Amendments and it's there. Your repeated claims that it's not legit don't change that. It is recognized law right now. Can you show me otherwise?
In trying Case law part of the decision is whether or not the 16th IS law. The courts have decided that it is, again and again.
They have done so unconstitutionally and without authority to make that decision. The courts don't decide whether an amendment has passed. No court decision can change the number of votes for an amendment or the number required to pass it.
But the only thing keeping you out of jail, really, is the blessed incompetence of the IRS -- not some voodoo misinterpretation of how the law works.
There's no voodoo or misinterpretation. In fact I'm not "interpreting" anything. I am reading the constitution and law as it is written and using the definitions used at the time the laws were written. (see blacks law dictionary)
What's keeping me out of jail is the fact that I know the law, know the limitations on the powers of government, and am educated enough to defend myself well. The IRS doesn't want to go after people who know their rights and who are well-prepared to fight in court. They want to go after easy pickings so they can say they've got more convictions. In short, they know they can't beat me in court because there is no law that makes income taxes mandatory.
You say it was never ratified, but it's clearly in effect. Are you saying it's not?
I'm saying it was never legally ratified and no court decisions to the contrary matter. And the 16th amendment goes directly against the body of the constitution and is therefore null and void according to the supreme court. So yes, I'm saying it's not in effect and that all attempts to force people to pay income taxes are voluntary.
Most people accept the fact that without taxes the government would collapse and the would no longer be a United States.
100% of the constitutional parts of government can be funded by the tariffs and excise taxes already collected. Without
income taxes we'd still have roads, we'd still have a military, a judiciary, and America wouldn't collapse. In fact America and our civil liberties would be stronger than ever.
My point is that there has been no great rise against taxation because people understand it's function. So yes, it is the will of the people that there is taxation.
Absolutely false. And if people want to donate their money to government that's up to them but government has no authority to take it from us. And I guarantee you if I took a poll and asked people if they'd like to keep income taxes around or eliminate them the overwhelming majority would choose the latter.
find this interesting since I thought the bitch was "Taxation without Representation," not just not wanting to pay taxes
Do you think the will of the people is being adequately represented by our elected officials? Most people don't including myself.
So either my books in school were intentionally misleading or you are. Somebody has taken to telling half-truths
Look to the government and the collectivists providing you with your obviously poor education.
You say he perjured himself.
Yes, and he committed outright fraud. He falsified the ratification of an amendment. That's not my opinion, it's a fact. Guess what? Congress didn't accept the 16th amendment. If they had, the required number of votes to pass the amendment wouldn't have been short.
And since when do you have to be charged with a crime to have committed it? If I steal something and wasn't charged with a crime are you saying I didn't steal it?
Sorry if it bothers you, but the 16th amendment
IS NOT NOW, NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN PART OF THE CONSTITION! None of your false claims or the opinions of all the people in the united states matter on this subject because as I've proven even if the amendment had been legally ratified, the government has no such authority to create it because it derives its power from the people and the people have no such authority to grant to government.
But hey, think whatever you want. I win either way because you're stupidly allowing the government to rob you (nobody has ever provided a distinction between armed robbery and income taxes) while I am living contently and legally by not allowing the government to push me around or to rob me.
Like I said, IRS incompetence; that leads to the "easy pickins" situation. It's no loophole; it's cat and mouse with bureaucrats, with the hope that your particular case doesn't land on the desk of someone who knows the game.
Off the top of my head, I'd guess that by being a part of a group that's doing this, you are putting yourself into a category of much higher visibility. You make small time money, so they don't care; but what's the collective income, I mean, uh, unconstitutionally taxable amount of money that the IRS would consider income, of the entire group? Together you make a bigger prize with much smaller burden of collection of evidence.
And if you think your copy of Black's with its various definitions of "citizen" and whatnot are the secret code words that get you out of jail free, think again. The law doesn't even pretend at that level of consistency. You'll be flipped by the first Judge you run into. If things like the common law and definitions in Black's got people out of trouble, don't you think the lawyers would know about it? Do you think you and your buddies are the first ones to think of this stuff?
As far as the visibility thing goes, we don't send letters to the IRS identifying ourselves as tax protestors or send other red flags like zero returns. We know the law, the procedures of law, and have a team of attorneys and paralegals in our defense.
And I only mentioned blacks or other old dictionaries as a means of showing what various words and legal terms meant in the days of our founders, not as a way to get out of anything.
We know that there's no "silver bullet" to beat the IRS and each situation requires different methods to win. But we haven't failed yet.
You did not respond to my last post, in which I quoted the original intent of the framers of the constitution. Please do so.
I'm not interested in "intent". The supreme court isn't there to determine "intent". Their constitututional duty is to make sure nobody violates the constitution; Not to interpret the constitution; Not to define the constitution; Not to overrule the constitution; And not to allow blatant violations of the constitution such as the Patriot Act, Income Taxation, and a thousand other things.
The duties and powers of the supreme court and all parts of government is defined and limited by the constitution. They may not do anything that isn't specifically listed.
Well, in that case, you're not only disagreeing with 99.9% of America, including Congress and the Supreme Court, you're also disagreeing with the people who wrote the constitution. I'm sorry, but Alexander Hamilton says you are wrong.
Tell me something: when's the last time you were wrong about something?
According to you every copy of the Constitution we see is wrong. They all have the 16th Amendment in them. The courts are wrong and serve no function. The goverment doesn't have the right to blow it's nose, or anything else.
If you look it up the 16th Amendment is on the books. Leagally ratified or not, it is in effect. You've made it clear that you don't care that what congress, the courts or the people of the US say. So why are you talking to us?
They may not do anything that isn't specifically listed.
Who's gonna stop 'em? You? Saddam? The French?
Bwahahahahahahaha!
I think Radar has made it pretty obvious that his opinion is more important than anything else. So he'll just tell you they can't as they do whatever they want.
Tell me something: when's the last time you were wrong about something?
Two days ago. But I've never been wrong about any part of the constitution and I'm still not.
According to you every copy of the Constitution we see is wrong. They all have the 16th Amendment in them.
Not just according to me. According to everyone who knows constitutional law which of course disqualifies you.
The courts are wrong and serve no function.
The courts are often wrong because they presume to have powers they don't constitutionally have. But they do serve a function. That function just doesn't include interpreting, defining, overruling, ignoring, or violating the constitution or to determine the founders "intent".
The courts have very few duties. The most important is to uphold and defend what is written in the constitution and make sure it's not violated but they have failed in this duty.
Well, in that case, you're not only disagreeing with 99.9% of America, including Congress and the Supreme Court, you're also disagreeing with the people who wrote the constitution.
99.9% of America is wrong about the constitution, especially the supreme court and congress who seem to think they've got unlimited powers. And the founders made the constitution and we follow what is in it. The constitution is the highest law in the land and the federalist papers are not law and have no bearing what-so-ever on law. We follow what is written and nothing else.
Who's gonna stop 'em? You? Saddam? The French?
You're damn right me. And others like me. Unlike those who support GWB and his imperialistic war of terrorist aggression against Iraq I am a patriotic American. I support the constitution, freedom, liberty, individualism, non-interventionism, free market capitalism, and the principles this nation was created for. Those who support the war are anti-American scum who are against everything America stands for.
There are millions of people like me all around America and when the time comes for a second American revolution (which might be close if the Patriot Act II passes) I'll be among those who take America back by force and return it to the constitutional republic we started with.
Whit and other ignorant people seem to think the government has unlimited powers and authority. I pity them. They are willing sheep allowing themselves to be sheared.
Quickie then. What do you do when there's a contradiction between different parts of the Constitution?
What were you wrong about two days ago?
But I've never been wrong about any part of the constitution and I'm still not.
You haven't yet backed up your statement. The 16th Amendment is in effect. The only argument that you have made is that it isn't. That's essentially going "nuh-uh, it is not, it is not!" UT, Juju and myself have looked up things provided reasons for our views. You haven't given us anything to back up your views. Hell, Juju has done a better job backing your side of the argument than you have. I guess that's because he's open to a different viewpoint.
You have outright called me or inferred that I was ignorant, collectivist, naive, unpatriotic and a sheep. But not once have you backed anything up. Name calling isn't rational discussion. I'm willing to discuss this like an adult, are you?
You wave Marbury vs. Madison around like a flag, and ignore the fact that the 16th Amendment changed the Constitutional rules. It doesn't apply because this was a change in the Constitution, not a law under it. This has been obvious to anyone that is not intentionally covering their eyes.
Had you said the 16th Amendment should not be in effect I would agree with you. You say it isn't. Look it up. Wearing blinders does not make your argument stronger.
The constitution doesn't require interpretation. It's not written in Swahili, it's written in simple English. It means EXACTLY what it says; no more, no less.
You say this, or words to this effect often. Yet you also interpret those same words to mean what you want it too. As with the aforementioned Marbury vs. Madison case you twist it to mean what you want. You say it applies but don't back it up. I guess it applies because you want it too.
It must be proven to be legitimate and that's impossible since the required legitimate 36 votes to pass it were not obtained and nothing the supreme court says can change the number of votes cast or the validity of the votes that were cast improperly.
Actually they determine whether or not the votes were cast improperly. Knox certified it. This was within his power. Let's say he did commit perjury, his doing so hasn't been proven in court so the Amendment still stands. You say it doesn't matter what the court says, but that is their job. To view the facts of a case and make a decision. To my knowledge your argument against this is that they are stupid. Oh, well that settles that.
Let me show you how backing a point works.
Article III Section 2 The US Constitution
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
That's right all cases under the Constitution. So, a court case is two individuals or groups in legal disagreement and it's the court, according to the Constitution that decides who is right. What was it you said?
They have done so unconstitutionally and without authority to make that decision. The courts don't decide whether an amendment has passed. No court decision can change the number of votes for an amendment or the number required to pass it.
Hmm, so there was a controversy about whether it passed legally or not and the Court unconstitutionally made a decision in the case. I'm reading it, in plain English not Swahili, and this say that is exactly what they are supposed to do. But again your argument is:
I'm saying it was never legally ratified and no court decisions to the contrary matter.
Since the court doesn't matter, who do we turn to make a decision when two different people read the same passage of the constitution and take two different meanings? Ah wait, you suggest a "second American revolution." Yes, killing people is always the best answer I suppose. Especially when rational discussion and backing your points isn't something you're interested in.
By the by, you might look at who the first person to raise an alarm over the patriot act II is on this board. It was me. I've gone off repeatedly about the first patriotic act as well as the Home Security act. These are laws, they are unconstitutional. Nobody has been able to get them into court yet. It'll happen, that's the checks and balances system that the Constitution set up. If you really believe in the Constitution or the ideals this nation is founded on don't you think it's better to use the system to do it's job instead of revolution?
You call me sheep, you are making an assumption. If you had talked with words like "should" instead of "is" then you would have had my support. Until the day comes when you can see the present as is, not as you say it should be, then we won't agree. The 16th Amendment is in effect. I think Juju linked to a good argument as to why it should not be, but it is still in effect.
You deny this, and say the courts, congress and all the people are wrong. I say this is a sad denial of reality. If someone slaps you, saying that it's not legal doesn't change the fact that you were slapped. The 16th Amendment is, saying it's not changes nothing. You've still been slapped and it's still the law that you pay your taxes. The IRS being to weak to enforce the law doesn't change what the law is.
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified 3 February 1913.
Have you not read any of this thread TW??? The 16th Amendment doesn't exist! Radar said so! If the goverment insist's on pretending that it, the courts and 99% of the US population means more than his own unbacked opinions then it's revolution time, baby!
Oh yeah, if you don't immediately accept that Radar is right about this you are "ignorant, collectivist, naive, unpatriotic and a sheep." There, now you are properly caught up on this thread. Feel free to continue from here.
Originally posted by Radar
The constitution doesn't require interpretation. It's not written in Swahili, it's written in simple English. It means EXACTLY what it says; no more, no less.
Hehe. When was the last time you read the Constitution?
Also, you have the allusion of a Political Philosophy professor whom I recall saying during class: "Well, that's an almost Constitutionally vague notion".
It's vague and might become a bit dated. They didn't account for the Internet and other modern realities. That's why the Constitution allows the Court to interpret just what it's supposed to mean (eg; intent) and how it pertains to modern society.
Originally posted by Radar
Not just according to me. According to everyone who knows constitutional law which of course disqualifies you.
...and the Supreme Court, which is made up of nine of the people currently alive that are best-versed in the Constitution.
Originally posted by Whit
There, now you are properly caught up on this thread. Feel free to continue from here.
Quoting the Sixteenth Amendement and giving its ratification date is as close to this thread as I want to get. Just waiting for the one that proves aliens landed in Roswell. Since they've got dead bodies, then there is one I can sink my teeth into.
Quickie then. What do you do when there's a contradiction between different parts of the Constitution?
Good question. Nothing may be added to the constitution that is in contradiction to any other part of the constitution. For instance the 16th amendment contradicts article 1 section 9 of the constitution and therefore can't be added.
What were you wrong about two days ago?
I drove an hour and a half to one of the many freedom meetings I attend each month and after I got there I realized I had the wrong day of the month when nobody else was there.
You haven't yet backed up your statement. The 16th Amendment is in effect
I have absolutely backed it up. I've given you a website that proves irrefutably that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified. That means it's NOT in effect. I've also shown you where the supreme court said that any laws that are in contradiction to the constitution are null and void. What more do you want?
Here's a reminder in case you didn't actually look at the proof I provided.
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com
You wave Marbury vs. Madison around like a flag, and ignore the fact that the 16th Amendment changed the Constitutional rules
I don't wave Marbury vs. Madison around, I pointed it out to show you one of the many ways the 16th amendment was illegal. You ignore the fact that the 16th amendment wasn't legally ratified by the required number of states and act as though a court decision can change the number of votes obtained to ratify it.
You say this, or words to this effect often. Yet you also interpret those same words to mean what you want it too
I do no such thing. I know every part of the constitution and follow all of it. I don't "interpert" it or change any of the meaning. I read it as it was written, not as I want it to be.
As with the aforementioned Marbury vs. Madison case you twist it to mean what you want. You say it applies but don't back it up. I guess it applies because you want it too.
Of course it applies. The first supreme court of the United States said that any laws in contradiction to the constitution are null and void. That applies to ALL laws and parts of government.
Knox certified it. This was within his power.
It's not within his his power to certify it when the required number of votes was never aquired. And yet that's what he did.
Let's say he did commit perjury, his doing so hasn't been proven in court so the Amendment still stands.
The indisputable fact that there were less than 36 votes cast to pass the 16th amendment has been proven dozens of times, but the courts won't address it. No court ruling can make less than 36 votes into 36 votes. And there weren't. Sorry but it's a fact.
That's right all cases under the Constitution. So, a court case is two individuals or groups in legal disagreement and it's the court, according to the Constitution that decides who is right. What was it you said?
The authority to settle disputes doesn't mean they have the authority to rule that an amendment was passed when it had less than the required number of votes to pass. Even the supreme court must abide by the constitution and their rulings can't contradict it. The constitution clearly states that the votes 3/4 of all states are required to pass an amendment and the court DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to violate that part of the constitution by declaring that the amendment passed despite having less than the required number of votes. Try again.
These are laws, they are unconstitutional. Nobody has been able to get them into court yet.
The same is true about getting the supreme court to address the 16th amendment. They won't hear the case. What if they won't hear the case against the Patriot Acts? There is a judicial conspiracy to support the uncosntitutional income taxes.
It'll happen, that's the checks and balances system that the Constitution set up. If you really believe in the Constitution or the ideals this nation is founded on don't you think it's better to use the system to do it's job instead of revolution?
The government no longer follows the checks and balances designed into the constitution. In fact they violate the constitution so routinely now the checks and balances are virtually non-existant. For instance the Supreme court doesn't challenge unconstitutional laws like the Patriot Act, like the war powers act, and many other things that actually change the powers of the various branches of government. The supreme court has said they can violate the constitution when it's in the interest of government to do so despite them not being granted such power in the constitution. The supreme court members are appointed by presidents they feel beholden to return favors to. Congress is full of collectivists who want to give government more and more power and more of our money even though they have no authority to do so as I've proven several times now. So the checks and balances no longer exist. When was the last time the supreme court shot down an act of congress?
I would like to change the system from within the system but that window of opportunity is closing fast since the government doesn't stick to the rules of the system. If the Patriot Act II passes nearly impossible to make changes peacefully within the system.
If you had talked with words like "should" instead of "is" then you would have had my support. Until the day comes when you can see the present as is, not as you say it should be, then we won't agree. The 16th Amendment is in effect.
I've proven that it is not in effect. Only the illusion that it is in effect is real. Those who believe it is in effect don't know the law, and follow what they're told like sheep. I've done research and understand the law unlike 99.9% of the population. The 16th amendment isn't in effect but the government fraudently acts as though it were.
The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified 3 February 1913.
Not really. It was fraudently claimed to have been ratified but wasn't legally ratified.
Hehe. When was the last time you read the Constitution?
Every day. I carry it on me.
The constitution is as fresh and pertinent today as the day it was written. The founders didn't need to know about the internet or modern weapons. Their principles would change even if they did. They believed that the citizens should always outgun the government and that people should be free to express themselves regardless of the medium used.
and the Supreme Court, which is made up of nine of the people currently alive that are best-versed in the Constitution.
Actually I know more about the constitution than most Supreme Court Justices who routinely violate it. I'm not bragging, just stating a fact.
proves aliens landed in Roswell. Since they've got dead bodies,
Oh my God, TW. You mean they've died!
Everyone else who studies it is concerned with the body of Case law that has resulted from the practical application of it for 213 years.
The reason they study it is because that's the law that is actually applied when you take things to court.
As opposed to the law that doesn't exist in the real world - it only exists in your mind.
The constitution is not law. It's a statement of purpose and methodology. Law is a mutually agreed upon application of those guidelines to insure (more or less) uniform conformance by and to the entire population. Of course pigs are more equal than others.
I have absolutely backed it up. I've given you a website that proves irrefutably that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified. That means it's NOT in effect. I've also shown you where the supreme court said that any laws that are in contradiction to the constitution are null and void. What more do you want?
I want to see where the courts have said it was unconstitutional. Reality check, dude. The 16th Amendment is. I looked at the site you specified. It was a guy giving a good argument why it should be thrown out, but that doesn't change the fact that it is.
How 'bout this then? Show me where saying that the 16th amendment is illegitimate has been successfully used in court. I will accept this as proof. Having you or some guy with a web site saying it does not make it so. That's all I'm asking.
As UT mentioned, until it's a part of case law then it's just what you think it should be. Nothing more.
Also, I'm very disappointed. When I have a discussion I believe that both parties should be open to what is said. You are not. You are merely using this forum to try and spread your ideas. Guess what? You have a partial success with me. I think it's ratification is crap.
Guess what else? I look at the Constitution and the 16th is there. All court challenges have failed. There have been many challenges by the way, everyone I could find had the arguements cut down. So, I accept that it is. If it should be is a seperate issue.
Congress is full of collectivists who want to give government more and more power and more of our money even though they have no authority to do so as I've proven several times now.
This is the only thing I found that you might have been refering to when you say you proved it.
Since government gets its powers from individuals, it may not have any powers that individuals themselves don't have. A goup of individuals don't have any more rights or authority than a single individual. So if the government makes a law regarding drugs, suicide, or abortion, they have no such authority because we as individuals have no authority to tell our neighbors they may not smoke.
Using this logic then jails are illegal, since it's illegal to lock up a neighbor. Hmm, so are speeding tickets and there's no reason I can't own a nuke. Funny, you had kinda struck me as a pro-death penalty kinda guy. I was obviously wrong about this, since we can't electrocute scum bags that deserve it at home. Maybe I should walk around with a gun on my hip like the cops do. This logic could be fun, if I didn't think it would get me arrested. No, I'd have to say that when the goverment was formed it was given powers of authority beyond that of the common man. The power to govern us specificaly. Maybe that's why they call it 'Goverment'? Root word Govern. Screw it, that must be a word out of swahili.
So, where else did you 'prove it'? You say you did so several times, could you show me?
Oh yeah. Let's leave the Patriot Act stuff for another thread. We can rant in unison about the evils of that. If you go back a little bit I'm sure you can find a thread I started under the Patriot act II's proper name. That's a more proper thread to talk about it on.
Everyone else who studies it is concerned with the body of Case law that has resulted from the practical application of it for 213 years
Case law is irrelevant. It's just a way for people to use one bad court ruling as a precident for others. In the end the Constitution is the highest law in the land and judges answer to the Constitution. They don't define it.
The constitution is not law. It's a statement of purpose and methodology.
Absolutely false. The U.S. Constitution is not only law, it's the highest law in the land. The Supreme Court, President, and Congress are below the Constitution and answer to it and to the people.
I want to see where the courts have said it was unconstitutional.
I've already said the courts are corrupt and it doesn't matter what the courts say anyway. Case law is irrelevant in Constitutional law. The Constitution means what it says and no court is above it.
How 'bout this then? Show me where saying that the 16th amendment is illegitimate has been successfully used in court.
See above.
Using this logic then jails are illegal, since it's illegal to lock up a neighbor
It's not illegal to subdue and lock up your neighbor in your own defense. Even if you were all alone and your neighbor started attacking your family , you would be within your rights to detain them.
Hmm, so are speeding tickets and there's no reason I can't own a nuke.
Endangering others is a violation of their rights. That's why you can drink but you can't drink and drive.
Funny, you had kinda struck me as a pro-death penalty kinda guy. I was obviously wrong about this, since we can't electrocute scum bags that deserve it at home.
Again, even if there were no government, if someone killed your family members, you would be within your rights to kill them. But rather than using vigilante justice we have a government to do it for us.
No, I'd have to say that when the goverment was formed it was given powers of authority beyond that of the common man.
And that is what makes you a collectivist. Government derives its power from the governed and as such can only have the powers that the people would have were there no government at all.
So, where else did you 'prove it'? You say you did so several times, could you show me?
I've offered you sites to read on your own but I can't read it for you. You really aren't the brightest bulb on the Christmas Tree. I'm not trying to be mean or insulting, I'm making a personal observation and I'm being as honest and respectful as I can be with you.
Yeah Whit, you're pretty fucking stupid. You will never be as intelligent as Radar, so you might as well face your reality now.
We already know that Radar is a Grade A Asswipe, but doesn't he sound almost cult-like when he speaks of the Constitution? He sounds scripted...like none of what he writes is actually original.
Don't drink the Kool Aid...
Again, even if there were no government, if someone killed your family members, you would be within your rights to kill them. But rather than using vigilante justice we have a government to do it for us.
Wrong again, son. If someone kills your family, you have the right to detain them. You can only kill them, when they try to kill you. Not because they might kill you.
I see you haven't given up with the name calling. Sigh.
Case law does matter unless you can't back-up your arguments. It matters in reality, you are only willing to discuss the world according to you.
Right, you said the courts are corrupt. Therefore we must all believe. This is your "Proof" time and time again. You "Prove" your point by saying, "They don't count!" Not good enough. It's not proof, it's your opinion. Therefore it's crap as proof.
Of course it's illegal to detain your neighbors. It's obvious I didn't mean until the police arrive, I meant for years. You are the only one that didn't get that. Actually, I don't think you didn't. I think your response was part of your perpetual cycle of half-truths.
As Bruce suggested, killing people because they killed your family
is vigilante justice. And I thought the gov wasn't supposed to do anything that the individual doesn't?
And that is what makes you a collectivist. Government derives its power from the governed and as such can only have the powers that the people would have were there no government at all.
No, that's what makes me a realist. I look at the world and see what is, not what I say should be. Calling me a collectivist is like me calling you a retard. Yes, I think a lot of what you say is stupid, but your IQ is obviously above 90 so the title doesn't fit. This is name calling because you have not proven jack, and have to make a personal attack to make yourself feel better.
I read your sites, and responded to them. You ignored my response so that you could say I was stupid. Very weak.
Your not being "honest and respectful" you're being openly insulting. This is okay. When the best you can do is say, "You are a stupid-head!" It means you have no solid argument.
In this case I see you saying that I'm not "the brightest bulb on the Christmas Tree" is saying that you can't do better. By giving any proof based on anything except your opinion. So I accept it. You have a nice day. Maybe someday you'll able to do better, and I'll be open to your words that day.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Wrong again, son. If someone kills your family, you have the right to detain them. You can only kill them, when they try to kill you. Not because they might kill you.
I'll get in the middle here for a minute. I think there is a distinction here between 'social justice' and 'US Law'. This is why there are sometimes complaints from prosecutors about 'jury nullification'. Many people would feel sympathy for someone who tracked down and killed the people who murdered his or her family, even though such an act is blatantly illegal.
This is why we have judges and juries. It is their job to weigh the merits or each case for 'extenuating circumstances' in order to make the punishment harsher or more lenient. In our legal system, there are various kinds of killing, from pre-meditated homicide down to self-defense, and within that a variety of sentencing options.
Unfortunately, judicial discretion is under attack by Congress. While the original intent was to limit discretion in child abuse cases, the current law appears to limit discretion in many more circumstances than originally intended. This means moving to a 'one size fits all' brand of federal law. Of course, the Supreme Court thinks this is a bad idea and look for a quick strike down on 'due process' grounds.
Case law is irrelevant. It's just a way for people to use one bad court ruling as a precident for others.
The word is "precedent" but I'm not surprised you're not familiar with it.
Whether or not the rulings are "bad", i.e., YOU don't like them, all previous rulings stand as precedent for lower court decisions. That judicial power is vested via the Constitution, Article 3 Sections 1 and 2.
In effect, the Supreme Court cannot MAKE an "unconstitutional" decision. All of their decisions on Cases are Constitutional.
How do you answer to Article 3 Sections 1 and 2?
I really want to read the reply to Undertoad's post, but I imagine that, sadly, it won't be anything that we haven't read earlier.
Originally posted by Whit
Using this logic then jails are illegal, since it's illegal to lock up a neighbor. Hmm, so are speeding tickets and there's no reason I can't own a nuke.
You can arrest a neighbor in a Citizen's Arrest, and I believe that there might be a private citizen who owns (or used to own) a nuke. Larry Niven mentioned the guy in the foreword to one of his short stories.
(edit: Wow. I previewed it several times but failed to notice that I had an open parenthesis).
Heh, actually Torrere I did specify, "Lock up". In a citizens arrest the arrested individual is turned over to the police. Not held. I guess that I was wrong in telling Radar he was the only one that didn't get that. I will, however, assume that in your case it was a simple misunderstanding. It's cool though.
The thing about the nuke is interesting, seems unlikely though. We won't even let other country's have nukes if we can help it. (Not that this is an inherently bad idea) I really doubt the Gov would stand by while some guy sits on a nuke. Not inside the US border anyway.
The word is "precedent" but I'm not surprised you're not familiar with it.
Spelling/Grammer error. BFD
Whether or not the rulings are "bad", i.e., YOU don't like them, all previous rulings stand as precedent for lower court decisions. That judicial power is vested via the Constitution, Article 3 Sections 1 and 2.
My opinion isn't what makes a court ruling bad. How closely that court ruling sticks to the constitution is what makes it good or bad.
In effect, the Supreme Court cannot MAKE an "unconstitutional" decision. All of their decisions on Cases are Constitutional.
That's complete and utter bullshit. The Supreme Court doesn't define the constitution and just because they make a ruling doesn't make it constitutional. You don't have a single clue about the constitution if you're dumb enough to think that any decision the Supreme makes is automatically constitutional. Nowhere in the constitution (including Article 3 Sections 1 and 2) does it say that the supreme court can re-write or define the constitution through their rulings or that any decisions they make are automatically constitutional but just to be sure, I'll quote those areas so you can point out the particular part you're clearly mistaken about.
Article III
Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Your false and baseless claims that any decision the USSC makes is automatically Constitutional and therefore legal are ludicrous. Why not just say that government has unlimited powers? Because they don't and that includes the USSC.
Wrong again, son. If someone kills your family, you have the right to detain them. You can only kill them, when they try to kill you. Not because they might kill you.
Actually if I walk in on someone killing my family I can kill them and won't do a day in jail because it wasn't pre-meditated. And we were discussing the powers of individuals were there no government. The point is that government has only the limited powers granted by the people and those powers can never exceed the powers of individual citizens were there no government at all. And that means you'd be free to do business, and defend yourself but you couldn't violate the rights of others. If you do violate someone's rights, they're within their rights to do anything they want to defend themselves and their property including taking your life.
For instance, you may not steal another person's property. That is not your right no matter what your personal needs are. The government also may not steal since this isn't a right of individuals. Income taxation is theft plain and simple. Nobody on earth can prove any difference between armed robbery and income taxes.
Heh, actually Torrere I did specify, "Lock up". In a citizens arrest the arrested individual is turned over to the police. Not held.
Again, were there no government and we were exercising the natural rights we're born with, you would be able to lock someone up indefinitely for murdering your family.
Natural rights are with us at birth. We don't get our rights from government. And when individuals create a government that government derives its powers from those individuals and as such that government can not have any powers that individuals don't have to bestow on it.
My opinion isn't what makes a court ruling bad. How closely that court ruling sticks to the constitution is what makes it good or bad.
What you are refusing to recognize here is that it's your opinion that the ruling is not sticking to the constitution. The Judges opinion is otherwise. He/she says the judgement is sticking to the constitution. You may even be right, but it's the Judge that makes that call officially
Okay, this next part, about the killed family, has become a tangled mess. You mentioned government after no government so most of us ran with that idea in mind. Meaning with the existence of government. You say here you were talking with no government. So what you are talking about and what we are talking about are two different things.
Also, Bruce was saying you can't go kill them later, you are saying if you walked in on the process. You actually make his point. After the fact it becomes premeditated. Which you state as a defining point. So actually near as I can tell, we're all in agreement on this. I think. Maybe we have to discuss it some more to find the disagreement....
"Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and..."
Ergo, the system of courts set up in Section 1 has the power to judge cases.
Can the Supremes make an unconstitutional decision? Their power does not extend above the Constitution. But they have the power to judge all cases arising under it.
So they CAN'T say "The first amendment is null and void." But they CAN most certainly say "The first amendment doesn't apply to this case."
Now, sadly, there is little practical difference. But that's part of why it's a fluid system; we do the best we can, knowing that perfection is impossible.
Heh, actually Torrere I did specify, "Lock up". In a citizens arrest the arrested individual is turned over to the police. Not held. I guess that I was wrong in telling Radar he was the only one that didn't get that. I will, however, assume that in your case it was a simple misunderstanding. It's cool though.
Oops. I suppose you are correct.
In spite of past mistakes, I will proceed to make blunt statements.
Radar: It seems that you are saying that you have evidence that the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional and therefore you need not pay taxes. I've glanced at the information and it does seem that it may be valid. However, I have not read the supporting information nor the opposing information.
You also seem to be arguing that when the IRS takes you into custody and threatens to throw you in jail, this evidence will save you in court. I believe that this is an invalid assumption because, as you have already recognized, the Supreme Court, Congress, the history of case law, the government, and the majority of the American people disagree with you. Consequently, it seems unlikely to me that you will win your court hearing, and that you will serve a dandy jail sentence for tax evasion.
Have fun.
What you are refusing to recognize here is that it's your opinion that the ruling is not sticking to the constitution. The Judges opinion is otherwise.
What you're failing to realize is that opinion has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of fact, not of opinion. If a judge says it's ok for me to enslave someone, they're acting directly against the constitution. Their ruling is unconstitutional in it's face. It's not my opinion of whether it's Constitutional versus theirs, it's a cold hard fact.
Ergo, the system of courts set up in Section 1 has the power to judge cases.
On that we agree.
Can the Supremes make an unconstitutional decision? Their power does not extend above the Constitution. But they have the power to judge all cases arising under it.
No part of the Constitution ever has a day off. No part may be legally suspended by government. All of the constitution are applicable at all times.
Now, sadly, there is little practical difference. But that's part of why it's a fluid system; we do the best we can, knowing that perfection is impossible.
I agree that our system is imperfect, however when the rules are followed it's a lot more perfect. And all branches of government are violating their authority and breaking the rules.
You also seem to be arguing that when the IRS takes you into custody and threatens to throw you in jail, this evidence will save you in court.
If that's the impression I gave, I was incorrect in how I presented the information. The truthful and factual information I've given about the Constitutionality 16th amendment and the legality of income taxation will never save someone in court because the courts will never rule against income taxes. They are part of a judicial conspiracy to defend and protect them. What saves me and others like me in court is our knowledge of the law, courtroom procedures, and rules of evidence.
If you look at the OJ Simpson case you know that people commit crimes and win in court. How do they do this? Because their lawyers were very good at keeping the prosecutors evidence out and their own evidence in while using tactics to make the prosecuters slip up.
If you're arrested for murder and the judge prevents you from having a lawyer, and decides not to give you a jury but just to send you to death row, you will win because they didn't follow proper procedure or the law.
Nobody will ever win in tax court trying to argue the law with judges because even though most judges know the income tax is unconstitutional they don't want to be the one responsible for such a huge decision. Judges are working for the government and want to get promotions and keep their political careers in tact. They'd never be so bold or honest as to overturn income taxes.
Sorry if it bothers you, but the 16th amendment IS NOT NOW, NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN PART OF THE CONSTITION!
I'm saying it was never legally ratified and no court decisions to the contrary matter. And the 16th amendment goes directly against the body of the constitution and is therefore null and void according to the supreme court. So yes, I'm saying it's not in effect and that all attempts to force people to pay income taxes are voluntary.
If that's the impression I gave, I was incorrect in how I presented the information. The truthful and factual information I've given about the Constitutionality 16th amendment and the legality of income taxation will never save someone in court because the courts will never rule against income taxes.
If it's not in effect, and has never been part of the Constitution then how can it be used in court?
Originally posted by Radar
What saves me and others like me in court is our knowledge of the law, courtroom procedures, and rules of evidence.
In other words, you're aiming to scam yourself out of court. It doesn't really matter what evidence you have about the 16th amendment being unconstitutional. It doesn't matter whether you're doing tax evasion or murder or burglary, because you are counting on tricky lawyers getting you out, and a bungling prosecution to give fodder to your tricky lawyers.
radar said: No part [of the Constitution] may be legally suspended by government. All of the constitution are applicable at all times.
So by this you mean that for the 2010 census we have to go back to enumerating four-fifths of all other persons excluding Indians not taxed?
Originally posted by Whit
If it's not in effect, and has never been part of the Constitution then how can it be used in court?
Because of the judicial conspiracy! Jesus, haven't you been paying attention?
Originally posted by Juju
Tell me something: when's the last time you were wrong about something?
Originally posted by Radar
I drove an hour and a half to one of the many freedom meetings I attend each month and after I got there I realized I had the wrong day of the month when nobody else was there.
<b>But I've never been wrong about any part of the constitution and I'm still not.</b>
Well, this is a real, physical event you're referring to. I was referring to your <i>views</i>, your opinions. Have you ever been in a debate and realized that the other person was right? Has anyone ever shown you that you were wrong about a particular political or philosophical ideal? Political conviction is an admirable trait, but realizing that you may be wrong is of equal importance. And I was just wondering if you possessed this ability. It doesn't have to be on the topics we've discussed. It could be any other political or philosophical ideal. Has anyone ever made you realize you'd been wrong about something?
I'm asking you if you possess the ability to admit you're wrong, and to cite an example.
Gee Radar, does the constitution say Big Bubba can't make you his bitch when the IRS and the crooked courts put you away? Don't forget to explain it to him.
In other words, you're aiming to scam yourself out of court.
No, I don't
SCAM myself or anyone else out of anything. There are 3 ways to win in court. The first is by arguing the law and this is impossible since the courts don't abide by the laws or their limited judicial powers. The second is courtroom procedure, and the third is evidence. It's not a scam to win in court based on any of these. Since we can't use the first because the courts won't hear arguments about the validity of the laws (see judicial conspiracy to protect the unconstitutional income tax) we've got to win using the other two methods. That's not a "scam" by any means.
Have you ever been in a debate and realized that the other person was right?
I think the real question you're asking is whether I have the intellectual honesty to change my opinion on a topic when presented with a decent enough argument and enough irrefutable facts to back it up. The answer is absolutely yes. It doesn't happen as often as it did when I was younger because my education and experience are much more vast. In fact there are very few people on earth with a more complete knowledge of the constitution than myself including most supreme court justices as is evident from their violations of the Constitution as it is written.
When I was younger I'd have been arguing along with you, but then I grew up. In fact as a kid I was very conservative and thought people who saw the government as an out of control, draconian monster were nutjobs. I had too many of these arguments to mention or single out at this time; mostly because there were so many they tend to blend together in my memory. I realized I was wrong when I had been presented with actual irrefutable proof of many governmental violations of the constitution, abuses of power, and cover-ups. It really hit home when Peter McWilliams was murdered by the governement for trying to save his own life. That's when I became a vocal activist and I swore to fight any violations of the constitution (especially the drug war) until my dying breath even if it meant taking back the government by force.
Because of the judicial conspiracy! Jesus, haven't you been paying attention?
Absolutely right and absolutely true.
Gee Radar, does the constitution say Big Bubba can't make you his bitch when the IRS and the crooked courts put you away? Don't forget to explain it to him.
Actually yes, the law does say that but luckily for me and for Bubba I won't ever have to explain anything to him because I'm in no danger what-so-ever of going to jail. George W. Bush is in far more danger of going to jail than I will ever be.
Radar: Sorry if it bothers you, but the 16th amendment IS NOT NOW, NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN PART OF THE CONSTITION! ... I'm saying it was never legally ratified and no court decisions to the contrary matter. And the 16th amendment goes directly against the body of the constitution and is therefore null and void according to the supreme court. So yes, I'm saying it's not in effect and that all attempts to force people to pay income taxes are voluntary... The truthful and factual information I've given about the Constitutionality 16th amendment and the legality of income taxation will never save someone in court because the courts will never rule against income taxes.
Me: If it's not in effect, and has never been part of the Constitution then how can it be used in court?
Juju (being a smartass):Because of the judicial conspiracy! Jesus, haven't you been paying attention?
Radar: Absolutely right and absolutely true.
No, I mean how can it come up in court at all? Radar says it never was in the Constitution so how can it be mentioned if it has never been in effect? Using it in court would be like using that atomaic death penalty for jay-walkers that was never brought up. It doesn't exist.
It really hit home when Peter McWilliams was murdered by the governement for trying to save his own life.
He choked on his own vomit in his own bathroom. To say that he was "murdered by the government" stretches the boundaries of the concept of "conspiracy" to the breaking point.
I'm way willing to accept the conspiracy explanation, usually.
Your movement needs better martyrs. This is just silly.
Originally posted by Radar
The first is by arguing the law and this is impossible since the courts don't abide by the laws or their limited judicial powers.
The tax court is the perfect example of this. How can someone be imprisoned for violating a law that is only law in the minds of the population, but *is* in fact enforced to perpetuate the myth.
If the police were arresting people for wearing blue shirts, eventually people would think that wearing them was illegal. The fact that there *could not* be a law preventing them from being worn is irrelevant. If the courts then upheld the convictions people would stop wearing blue shirts even though they know the (non)law is bullshit.
So in the case of the tax system, it's not law, it's the *WILL* of the gov't. It's the foundation of the power that they have hijacked and any court that ruled against it would be cutting it's own throat, regardless of the validity of the argument against the (non) law. The dominoes would start falling.
The masses are content with the current level of taxation, which means that if the country felt that it had to reinforce the semantics of the law, it could do so at will.
Such is the nature of power.
To really fight taxation in a country where the government is basically representative, you have to get the voters to desire actual change -- and not just loopholes. If the people WANTED to pay less tax, they would indicate it and the government would respond. The only way to get real change is to work it from the bottom up: get the people to desire it.
Originally posted by Undertoad
The masses are content with the current level of taxation,
Just for the record, I am not really at odds with the amount of the taxation. The Nazi styled system really aggrevates me though. If the system were simpler, people might take more notice of the level they are being taxed. At the same time, the people collectively arent concerned because they *take* so much from the gov't. That trend is not likely to change.
He choked on his own vomit in his own bathroom. To say that he was "murdered by the government" stretches the boundaries of the concept of "conspiracy" to the breaking point.
He was kept from the only medicine that could prevent the horrible nausea that he died from. Without his medicine he also couldn't keep his AIDS and cancer medication down even though he was legally allowed to grow and use it. If you have a diabetes and I keep you from your insuline and you die, I have committed murder.
He was also prevented from even mentioning the law, his condition, or the benefits of using the only medicine that could save his life. In short he was murdered by the government. This isn't an exaggeration or even a stretch. It's a cold, hard, indisputable fact.
Your movement needs better martyrs. This is just silly.
No, it's not silly when the U.S. government murders citizens who fight against their abuses of power and attacks on civil rights. Irv Rueben was also murdered by the government. I knew him personally.
Need more examples of the U.S. government eliminating people? How about Ruby Ridge or Waco? It happens all the time. Peter McWilliams was a great man, the author of the best book I've ever read, and a thorn in the side of the federal government so they silenced him.
If the police were arresting people for wearing blue shirts, eventually people would think that wearing them was illegal. The fact that there *could not* be a law preventing them from being worn is irrelevant. If the courts then upheld the convictions people would stop wearing blue shirts even though they know the (non)law is bullshit.
So in the case of the tax system, it's not law, it's the *WILL* of the gov't. It's the foundation of the power that they have hijacked and any court that ruled against it would be cutting it's own throat, regardless of the validity of the argument against the (non) law. The dominoes would start falling.
Very well said.
The masses are content with the current level of taxation
What color is the sky in your world? Here on earth it's blue and nobody is "content" with the current level of taxation.
If the people WANTED to pay less tax, they would indicate it and the government would respond.
The people DO want to pay less tax but our representatives don't care about what their constituents want, they care about what wealthy contributers to their campaign want.
If the police started arresting people for wearing blues shirts then those police would be penalized, the arrested individual woud be released, as well as begged not to sue and the case would never make it to court. Why? Because the law doesn't exist. Never has. Thus it can't come up in court. The 16th has come up, because it does exist, it is in effect. Again, if it should be in effect is another issue.
Again I request we not confuse these two issues. If it should be does not determine if it is.
So, I ask again without the connected quotes, how can it come up in court at all? Radar says it never was in the Constitution so how can it be mentioned if it has never been in effect? Using it in court would be like using the no blue shirt law. If it doesn't exist it can't come up.
Originally posted by Radar
What color is the sky in your world? Here on earth it's blue and nobody is "content" with the current level of taxation.
I am.
Seriously.
The people "want" to pay less tax but they also "want" greater number and quality of government services, and guess which one they demand in a louder voice.
Originally posted by Radar
I think the real question you're asking is whether I have the intellectual honesty to change my opinion on a topic when presented with a decent enough argument and enough irrefutable facts to back it up. The answer is absolutely yes. It doesn't happen as often as it did when I was younger because my education and experience are much more vast. In fact there are very few people on earth with a more complete knowledge of the constitution than myself including most supreme court justices as is evident from their violations of the Constitution as it is written.
That's exactly what I'm asking, and your answer is really very interesting.
Perhaps this shift in your error ratio has more to do with the fact[SIZE=1](*)[/SIZE] that you've stopped actively questioning your beliefs because of the confidence your education has given you. Maybe it's not so much that you stopped being wrong, but that you stopped asking yourself if you were wrong. Could this be the case?
It certainly seems logical that complete knowledge would bring about 100% accuracy on a given topic, but I ask you, how can you be 100% sure of your beliefs? How can anyone be 100% sure?
Also, there's a word we've been bandying about quite a bit lately, and none of us seem to agree on what objects match up to this word. That word is 'fact'. Usually, it's described as a 'cold, hard fact'. This gives it that extra push into 110% certainty. It's not a very useful concept, though, when one party is 110% sure of it's certainty, and the other party is 0-20% sure. I'd go so far as to say that it makes the concept basically useless.
What is a fact? What methods are you using to determine it? How do you know when something's a fact, and how do you know when it's only an opinion? What's the difference between the two? What are your standards of proof?
* - this is just an expression
He was kept from the only medicine that could prevent the horrible nausea that he died from.
No matter how you slice it, marjuana is not medicine. Also, even in the highly agitated and slanted accounts that i've read ... he didn't die of nausea. He died of an airway obstruction.
If he chose not to take compazine, cannibanol, or some other actual medicine, that was his choice.
... thorn in the side of the federal government so they silenced him.
I'm still not seeing HOW the federal government silenced someone in this instance. You might want to look up the definition of accident.
Unless you are alleging that the guys in the black helicopter forced him in some mysterious way to vomit and then choke on it, it was still an accident. Not a murder.
Originally posted by Whit
Using it in court would be like using the no blue shirt law. If it doesn't exist it can't come up.
The no blue shirt law only threatens the Blue Shirt Manufacturers and it's union, the 16th threatens the powerbase from your local manicipality to the White House.
I think it's clear that no one will fuck with that wide and powerful of a machine by ruling in favor of a tax protestor on the grounds that the non law is unconstitutional. If they did, they would be in jail or dead for some insider corruption or a slip in the shower.
Originally posted by wolf
black helicopter forced him in some mysterious way to vomit and then choke on it,
If anyone has more detailed info on this, e-mail me. I love a good conspiracy. :)
Originally posted by Undertoad
The people "want" to pay less tax but they also "want" greater number and quality of government services, and guess which one they demand in a louder voice.
This is sad but true. It seems that the world has either become so complicated that we cannot do more for ourselves, or we have lost our ambition and we want more from the gov't. In either case we lose political strength for the reduction of taxes.
If the police started arresting people for wearing blues shirts then those police would be penalized, the arrested individual woud be released, as well as begged not to sue and the case would never make it to court. Why? Because the law doesn't exist. Never has. Thus it can't come up in court. The 16th has come up, because it does exist, it is in effect. Again, if it should be in effect is another issue.
What if the courts wouldn't penalize the police who arrested people for wearing blue shirts and the congress and the president wanted to make life tougher for those who wear blue shirts? What if the courts wouldn't even allow cases regarding blue shirts to be heard? There is no law that makes paying income taxes mandatory and the courts don't want to allow challenges to the 16th amendment or other ways income taxes are unconstitutional because it endangers their power and that of the government.
Maybe it's not so much that you stopped being wrong, but that you stopped asking yourself if you were wrong. Could this be the case?
It could be, but it's not. I do question my own beliefs and I am 100% sure of my constitutional beleifs. Some people have a hard time comprehending how a person can be sure of anything but I am. These are the same type of people who have a hard time comprehending that we all live in one reality because there is only one reality. I have gone over my beliefs thousands of times from every angle and discussed them with thousands of people which has fine tuned them.
What is a fact? What methods are you using to determine it?
The Constitution was written. That's a fact. How do I know? Because I have it right here in front of me. And historical records show that it was written, who it was written by, and when it was written. It seems as though you live in a world of uncertainty even of facts. I don't have that problem. I know the difference between truth and lies, facts and fiction, reality and perceptions.
So, I ask again without the connected quotes, how can it come up in court at all? Radar says it never was in the Constitution so how can it be mentioned if it has never been in effect? Using it in court would be like using the no blue shirt law. If it doesn't exist it can't come up.
It can come up because Philander Knox fraudently claimed it had been ratified and the courts and politicians have conspired to prevent people from challenging it and have kept evidence proving the fraud out of the courtroom.
And it comes up because judges will say, "Don't you know everyone gets arrested for wearing blue shirts? Why should you be any different?" And the politicans who promote that judge tell him don't even think about overturning the blue shirt thing. So if one judge allowed someone to go to jail for the blue shirt thing, this judge won't even hear the case, he'll just refer to the other one.
No matter how you slice it, marjuana is not medicine.
You are either a liar, or an idiot. Cannibas has been used as a medicine for thousands of years. It was used in America as a medicine. No matter how you slice it or try to skate the issue, Cannibas (Marijuana) is a medicine and it's an effective one at that.
Also, even in the highly agitated and slanted accounts that i've read ... he didn't die of nausea. He died of an airway obstruction.
He choked to death on his own vomit from nausea that could have been prevented if he were given access to his medicine. Saying he died of an airway obstruction is like saying. The guy I shot didn't die because of the bullet ripping through him, he bled to death.
If he chose not to take compazine, cannibanol, or some other actual medicine, that was his choice.
He tried all other medicines for his nausea but they didn't work. How can you take a pill to stop nausea from taking pills? Nothing worked but the natural and LEGAL cannibas medicine he needed to survive but was prevented from taking.
I'm still not seeing HOW the federal government silenced someone in this instance. You might want to look up the definition of accident.
You might want to look up the word "murder". This is no different than if he had diabetes and the courts told him he couldn't take insuline. They prevented him from using his life saving medicine and that is murder.
Originally posted by Undertoad
The people "want" to pay less tax but they also "want" greater number and quality of government services, and guess which one they demand in a louder voice.
True. But these services are unconstitutional and the people aren't entitled to them. The huge number of collectivists and authoritarians (socialists, communists, fascists) push these things and they know people will fight to keep their handouts. People wanting services doesn't make those services legal or grant the government the authority to provide them.
Originally posted by Radar
The Constitution was written. That's a fact. How do I know? Because I have it right here in front of me. And historical records show that it was written, who it was written by, and when it was written.
Okay, I agree that it was written.
What gives the Constitution its authority?
Hey, let's go a different direction. Some quick questions for you.
- Does the Constitution support a ban on abortion?
- If a State enacts a ban on cross-burning, should the Supreme Court reject the ban on the basis of the first amendment, uphold the ban on the basis of the tenth, or ignore the issue entirely, against the supremacy clause?
- Are "three strikes" laws Constitutional?
cannabis
not cannibas.
~james
What if the courts wouldn't penalize the police who arrested people for wearing blue shirts and the congress and the president wanted to make life tougher for those who wear blue shirts? What if the courts wouldn't even allow cases regarding blue shirts to be heard?
This is an odd comparison since UT and Juju both linked to sites that had court chalenges to Tax cases.
It can come up because Philander Knox fraudently claimed it had been ratified and the courts and politicians have conspired to prevent people from challenging it and have kept evidence proving the fraud out of the courtroom.
See above.
I have gone over my beliefs thousands of times from every angle and discussed them with thousands of people which has fine tuned them.
I've seen some of your 'discussions' and you use alot of the same words and phrases that didn't convince anyone back then. Why not express your opinions better? I saw a two year old thread where you use that same swahili line that made a lot of us roll our eyes. If you've 'fine tuned' your arguments so much why do at least four or five people on this thread not get it?
Forgive me for not understanding how a case can not be heard in court while it has been heard in court, repeatedly, about a subject that is not in effect.
Oh yeah, and is the 16th amendment listed in the Constitution you keep with you?
kept evidence proving the fraud out of the courtroom.
And it comes up because judges will say, "Don't you know everyone gets arrested for wearing blue shirts? Why should you be any different?"
How the hell can the Judges say this if it's not in the courtroom??? Either it's in or out of the courts, which is it?
Also, let me reask something. How can a case not be heard in court while it has been heard in court, repeatedly, about a subject that is not in effect?
What gives the Constitution its authority?
All of the very LIMITED powers of government are listed in the constitution are given to government by the governed. The people give power to the government and that power is limited to solely what is specifically listed in the constitution and anything else is an illegal usurpation of power.
Does the Constitution support a ban on abortion?
The constitution doesn't specifically mention abortion so the federal government has no authority in this matter nor could an amendment be created to grant this authority because individuals don't have the authority to tell someone else whether or not they must give birth so the government can't be given this power. Government at any level has no authority to tell anyone what they must or must not do with thier own bodies (abortion, suicide, drug use, prostitution, etc.)
If a State enacts a ban on cross-burning, should the Supreme Court reject the ban on the basis of the first amendment, uphold the ban on the basis of the tenth, or ignore the issue entirely, against the supremacy clause?
States may not ban cross burning (as long as the cross is burned on your own property) because it's protected under the 1st amendment and the 10th amendment as a right of individuals to express themselves freely.
Are "three strikes" laws Constitutional?
It's absolutely unconstitutional even though the USSC voted the other way on this issue. It goes against the 8th amendment and removes judicial discretion.
This is an odd comparison since UT and Juju both linked to sites that had court chalenges to Tax cases.
None at the supreme court and as I've said the courts routinely make unconstitutional rulings to support the unconstitutional income tax.
I've seen some of your 'discussions' and you use alot of the same words and phrases that didn't convince anyone back then.
First off you don't speak for everyone else. And if it didn't convince you, it's only because you're beyond convincing. You wouldn't admit you were wrong even though you are on most topics.
I saw a two year old thread where you use that same swahili line that made a lot of us roll our eyes
It's still a good line and it still makes great sense. If it's not broke, don't fix it.
If you've 'fine tuned' your arguments so much why do at least four or five people on this thread not get it?
Because they're idiots.
Oh yeah, and is the 16th amendment listed in the Constitution you keep with you?
Yes it is. Does that mean it was legally ratified? Not at all.
Also, let me reask something. How cam a case not be heard in court while it has been heard in court, repeatedly, about a subject that is not in effect?
Let's go back to the blue shirt example. This is how it can go to court but not be addressed. I am arrested for wearing a blue shirt. While in court I say, "Hey there's no law against wearing a blue shirt!" And the judge mentions another case where a judge said arresting people for wearing blue shirts was just fine and then refuses to hear any evidence or argue about whether or not there is actually a law about wearing blue shirts.
cannabis
not cannibas.
What the hell is with you people and typos or spelling errors? You knew what I meant so shut the hell up. No matter how it's spelled, it's been used as a medication for thousands of years by virtually all cultures on earth.
Please show me a topic I'm wrong on. Know, however, I will not accept your say so that I'm wrong without you backing it up. Saying "You are wrong!" is not proof, it is however all I've seen you do.
Let's go back to the blue shirt example.
So the very first time it was in court the judge referenceces a previous case? Neat!
First off you don't speak for everyone else.
I spoke poorly. I should have said, "You didn't convince anyone in that thread, that admitted it anyway." By the by, you often speak for everyone. Isn't this a double standard?
It's still a good line and it still makes great sense. If it's not broke, don't fix it.
That's kind of my point. People have been making fun of that line. I thought you might want to try something more persuasive in the future. It was actully an attempt at being constructive. Sigh.
What the hell is with you people and typos or spelling errors? You knew what I meant so shut the hell up.
Of course they do. You are being made fun of. If you have a valid point it's so submerged in name calling and bluster that you've become an object of ridicule. I have tried to see you point and repeatedly been called names for my trouble. Quit acting tough and talk. Answer questions without repeating yourself. Clarify when people don't understand instead of calling them idiots. I'm willing to learn, but your 'proof' has consistently been entirely your say so. That's not good enough. Please give me more than some other guys say so as well.
Originally posted by Radar
What the hell is with you people and typos or spelling errors? You knew what I meant so shut the hell up. No matter how it's spelled, it's been used as a medication for thousands of years by virtually all cultures on earth.
its not so much the misspelling as it is the fact that i dont like you.
~james
Originally posted by Radar
All of the very LIMITED powers of government are listed in the constitution are given to government by the governed. The people give power to the government
You're saying that government's authority is given to it by the people. So, are you "the people", or are you "a person"?
If 99.9% of U.S. citizens grant the government the authority to tax them, it's not your place to withdraw that entire collective authority yourself. If you can't convince everyone else to agree with your views, your only recourse is to either submit to the tax, become a criminal, or leave the country.
Originally posted by Radar
and that power is limited to solely what is specifically listed in the constitution and anything else is an illegal usurpation of power.
I disagree. The people will rule themselves as they see fit. The constitution is just a document that everyone agrees to abide by. If the people collectively decide that they want to be ruled in a certain way, no imaginary rule is going to stop them, because the people create and destroy the rules themselves.
Originally posted by Radar
The constitution doesn't specifically mention abortion so the federal government has no authority in this matter nor could an amendment be created to grant this authority because individuals don't have the authority to tell someone else whether or not they must give birth so the government can't be given this power. Government at any level has no authority to tell anyone what they must or must not do with thier own bodies (abortion, suicide, drug use, prostitution, etc.)
'Authority' is defined on dictionary.com as: <blockquote><i>The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.</i></blockquote>
Any person or group who has the ability to force you to do something has authority over you. The government has repeatedly forced people to do certain things with their bodies, because they have lots of guns and the consent of the majority of the public. Therefore, they have the authority to do so.
You're saying that government's authority is given to it by the people. So, are you "the people", or are you "a person"?
There is no such entity as "government". The phrase "the people" refers to a collection of individuals but there is no collective that has rights. Only the individual rights of people.
I am a person, but I'm not "the people" and neither is anyone else.
If 99.9% of U.S. citizens grant the government the authority to tax them, it's not your place to withdraw that entire collective authority yourself.
Except 99.9% of people don't grant the government that authority. 1 out of every 3 people in America doesn't file income tax returns. And many of those that do, only do so under duress for fear of being one of the people unjustly attacked by the government for not submitting to thier violation of the constitution.
If you can't convince everyone else to agree with your views, your only recourse is to either submit to the tax, become a criminal, or leave the country.
I don't need to convince anyone of anything. I do my best to show them the truth, but if someone is blind or refuses to look I can't do it for them. I'm also not a criminal if I break an unconstitutional law that the government has no authority to make. If the government suddenly made a law that all girls under the age of 15 must be sterilized and you don't, you are not a criminal. Those who made the law are criminals because they have violated the constitution. If I don't pay income taxes, I'm not a criminal. Those who support the fraudelent 16th amendment are criminals.
I disagree.
Then you need to read the 10th amendment.
If the people collectively decide that they want to be ruled in a certain way, no imaginary rule is going to stop them, because the people create and destroy the rules themselves.
The people didn't decide they wanted their income to be taxed. And even if every other person in America other than myself decided they did want thier income to be taxed, it wouldn't give them the authority to tax my income. What I earn is mine and the government isn't entitled to any part of it.
I'm not against taxes, just income based taxes. I'll still pay the excise taxes, tariffs, sales, tax, etc. that everyone else pays.
'Authority' is defined on dictionary.com as:
The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.
You
CONVENIENTLY left out the more appropriate definitions from that site. Let me help you choose the correct definition.
1.
a. The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.
b. One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials: land titles issued by the civil authority.
2. Power assigned to another; authorization: Deputies were given authority to make arrests.
3. A public agency or corporation with administrative powers in a specified field: a city transit authority.
4.
a. An accepted source of expert information or advice: a noted authority on birds; a reference book often cited as an authority.
b. A quotation or citation from such a source: biblical authorities for a moral argument.
5. Justification; grounds: On what authority do you make such a claim?
6. A conclusive statement or decision that may be taken as a guide or precedent.
7. Power to influence or persuade resulting from knowledge or experience: political observers who acquire authority with age.
8. Confidence derived from experience or practice; firm self-assurance: played the sonata with authority.
Originally posted by Radar
You [b]CONVENIENTLY left out the more appropriate definitions from that site. Let me help you choose the correct definition.[/B]
If the criteria fits any of the numbered entries, then the word applies. The numbered definititons are separated by logical ORs, not ANDs. Furthermore, entry 1b builds on entry 1a. It's an elaboration (see the phrase 'this power').
Originally posted by Whit
I have tried to see you point and repeatedly been called names for my trouble. Quit acting tough and talk. Answer questions without repeating yourself. Clarify when people don't understand instead of calling them idiots.
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.
Because they're idiots.
[SIZE=3]BINGO![/SIZE]
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.
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.
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.
<b>There is no such entity as "government". </b>
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.
<b>The phrase "the people" refers to a collection of individuals but there is no collective that has rights. Only the individual rights of people.</b>
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.
<b>Except 99.9% of people don't grant the government that authority. 1 out of every 3 people in America doesn't file income tax returns. And many of those that do, only do so under duress for fear of being one of the people unjustly attacked by the government for not submitting to thier violation of the constitution.</b>
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.
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.
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.
If the government can force people to do something, then they have the authority to do so.
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.
Originally posted by Radar
Absolutely false. All humans are born with rights. They get these rights from their respective creators and not from government or from other 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?
Well, most of my points came directly from your quotes. So yeah, they're basesless. :D
The group that I'm a part of has a team of lawyers and represents people all the way to the supreme court.
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?
While were on the subject Radar has said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America was built by freedom loving tax protestors
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I find this interesting since I thought the bitch was "Taxation without Representation," not just not wanting to pay taxes. So either my books in school were intentionally misleading or you are. Somebody has taken to telling half-truths.
You responded with:
Do you think the will of the people is being adequately represented by our elected officials? Most people don't including myself.
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?
Radar: And the judge mentions another case where a judge said arresting people for wearing blue shirts was just fine and then refuses to hear any evidence or argue about whether or not there is actually a law about wearing blue shirts.
Me: So the very first time it was in court the judge referenceces a previous case? Neat!
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'.
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.
So, Radar, show me where I've lied. Quote it to me or I will accept your claim that I lied as another lie.
One last thing.
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 think somebody needs a hug.
Originally posted by Radar
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.
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.
Originally posted by Radar
Absolutely false. All humans are born with rights.
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.
Originally posted by Radar
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.
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.
Originally posted by Radar
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.
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).
Originally posted by Juju
<b>If the government can force people to do something, then they have the authority to do so.</b>
Originally posted by Radar
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.
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.
There is no such entity as "government".
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.
That really pisses people off.
And that, my friends, is exactly what he wants.
I don't think anyone is pissed here. Personally, I find it really interesting.
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.
It's funny how a "brainless" guy like me knows these old lines. I've been hearing them for a long time.
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?
Disadvantaged people don't have less rights than wealthy people. And nobody is owed anything simply based on their need.
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?
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.
So was the issue "taxes" or "Taxation without representation?" Oh wait you already said taxation.
No, I said INCOME 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?
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.
Um, with your vast knowledge could you address that you say the first time it's in court the court referenced a previous case?
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.
This was supposed to be longer, but a chic-friend of mine needs someone to light her hot water heater.
You're a liar. You have no friends.
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.
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.
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.
See above for proof. Either that or look at the world around you. Natural rights are self-evident.
Obviously, the government does do these things (I hope we can agree on that).
We do 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.
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.
No, the government can do whatever it can get away with. It's power is not limited by your imaginary 'rights'.
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.
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.
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.
But if, as I'm assuming your saying, there really is NO government where the hell do our rules/laws come from.
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.
It's funny how a "brainless" guy like me knows these old lines. I've been hearing them for a long time.
And yet they haven't sunk in to your thick skull.
whit asked:
Oh yeah, and is the 16th amendment listed in the Constitution you keep with you?
No, it's not. He redacted it, as well as made other "corrections" in his copy.
This is what you said.
The group that I'm a part of has a team of lawyers and represents people all the way to the supreme court.
This is what you say you said.
I haven't lied. I said we would represents people all the way to the supreme court and we will.
You changed tenses, you sly dog you. Wait, let me try, "You make sense!" "No, I said You WILL make sense!" No, damn, I messed it up. Both are wrong.
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.
Nope, I was talking about the first time a blue shirt case goes to court. You came up with the mutiples of court cases on your own. I just questioned it.
No, I said INCOME taxation.
This still leaves out half the story. It's still a half-truth at best. A half truth is still not the truth.
You're a liar. You have no friends.
Dude, that is freakin' hilarious! Wait a minute, have you been messin' with us this whole time? Saying crazy shit, to see how long you could string us along? Damn, we've been had!
You changed tenses, you sly dog you. Wait, let me try, "You make sense!" "No, I said You WILL make sense!" No, damn, I messed it up. Both are wrong.'
Let me clear it up for you.
We do represent people in court and will continue to do so all the way to the supreme court if we can get them to take our cases.
This still leaves out half the story. It's still a half-truth at best. A half truth is still not the truth.
It's all truth. My entire statement is true. The founding fathers were tax protestors. They were also protesters about the level of representation they had in government but that doesn't make them any less of tax protestors.
We do represent people in court and will continue to do so all the way to the supreme court if we can get them to take our cases.
Ah, that makes sense. That's what you should have said in the first place. That's an admirable goal. Good luck with that. One warning, if you go into court mouthing off like you do in here you'll be tossed out. Good luck.
Saying the founding fathers were tax protestors in a discussion about taxes suggests that representation wasn't an issue. It's deliberately misleading.
Sorry to keep the thread going.
I think Juju pegged part of the real disconnect here and then the discussion went the wrong direction.
Radar wants a government that doesn't represent what the people want - or one that forces the "correct" choices (i.e., his choices) on a public that won't volunteer for them.
Radar's philosophy may well be absolutely correct. It is, fortunately or unfortunately, not shared with the majority, and so there is a Problem.
Is it tyrannical to establish a set of rules that the majority does not agree with, in order to maintain a set of abstract principles that may be absolutely correct?
Is it even possible? I don't think the people would accept Radar's non-Government; I think they would abandon it quickly and establish a new one that represents their wishes.
I notice that many of the very authors of the Absolutely Correct Constitution were slave owners? Jefferson, Mason, Washington, Madison, all slave owners. How to square the idea that the very authors of this very rigid document should have been prosecuted under it?
How to square the idea that the LP and CP have, on occasion, put up Constitutional hardasses in free elections and these candidates have always been routed?
In the world of ideas, compromise is poison. In the real world, it is the antidote.
Radar wants a government that doesn't represent what the people want - or one that forces the "correct" choices (i.e., his choices) on a public that won't volunteer for them.
I want no such thing. i don't want to force anything on anyone but I also don't want it forced on me. The people of America didn't choose to have their income taxed and most would like income taxes to disappear. Most know paying income tax is not a patriotic duty and they're not even necessary.
What many of you fail to grasp is that the majority does not always rule and that the powers of government may not exceed the rights of individuals. Although the majority of Americans do agree with the constitution and all of the limits it places on the powers of government.
Is it tyrannical to establish a set of rules that the majority does not agree with, in order to maintain a set of abstract principles that may be absolutely correct?
Let's say yes. And that being said it must be tyrranical to force Americans to pay income taxes when the majority of Americans don't agree with them. Claiming that the majority always rules over the minority is also tyrranical. So is a government with unlimited power.
Is it even possible? I don't think the people would accept Radar's non-Government; I think they would abandon it quickly and establish a new one that represents their wishes.
I'm not an anarchist in any sense of the term. I recognize the need for governemnt and also the need to keep it as small as possible to do only what is listed in the constitution to prevent the tyrrany already mentioned. And yes, the people would accept it as they did for over 100 years when this country started.
I notice that many of the very authors of the Absolutely Correct Constitution were slave owners? Jefferson, Mason, Washington, Madison, all slave owners. How to square the idea that the very authors of this very rigid document should have been prosecuted under it?
Typical lame "white slave owner" comment. The founding fathers risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to promote liberty and freedom (as they were back then) for everyone. Slaves were considered property at the time and not people and women weren't considered fit to vote. But the founders did know that they didn't know everything and that's why they designed the constitution so it could be amended but wanted changes to be taken seriously so they made it difficult to pass an amendment (which is why government now violates the constitution rather than try to amend it - see war powers act, patriot act, etc.). That is why the constitution is just as relevant, and perfect today as the day it was written.
How to square the idea that the LP and CP have, on occasion, put up Constitutional hardasses in free elections and these candidates have always been routed?
Easy to square. The LP doesn't accept dirty money and the major two parties take every step to ensure to keep the LP out of important debates (because they know they'd get thier asses handed to them), and outspend the LP in every race using money stolen from the American public.
In the world of ideas, compromise is poison. In the real world, it is the antidote.
No, it's poison in the real world too, but it's slow acting poison like ciggarettes.
In Pennsylvania the minor party candidates are almost always included in every debate from Governor on down. It doesn't make a difference. In Pennsylvania they do not hand out any public money for campaigns. It doesn't make a difference.
The public has been offered your deal and has rejected it. They don't care about the income tax. People are polled about what they consider to be the important issues of the day and taxation is never on their list. (Please, push-polling doesn't count.)
I'm not sure about the founding fathers' nobility. I would like to think they were the great people we assume they were, and not just that they got lucky. Maybe they had the remarkable insight to construct a "perfect" foundation of human rights whilst
not knowing exactly what a human was. But you can't look at history through such rose-colored glasses. There was an anti-slavery movement at the time; it started in Europe at about the same time as the American Revolution. Why didn't it start here, in the "birthplace of freedom"?
. o O o .
The question may not be whether it is right to establish a philosophically-correct but unrepresentational government, but whether it's even possible to maintain such a thing.
After all, how would one go about it?
One good way would be to gather the most freedom-oriented guys in a room, declare independence from the controlling doofuses, fight them until they tire of it. Then write a really libertarian founding document -- some would say a "perfect" document -- and set the thing in motion.
But history tells us that, after enough years of such an experiment, the people will inevitably find a way to get approximately the government they WANT, not the government that is dictated to them, no matter how hard-ass the founders are or how stringent the wording of their founding document.
I want no such thing. i don't want to force anything on anyone
You've been talking about a second revolution. If war isn't forcing your views what is?
There was an anti-slavery movement at the time; it started in Europe at about the same time as the American Revolution. Why didn't it start here, in the "birthplace of freedom"?
When my kin moved from Boston to Weathersfield, CT in the early 1630's. slaves were prohibited in many communities. It's the birds of a feather thing. Sentiment was both polar and strong. They weren't shy about castigating those they disagreed with either.
Originally posted by Whit
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.
It's funny how a "brainless" guy like me knows these old lines. I've been hearing them for a long time.
I'm still considering my other response, but since you requested this, here it is. :)
---- New Conversation @ Mon Apr 21 17:51:38 2003 ----
[..]
(17:54:36) juju: "There is no such entity as "government""
(17:54:44) juju: What do you think he meant by this statement?
(17:54:48) whit: Sigh.
(17:54:53) juju: It's obviously false.
(17:56:02) whit: It's an old bullshit line. He means that the goverment is made up of individual people not a thing onto itself. You can't hold it, so it aint.
(17:57:40) whit: It's a cheap cop-out.
(17:59:26) juju: oh
(17:59:33) juju: thanks.
(18:03:26) whit: Anytime.
[..]
Interesting. I guess he actually posted his explanation a few minutes before Whit explained it. It's not like we're refreshing the page every 60 seconds, though, so don't think there's any dishonesty there.
It took you guys 9 minutes to have that conversation.
Everyone's a critic. Actually it lasted longer, 'cause we said other stuff before and after that.
You've been talking about a second revolution. If war isn't forcing your views what is?
It wouldn't be a war to force my views on others but rather to stop them from forcing theirs on me. I would be forcing government to stick to the Constitution. They will follow the rules even if blood must be spilled to make it happen. The government works for us and will do only those things the people have authorized them to do and the only thing the federal government is authorized to do by the people are the things specifically listed in the Constitution.
The government doesn't represent the will of the American people. Americans don't think income taxes are a good idea and never voted to have them. You think because people haven't revolted they are fine with taxes and you couldn't be further from the truth.
(17:56:02) whit: It's an old bullshit line. He means that the goverment is made up of individual people not a thing onto itself. You can't hold it, so it aint.
(17:57:40) whit: It's a cheap cop-out.
It's not a cop out, it's a fact whether you like it or not.
Sadly there are too many fools who read the constitution for what they want it to be instead of reading it for what it says like myself.
See Radar I think your missing the point of democracy, it's that the will of the people is represented, and the general will of the people is that things stay the pretty much the way they are. Yeah everyone wishes they could change something, be it the tax system or how the president is elected, but unless more than just a few people rs stand up and say they want it changed everything is going to stay the same, that's becuase it's the people will.
It doesn't matter what was written down on a piece of paper and called a constitution all those years ago, that was just a guidline, if the majority of people in the US decided that we don't have the right to bear arms then we won't have the right to bear arms. It's more complicated then that obviously but in the end majority does rule and it doesn't matter if you feel your right or not.
Of course it's a cheap cop-out. By your logic a car doesn't exist, you might touch a fender, or a windshield but that isn't the car. It's not only a cop-out, it's a cheap, poor one at that. The only people that use lines like that are fantics, existentialists and people that want to argue but can't come up with something reasonable. Notice I said argue, not discuss.
Also, if the goverment doesn't exist, how can you revolt?
When you talk about war you're talking about a lot of innocent poeple dieing. You can say you're only killing the people that are seeking to illegaly dominate you, but those aren't the only people that will die. Also, you're setting yourself up as the one that will pass judgment on people. You are speaking of being the judge, jury and executioner. That is ultimately unamerican. You are talking about murder.
It doesn't matter what was written down on a piece of paper and called a constitution all those years ago, that was just a guidline, if the majority of people in the US decided that we don't have the right to bear arms then we won't have the right to bear arms. It's more complicated then that obviously but in the end majority does rule and it doesn't matter if you feel your right or not.
Cam, you seem unable to grasp the concept that people are born with rights. We don't get those rights from the government or from other people in our country. We're born with them and they can't be taken away from us or even given away. There are certain areas where the majority has no authority over individuals. And it absolutely matters what is written on the constitution and it's more than a "guideline". Laws aren't guidelines or the government wouldn't arrest people when they broke the law. The constitution is the highest law in the land and can't be crossed or none of our government is worth a thing. It's the foundation of our government and our law and if you mess with it, everything crashes around us.
One of the rights we're all born with is the right to live. And if we have a right to life, we have a right to defend that life any way we see fit and that includes the right to keep and bear arms even if every single person in America other than myself voted to eliminate gun ownership, it would still be my right and the law would be unconstitutional and illegal.
There are some areas where the majority doesn't rule and has no power. The people in America don't support income taxes. It's a far stretch of the imagination to suggest they do simply because they choose to do it out of the fear of going to jail. It would be like me putting a gun to your head and robbing you and saying, "He wanted to give me the money."
Also, if the goverment doesn't exist, how can you revolt?
I didn't say government doesn't exist, it just doesn't exist as a being with rights. "society" has no rights. Only individuals do. And government has no powers other than those specifically listed in the constitution. Government, like a corporation, is simply an organizational structure but not an actual being.
When you talk about war you're talking about a lot of innocent poeple dieing. You can say you're only killing the people that are seeking to illegaly dominate you, but those aren't the only people that will die. Also, you're setting yourself up as the one that will pass judgment on people. You are speaking of being the judge, jury and executioner. That is ultimately unamerican. You are talking about murder.
If a slave kills their master is it murder? Was it murder when the founding fathers fought against their British oppressors? Of course it isn't. On a battle field if a soldier kills an opposing soldier, is it murder? Has that soldier set themselves up as judge, jury, and executioner? Not at all.
As the founding fathers have said...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
So the peoples will means nothing, it's just something to laugh at while pointing at the constitution and saying "this is what they said and they knew how the world was going to turn out so we can't possibly go against it". Seriously man the Constitution is a piece of paper, people make laws, people enforce laws, people decide what's right and wrong, a piece of paper is just that, yeah it means a lot, I love the Constitution it's a hell of a document, one of the greatest ever written, but just like the Articles of the Confederation, if people decide they don't like the Constitution it's gone that's what democracy is all about.
Originally posted by Radar
The people in America don't support income taxes. It's a far stretch of the imagination to suggest they do simply because they choose to do it out of the fear of going to jail. It would be like me putting a gun to your head and robbing you and saying, "He wanted to give me the money."
Who are these people you keep refering to? yeah I don't like paying taxes and most people don't, but I don't know many people who are completely against them as you seem to think they are.
Originally posted by Radar
If a slave kills their master is it murder?
Yes. It may be justifiable, but it is still murder. I'll get back to you on the other questions.
Originally posted by Radar
There are some areas where the majority doesn't rule and has no power. The people in America don't support income taxes. It's a far stretch of the imagination to suggest they do simply because they choose to do it out of the fear of going to jail. It would be like me putting a gun to your head and robbing you and saying, "He wanted to give me the money."
That's funny and I agree. Since the income tax is "undefeatable" , meaning there hasn't been any legal challenge to it's validity in the USSC, the masses have given up on changing it. That doesnt mean (to me) that they arent opposed to it, it means they have chosen other battles that seem more possible to win.
If a slave kills their master is it murder? Was it murder when the founding fathers fought against their British oppressors? Of course it isn't. On a battle field if a soldier kills an opposing soldier, is it murder? Has that soldier set themselves up as judge, jury, and executioner? Not at all.
There is no monarchy ignoring people across the sea. There is no vicious slaver cracking a whip. There is no 'Proffesor Darkevil' trying to take over the world. Well, Bush might want to but he doesn't have the time in office left...
Yes, there are corrupt people in the system. But there is no way every Judge in the US is a bad person. Most of the people in the system at least start off trying to do some good. Many believe they are doing the right thing. They are trying to do the best for the people they can. Instead of voting for better people you want to shoot the ones that are in now. Is paying taxes (or not, in your case) enough to shoot another man? As oposed to continuing to work through the system?
You make it sound like you are going to line up and face down the US military and smite them with your rightousness.
You are not talking about reform, you are talking about destruction. Killing fathers and mothers that, in many cases, are just as sure that they are following the Constitution as you are. The difference is that they work in the system to accoplish what they think are improvements. You say you'll shoot them.
The odd part is that you can't see that calling us idiots for not agreeing with everything you say is against the very idea "all men are created equal." You are not the first person to say that. Like too many off them your suggested actions add, "But some are more equal than others."
From the beginning of this you've made your superiority clear. We can't understand because we are idiots. So we should listen to your "vast" knowledge and experience. No, all of us are equalls. We have a right to ideas different than yours without the threat of war. You say that they are wrong because they threaten to jail anyone that doesn't so as told. You threaten revolution. You have certainly proven yourself superior to them. You'll kill instead of jail. Way to go.
You'll kill instead of jail. Way to go.
Looks like Radar and Big Bubba will grow old together.
The people I talk to (and me) don't object to paying income tax. We do grumble about how much of what they collect is wasted on stupid shit. You here all the time about pork barrel projects and studies on the sex life of slugs. That's what annoys "We the people".
I meant hear:blush:
Well, if you do initiate the revolution, I hope you'll spare President Bush. He's a good man, and doesn't deserve death, even if he does command the army to kill you.
Originally posted by Radar
Income taxation is indeed robbery... blahblahblah
I can't believe I'm just now remembering to post this, but I think Radar lives just down the street from me. Have a look at his newsprint debut:
I bet Gandhi would have had lunch.
Here's my argument about taxes:
Let it be known that I hate to pay them as much as the next guy. Let it also be known that I hate having to search for ways to keep as much of my earned money as possible. Let's assume for a minute that taxes were abolished due, in part, to Radar's (flawed) sense of federal law among other things. So now I, along with my neighbors, the people reading this and everyone else that bothers to pay, have more expendible money. What can I do with all this money? SPEND IT, OF COURSE!! What do my neighbors plan to do? Well, after they move as far away from me as possible and into their grand, brand new estate double-size double-wide, they go out and buy a Caddy fo' the Daddy. What do I do? The exact same thing. Now we're all spending the extra 15-28% "extra" that we have. (The rich don't need to spend their 34% -- they're rich!) How long does it take before inflation catches up to the surplus of cash in the economy? Just about the time you reach for the post-dated jug of milk, the pimple-faced stocker boy is changing the price stick to read 6$. Yippe! But that doesn't matter, because I have "extra" money that Uncle Sam was trying to spend on defense projects that created contracts, which in turn created jobs. That in turn killed the projects, so now Dave has a lot of free time on his hands to conjure up a new-fangled credit company that is just about necessary to pay for a trip to the movies (like it isn't already), because too many people went out and spent their "extra" money without realising that inflation has an impact on Fed rates and, therefore, interest rates. So now my neighbors are forced to move back into the place next to me and make their kids drive around in an older model Grampa-mobile. But that doesn't matter, because we don't have to pay taxes anymore!
I was going to say that, and now I wish I had.
Many believe they are doing the right thing.
The right thing never includes violating the Constitution.
There is no monarchy ignoring people across the sea.
No, there's a government right here ignoring the will of the people.
There is no vicious slaver cracking a whip.
No, now the slave masters use guns and call themselves the IRS
There is no 'Proffesor Darkevil' trying to take over the
world.
George W. Bush and legions of other collectivists and imperialists are
trying to.
Well, Bush might want to but he doesn't have the time in office
left...
He violated the Constitution more than all other presidents combined in less than his first 2 years and nearly got us into WW3 in his first year. And let's not forget that not getting elected didn't stop him from getting in the oval office in 2000.
But there is no way every Judge in the US is a bad person.
I didn't say they were bad people and I didn't say all of them. There are a few decent judges out there. But many of them take part in the judicial conspiracy to defend taxation because they are frightened of spilling the apple cart. They don't want to be the judge responsible for ending the fraud of income taxes. And many of them are prevented from even trying by the IRS statutes which state they have no jurisdiction.
Many believe they are doing the right thing. They are trying to do the best for the people they can.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Instead of voting for better people you want to shoot the ones that are in now. Is paying taxes (or not, in your case) enough to shoot another man? As oposed to continuing to work through the system?
As I've said, I have nothing against taxes. I'm only against income taxes. And yes, if someone enslaves or robs me and my loved ones, it's enough to shoot another man. If someone attacks me and my civil rights, it's enough to shoot another man. If someone takes away every avenue for me to challenge the injustice they've done to me, it's enough for me to shoot them. If someone commits extortion against me at the point of a gun and then has the gall to ask for my allegiance, it's enough for me to shoot them. If they murder others around me when they try to stand up for their rights, it's enough for me to shoot them.
When the government doesn't abide by the rules created for the system, how can I use the system to fix government?
You make it sound like you are going to line up and face down the
US military and smite them with your rightousness.
First off there are MILLIONS of other Americans who feel like I do. And do you really think the American military will fire on their own families? Even when ordered to do so, very few will. And I'll be armed with a lot more than righteous indignation.
You are not talking about reform, you are talking about
destruction. Killing fathers and mothers that, in many cases, are just
as sure that they are following the Constitution as you are. The
difference is that they work in the system to accoplish what they think
are improvements. You say you'll shoot them.
No, I don't have to shoot them. In fact I'd like us to handle the revolution without a single drop of blood spilled or a single person opposing us. It's not going to be me and others like me indiscriminately killing other Americans. We would take over the government and wouldn't kill unless someone opposed us with weapons which we of course anticipate. And they aren't accomplishing anything from within the corrupt system. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
The odd part is that you can't see that calling us idiots for not agreeing with everything you say is against the very idea "all men are created equal."
I don't call you idiots for not agreeing with me. I call you idiots for your belief that the government has unlimited power and that as long as the general populace wants something, it's within their right to vote for it and have it. And when I call you an idiot, it doesn't go against the idea of all men being created equal. All men aren't of equal skills or capacities, but all are created with equal rights.
No, all of us are equalls. We have a right to ideas different than yours without the threat of war.
Yes, you have the right to have any ideas you wish. But you don't have the right to use legislation to push them on to me or other Americans. The role and powers of government is limited to only what is written in the constitution. And I only want to return America to a Constitutional republic. And as long as you don't oppose that end, you have nothing to
fear.
You have certainly proven yourself superior to them. You'll kill instead of jail. Way to go.
I certainly have. There are those who will allow themselves to be enslaved and those who will fight for freedom. The founding fathers said that our right to freedom and liberty were more important than our lives.
Ben Franklin said it best...
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
-- Benjamin Franklin
Well, if you do initiate the revolution, I hope you'll spare President Bush. He's a good man, and doesn't deserve death, even if he does command the army to kill you.[/quote]
There's nothing good about GWB. George W. Bush is the single worst President in American history and he's a coward. He's responsible for the worst attacks on our civil rights in the history of America. He'd be the first one I would take out.
Let's assume for a minute that taxes were abolished due, in part, to Radar's (flawed) sense of federal law among other things.
There are no flaws in my logic or my sense of federal law.
So now I, along with my neighbors, the people reading this and everyone else that bothers to pay, have more expendible money. What can I do with all this money? SPEND IT, OF COURSE!!
Yes. You can spend it on your retirement fund, invest it, or put it in the bank. You can spend it to send your children to better schools that teach what you want them to know. You can get better health coverage. You can give some money to the charities you want to support. You can do all of the unconstitutional things that the government has illegally stuck their noses into and wrecked. You can buy a new house, car, or other products and services that will stimulate the economy and create a thousand jobs for every "defense" job that would have been created otherwise and people would be free to live thier lives their own way without having their hard-earned income stolen from them and pissed away on unconstitutional social programs.
Here's hoping somebody signed his non-initiation of force pledge. You've officially scared the hell out of me.
Originally posted by Radar
Yes. You can spend it on your retirement fund, invest it, or put it in the bank. You can spend it to send your children to better schools that teach what you want them to know. You can get better health coverage. You can give some money to the charities you want to support. You can do all of the unconstitutional things that the government has illegally stuck their noses into and wrecked. You can buy a new house, car, or other products and services that will stimulate the economy and create a thousand jobs for every "defense" job that would have been created otherwise and people would be free to live thier lives their own way without having their hard-earned income stolen from them and pissed away on unconstitutional social programs.
I guess you're such an ignorant schlub that you didn't even realize there was more to the post. The point is that you won't get anywhere with this "extra" money once inflation takes over. Sure you'll have a nice, cool coupla thousand to kill, but you'll also start seeing interest rates climb sky-high, and staple items will become more that you care to bargain for.
I'm sure that Radar has interpreted the meaning of the pledge as fits his liking, and not as author David Nolan originally intended. That pledge is for LP joiners:
I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.
Nolan originally wrote the pledge in 1972 as a way to ensure that the party did not become a magnet for violent extremists. He has been asked about this, and he has verified it.
Unfortunately, he wrote it in the lingua franca of the Ayn Rand-fueled high philosophers, and that part of the LP decided that it was a high philosophical pledge, not a warning not to take up guns.
Radar will prefer that approach to it, and will sign it with the notion that taking up guns against the government is just fine since the government was the one to initiate the force.
That's right. The government is initiating the force and I've been working peacefully within the system and will continue to do so until it can't be done anymore and that window is closing quickly.
Perhaps you can explain how one can work within the "system" to change the system when the "system" doesn't even abide by the rules of the system.
It's like trying to play a poker game where people make the rules up as they go along. There is no way to win. Except in this case the rules have been established but they are simply cheating. And when someone like me wants to stop the cheating and bring us back to an honest game, you think I'm the nutty guy. You want to allow the other player to cheat at the game and rob us, while I'm willing to stand up and ensure the game is fair for everyone.
Originally posted by Radar
It's like trying to play a poker game where people make the rules up as they go along. There is no way to win. Except in this case the rules have been established but they are simply cheating. And when someone like me wants to stop the cheating and bring us back to an honest game, you think I'm the nutty guy.
I actually don't think you're nutty for having these beliefs. Maybe for others, but not these. To my guestimation, there are millions of people here that think the same, possibly tens of millions.
Many that I have met in my travels are not the stereotypical anti-gov't nutjobs either. They arent all burned out vets, bikers, crazies off their meds, or just plain anti-authority pains in the ass. From my experience, they are people who have read the promise of the USC and BOR and cannot reconcile the current events with was written there.
The culture in Amerika hes evolved into one that accepts what I would call tyranny. It's a very specific tyranny though. It's very appealing and comforting. At least to this point it has been. Generally speaking, when someone brings the conflict in the USC and what the gov't is doing now it's so foreign of a concept to the masses that are so happy, free and content (compared to the rest of the world) that they are rejected. The masses are incapable of imagining anything other than what *is* now. The true workable ideas that replace the income tax are incomprehensible. The idea of abolishing the income tax has been discouraged from being thoroughly thought out into a workable replacement. People's fears surface instead of positive possibilities. It's very UN PC to seriously suggest such a thing as to abolish income taxes..
So I can relate to the anti-war...ooops, I mean anti-Bush people in one small way. I have heard some complain that when they oppose the war, they are considered anti-American. From their perspective this isnt true. When I propose that the income tax be ripped out by the roots, set on fire and shot twice through the mellon, I'm looked upon as anti-american too. Because we both are promoting ideas that clash with the masses that are too busy enjoying beer, cable tv and fast food to even care.
But then again.....there are more than a few people that think that *I'm totally fucked up*, so there you go.
But then again.....there are more than a few people that think that *I'm totally fucked up*, so there you go.
Join the club. But that doesn't stop either of us from telling the truth does it?
If I heard myself saying what I'm saying now 10 years ago I would have thought I sounded nutty too. But that was before I met actual people involved in the misdeeds of government, seen the paperwork and other proof sent by the government, and even had ex-government people like Ted Gunderson (Former FBI agent and head of the Los Angeles and Dallas offices of the FBI), Bill Benson (has actual physical proof that the 16th amendment didn't pass (certified copies of votes, etc), Joe Bannister (Former Gun carrying IRS agent who found out that income tax was fraud), John Turner (Former IRS agent who siezed property and found out income taxes were fraudelent), and dozens upon dozens of others who are genuinely credible and have actual proof.
Sadly most people (including many here) are walking through life blind to the world around them and what's happening. As long as they've got cable tv, microwaves, and a car they think they're free and everything is ok. They are like zombies and I try my best to wake them up and show them the world around them (almost like the Matrix) but some will never wake up and in thier ignorance accuse those who actually do know what's happening of being crazy.
Originally posted by Radar
Sadly most people (including many here) are walking through life blind to the world around them and what's happening.
I agree with that. That's where they want to be though. They think we're crazy, we think they are. Some may very well be open to our side, maybe now , maybe later. Or maybe never.
Undertoad was very much into this political thinking at one time too. He isn't any more, so we have to allow the possibility we wont feel as passionately about this in the years to come. There might be a great TV show that distracts us. :)
The right thing never includes violating the Constitution.
According to them they're not, you are in violation of the 16th amendment since you say you don't pay your income tax. They are acting in good faith, with the 16th embedment being in effect in mind.
No, there's a government right here ignoring the will of the people.
How many people have spoken out on this thread that say they don't like income taxes, but prefer paying them to losing all the services they fund? It's not the will of the majority that is being ignored here, and the government serves that will. So, the government is not ignoring the will of the people.
Of course I suspect you'll go into the "majority can't impose" argument. So I'm not sure why you brought this up anyway. Just wanted to bring it full circle? I don't know why I bother to ask since that's just the sort of question that you always ignore...
No, now the slave masters use guns and call themselves the IRS
So, I take it you've been shot? Since you directly link the IRS with a gun to a slaver with a whip and you don't do income tax then they must have shot you by now. Oh wait, in reality the situation isn't anything close to as harsh as slavery. You're just linking to a greater evil.
There are legions looking to take over the world? Okay, I'll accept that. Now how many of them are in a position to do so? I gave GWB up before you got there. I really don't like the guy. Okay, he might try to maintain power even if voted out. I doubt even he'd try that though. Of course as I've said elsewhere he's tried (and succeeded) in doing a lot of things I didn't think he could pull off. Perhaps we can agree to take a "wait and see" approach, just keeping a close eye on him? What else would you suggest?
I didn't say they were bad people and I didn't say all of them. There are a few decent judges out there. But many of them take part in the judicial conspiracy to defend taxation because they are frightened of spilling the apple cart. They don't want to be the judge responsible for ending the fraud of income taxes. And many of them are prevented from even trying by the IRS statutes which state they have no jurisdiction.
Working from your point of view, then every Judge that has backed the 16th was either corrupt, stupid or scared. Fine, then you see only the corrupt ones as flat out bad. But then, from your point of view, doesn't that leave the door open to finding an intelligent and brave judge? Yet, you are already talking war.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Yeah, but you have good intentions too right? ... Why is it that only the other guy that'll go to hell? Oh right, you've got purity, light and kittens on your side, so your intentions are beyond question.
As I've said, I have nothing against taxes. I'm only against income taxes.
Sigh. Fine, I'll not say taxes without specifying income taxes anymore if you won't. It's a little cheesy to make the other guy say the entire phrase if you won't, and you have said 'tax' without the 'income' repeatedly.
And yes, if someone enslaves or robs me and my loved ones, it's enough to shoot another man. If someone attacks me and my civil rights, it's enough to shoot another man. If someone takes away every avenue for me to challenge the injustice they've done to me, it's enough for me to shoot them. If someone commits extortion against me at the point of a gun and then has the gall to ask for my allegiance, it's enough for me to shoot them. If they murder others around me when they try to stand up for their rights, it's enough for me to shoot them.
Um, by your own admission you've not paid income taxes. So you're not being robbed. Also you say if we know proper court procedure, as you do, we don't have to either. So how are you robbed or enslaved? Hmm, I've addressed the fact that by your own logic you still have an avenue open, just find a brave and honest judge. As far as the last line goes, by the beliefs you've previously expressed then you should have started shooting when the writer died. It's a little after the fact now. But if this is your belief then why didn't you?
First off there are MILLIONS of other Americans who feel like I do. And do you really think the American military will fire on their own families? Even when ordered to do so, very few will. And I'll be armed with a lot more than righteous indignation.
No, the military won't fire on their family's. But if you don't have a better percentage of the military than you do of the cellar then they will see you as the threat to their families, not the government. Just a thought.
We would take over the government and wouldn't kill unless someone opposed us with weapons which we of course anticipate.
Again, if there are good people in the gov then it's not wholly corrupt. Talking about war before exhausting all other possibilities is nutty. Remember, you are saying that you'd expect to kill the people you plan to free. Does this mindset remind any one of anything?
And when I call you an idiot, it doesn't go against the idea of all men being created equal. All men aren't of equal skills or capacities, but all are created with equal rights.
Heh, so we idiots should be only to happy to have you there to make our decisions so we don't strain our weak minds? I guess we're lucky to have someone a little more "equal" than us.
Yes, you have the right to have any ideas you wish. But you don't have the right to use legislation to push them on to me or other Americans.
Again, you said with proper procedure and such you don't have to pay. So, you're not having anything pushed on you.
Oh yeah, sorry for the lateness of the reply. An electrical storm kept my computer down most of the day.
Originally posted by Radar
There's nothing good about GWB. George W. Bush is the single worst President in American history and he's a coward. He's responsible for the worst attacks on our civil rights in the history of America. He'd be the first one I would take out.
First of all, President Bush IS a good man. He's a Christian, and he's trying to defend our nation from terrorists (despite the best efforts of others, who would see this nation invaded by arab extremists). He's protecting you, and he needs our money to do it. I'd think you'd be at least a little bit grateful. Without income taxes, the military wouldn't be able to afford bombs and equipment, and wouldn't be able to take out wackos like Saddam Hussein. You should thank him for saving your life, not try to kill him.
Anyway, it doesn't matter, because I think he's pretty well-protected. How exactly do you plan on getting past the Secret Service, hmm?
will stimulate the economy and create a thousand jobs
For the Chinese, Mexicans, Indonesians, Vietnamise, etc, etc, etc.
Oh right, you've got purity, light and kittens on your side, so your intentions are beyond quest
:D
Originally posted by Radar
It's like trying to play a poker game where people make the rules up as they go along. There is no way to win. Except in this case the rules have been established but they are simply cheating.
:ctrl-p: *snip, snip*
That one's going on the cork-board.
Believe me, I feel the same kind of "sudden insight to what I was blind to before" NOW as I did when I had my ragingest LP hardon.
This is not a mellowing; I didn't forget any of the doctrine. I added to my understanding of the world to get where I am right now.
I also did some intellectually honest "what-ifs" and found that I didn't like the results I was getting.
se·di·tion
n.
1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.
2. Insurrection; rebellion.
sedition
\Se*di"tion\, n. [OE. sedicioun, OF. sedition, F. s['e]dition, fr. L. seditio, originally, a going aside; hence, an insurrectionary separation; pref. se-, sed-, aside + itio a going, fr. ire, itum, to go. Cf. Issue.] 1. The raising of commotion in a state, not amounting to insurrection; conduct tending to treason, but without an overt act; excitement of discontent against the government, or of resistance to lawful authority.
In soothing them, we nourish 'gainst our senate The cockle of rebellion, insolence, sedition. --Shak.
Noisy demagogues who had been accused of sedition. --Macaulay.
2. Dissension; division; schism. [Obs.]
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, . . . emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies. --Gal. v. 19, 20.
Syn: Insurrection; tumult; uproar; riot; rebellion; revolt. See Insurrection.
----------
trea·son
n.
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.
treason
\Trea"son\, n. [OE. tresun, treisun, traisoun, OF. tra["i]son, F. trahison, L. traditio a giving up, a delivering up, fr. tradere to give up, betray. See Traitor, and cf. Tradition.] 1. The offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance, or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power; disloyalty; treachery.
The treason of the murthering in the bed. --Chaucer.
Note: In monarchies, the killing of the sovereign, or an attempt to take his life, is treason. In England, to imagine or compass the death of the king, or of the queen consort, or of the heir apparent to the crown, is high treason, as are many other offenses created by statute. In the United States, treason is confined to the actual levying of war against the United States, or to an adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
2. Loosely, the betrayal of any trust or confidence; treachery; perfidy.
If he be false, she shall his treason see. --Chaucer.
Originally posted by Undertoad
I also did some intellectually honest "what-ifs" and found that I didn't like the results I was getting.
Can you get specific? I respect your judgement, maybe I'll change my mind on some issues. I seriously doubt that I would flip but I'd like to hear the what ifs that you were concerned about.
According to them they're not, you are in violation of the 16th amendment since you say you don't pay your income tax. They are acting in good faith, with the 16th embedment being in effect in mind.
According to Hitler, the Jews needed to be killed. But they were both wrong.
How many people have spoken out on this thread that say they don't like income taxes, but prefer paying them to losing all the services they fund?
Almost all Americans would give up all unconstitutional services to never have to pay income taxes again. More than 70 million Americans don't file income tax returns and if it weren't for the fear of government attack it would be nearly all Americans.
It's not the will of the majority that is being ignored here, and the government serves that will. So, the government is not ignoring the will of the people.
Yes, the government is ignoring the will of the majority. The majority of Americans don't think the government is entitled to enslave them 4 months a year and to take what they have earned.
So, I take it you've been shot? Since you directly link the IRS with a gun to a slaver with a whip and you don't do income tax then they must have shot you by now. Oh wait, in reality the situation isn't anything close to as harsh as slavery. You're just linking to a greater evil.
Not me, but many have been shot by the IRS. And they don't have to shoot. They can merely threaten or point a gun at you. This situation is
EXACTLY the same as Slavery. In fact it
IS slavery.
Working without compensation under duress or threat of violance is slavery and theft.
If a man points a gun at you and takes your money, it's robbery. What if the robber says he's going to use the money he steals from you to help out the needy? Is it still robbery? Of course it is. What if instead of one man, it's a gang of 10 men. Is it still robbery? Yes it is. What if it's a thousand, or ten thousand, or a million people? It's still robbery. What if it's 350 million people and they label themselves government? You got it. It's still robbery. Nobody's need entitles them to steal from me and the government isn't entitled to a single penny of what I earn.
eah, but you have good intentions too right? ... Why is it that only the other guy that'll go to hell? Oh right, you've got purity, light and kittens on your side, so your intentions are beyond question.
The difference is they're fighting to control our lives and enslave us, and I'm fighting to free us from their control and allow us to control our own lives.
So how are you robbed or enslaved? Hmm, I've addressed the fact that by your own logic you still have an avenue open, just find a brave and honest judge.
I am free but millions of my other countrymen are being enslaved, defrauded, and attacked. Are you saying if someone were attacking everyone in your neighborhood but hadn't attacked you yet, you wouldn't stand up to defend them? I'm just not that selfish. Also I won't stand by and watch my country be fucked up by criminals like the politicians and judges in power at the moment. And there are no brave and honest judges who will stand up against the income taxes. The government has judges on a short leash; their paychecks. The judges know if they go against the government they won't be working very long or worse. The government isn't above killing American citizens who are a fly in the ointment.
Again, if there are good people in the gov then it's not wholly corrupt. Talking about war before exhausting all other possibilities is nutty. Remember, you are saying that you'd expect to kill the people you plan to free. Does this mindset remind any one of anything?
There are no good people in the government, but even if there were, they wouldn't oppose us when we took over. If they oppose us, they're not good people. And all peaceful possibilities of working within the system have been exhausted. It's impossible to win a game when your opponent won't stick to the rules or worse yet, makes the rules up as he goes along. And I wouldn't expect to kill the people I plan to free, only those who would oppose me in doing it. And if you want a mindset that says you want to kill the people you plan to free, look no further than the murdering scumbag George W. Bush.
Heh, so we idiots should be only to happy to have you there to make our decisions so we don't strain our weak minds? I guess we're lucky to have someone a little more "equal" than us.
I don't plan on making your decisions for you. I plan on making you free to make your own decisions rather than having George Bush, Bill Clinton, or others usurp your power to do it.
First of all, President Bush IS a good man. He's a Christian, and he's trying to defend our nation from terrorists (despite the best efforts of others, who would see this nation invaded by arab extremists).
President Bush is a murdering imperialistic terrorist and being a Christian doesn't make you a good person. And America is in far more danger from Christian fundamentalists than it will ever be from Arab Extremists. George W. Bush is the most dangerous man to America. He's more dangerous than Bin Laden, Hussein, and all middle-eastern nations combined. He's the biggest threat to world peace on earth.
He's protecting you, and he needs our money to do it. I'd think you'd be at least a little bit grateful.
He isn't "protecting" shit. He is starting unprovoked, unconstitutional, unwarranted, imperialistic, wars of terrorist aggression against countries that don't pose a threat and never have. Iraq never attacked America, never planned to attack America, never helped anyone else attack America, never funded, harbored, or trained anyone who has attacked America, and has no ties with any groups who have. Yet America launched not one but two unconstitutional attacks against Iraq, and subsequently starved 200,000 of their people to death and kept them from life saving medicines. George W. Bush is endangering America because he's inspiring hundreds of thousands of people to avenge those who America unjustly murdered in Iraq. And I'm not grateful for that disgrace to America who attacks others and then attacks the civil rights of Americans.
Without income taxes, the military wouldn't be able to afford bombs and equipment, and wouldn't be able to take out wackos like Saddam Hussein. You should thank him for saving your life, not try to kill him.
Without income taxes the military would be able to afford all of the bombs and equipment they need to
DEFEND America and we'd still be able to do all of the Constitutional parts of government. In fact if income taxes ended entirely today, the military would be fine and so would the government because all of those things can be funded entirely with just the tariffs and excise taxes we already collect. They'd just have to give up all the unconstitutional stuff.
Anyway, it doesn't matter, because I think he's pretty well-protected. How exactly do you plan on getting past the Secret Service, hmm?
How did Hinkley, or Booth, or the others get past them?
For the Chinese, Mexicans, Indonesians, Vietnamise, etc, etc, etc.
And the Americans. Although most of the people you mentioned are Americans. In fact someone born in China who comes to America and becomes a citizen is probably more American than a white guy born in America because they valued this country enough to choose to become a citizen instead of being a racist idiot born here who thinks he has more right to be an American than someone from another country.
Wolf: By your definitions George W. Bush is guilty of treason. He aided the Taliban before our war against them. He gave them 40 million dollars 3 months before the September 11th attacks. You can rest assured it was used against us. George W. Bush goes against every single thing this country stands for. America was created to escape from imperialistic tyrrany and thanks to Bush we're now practicing it. He violates every one of our civil rights in the name of "security".
George W. Bush wants to promote peace by starting wars. He wants to balance the budget with deficit spending. He wants to free the people of Iraq by blowing them up and controlling them in a police state. He wants to protect the environment by suggesting we use more coal, nuclear, and oil energy sources. He wants to improve our foreign policy by pissing off every country in the U.N. and raising tariffs. He wants to stimulate the economy by bringing us into a recession. He wants to defend our freedom by attacking our civil rights. He wants to uphold and defend the Constitution by championing and passing the most unconstitutional piece of legislation in American history. He wants to lower drug use by keeping black markets strong and drug dealers rich. He wants to fight terrorists by giving them millions of dollars and ensuring they'll have tons of profits by selling drugs on the black markets. And Bush wants to make government smaller by adding new departments and extra funding for unconstitutional social programs.
Social welfare programs under George W. Bush have grown by $96 billion in just two years, versus $51 billion under six years of Clinton
Sedition against tyrranical oppressors who claim to have unlimited power and wreck your government is not sedition at all; it's patriotism.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.
-- Thomas Jefferson
A little rebellion now and then...is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
-- Thomas Jefferson
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government...
-- Thomas Jefferson
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
-- Edward Abbey
On the subject of natural rights.
If you believe that people aren't born with certain rights than you believe they can never have rights. Because if nobody is born with rights who can give them rights? A government is nothing more than a collection of individuals and if those individuals don't have rights separately, how can they have them when they are together?
The answer is simple. Government has no rights, nor does "society". Government has specific and limited powers given to it by individuals who do have rights and government has no powers beyond the rights of individuals.
Originally posted by Radar
If you believe that people aren't born with certain rights than you believe they can never have rights. Because if nobody is born with rights who can give them rights?
No, I don't believe that. I believe that rights are a moral construct. Government physically exists because it actually cooresponds to something physical. Rights don't exist physically, they are ideas that correspond to nothing that you can ever objectively prove exists. Therefore, it's silly to say that people have them when they're born. It's like saying someone has "2+2". It's just dumb. When people say that they have a right to something, they are really asserting their form of morality. Rights aren't physical, they're an agreed upon ideology.
This rights argument will go nowhere, though, because it's like trying to prove that God exists. You'll try to insist that the burden of proof is on me to disprove God/Rights, and I'll try to insist the opposite.
And the circle continues :)
What if there is a social contract of some sort? The hardass approach says there isn't. I really don't know; I haven't put in the hard thinking on it. But the uncertainty alone is enough to start the leak.
Some of my bigger questions are in this thread. One principle of a legitimate government is consent of the governed. If a "100%" libertarian government were elected overnight, it would not have that consent.
That's why Radar requires a revolution -- avoiding, btw, the obvious question of what happens on day two to non-representative governments. Even if he uses the full force of the military to back up his coup, in the long run the people still have more power than he does.
But the really gaping hole that the sunlight is beaming through is evident from this thread. Radar has applied the philosophy to the nth degree, and what has boiled out of it is completely impractical. Its defense requires very obvious blind spots, its common sense appeal is near zero... and everyone here knows that it will not actually happen.
If it could never happen, or could never survive if it did, it is not the answer.
Part of the problem is a huge gap between political philosophy and politics. Or, if you prefer, "how things oughta be" against "how things just are". Ignoring the latter is simply not an option.
And the Americans. Although most of the people you mentioned are Americans. In fact someone born in China who comes to America and becomes a citizen is probably more American than a white guy born in America because they valued this country enough to choose to become a citizen instead of being a racist idiot born here who thinks he has more right to be an American than someone from another country.
You misunderstand my statement. I'm not talking about immigrants. I'm talking about foreigners in foreign countries where they make all the stuff we'd buy with all this extra money. This increase in spending wouldn't create jobs here, but that's a whole different thread.
Radar has become nonsensical. I might stop reading this thread now.
=[
Originally posted by Radar
How did Hinkley, or Booth, or the others get past them?
Hinkley did not kill Reagan. He completely failed in his objective (thanks to the Secret Service, God Bless Them). President Lincoln had NO security at Ford's Theater, so I'm not even sure why you bring that up.
Today, our government officials are highly protected and basically invincible. You're just one man, and history shows that there's no way you could accomplish what you say you will.
Are you sure you've thought this through?
According to Hitler, the Jews needed to be killed. But they were both wrong.
An interesting statement since you're the one talking about doing some killing.
Ya know, on this part where you start claiming "All most all Americans," doesn't everyone find it interesting that I'm using specific examples of people and Radar's making a generalization that he assurers us is a fact?
This situation is EXACTLY the same as Slavery. In fact it IS slavery.
Oh, so slaves only worked for their master 1/4 of the year? And got to go out to parties and other entertainment forums, as well as having freedom of speech? No? Ah, then you be linking to a greater evil, as I said. By the by, compiling the years taxes to make it sound like we receive no pay check for a large portion of the year was a nice touch. That's not the way it works though.
I am free but millions of my other countrymen are being enslaved, defrauded, and attacked. Are you saying if someone were attacking everyone in your neighborhood but hadn't attacked you yet, you wouldn't stand up to defend them? I'm just not that selfish. Also I won't stand by and watch my country be fucked up by criminals like the politicians and judges in power at the moment.
So, instead of killing for us how 'bout you just let the ones that want your help join you?
I am free but millions of my other countrymen are being enslaved, defrauded, and attacked. Are you saying if someone were attacking everyone in your neighborhood but hadn't attacked you yet, you wouldn't stand up to defend them? I'm just not that selfish. Also I won't stand by and watch my country be fucked up by criminals like the politicians and judges in power at the moment.
But I thought you'd made it clear that your movement had never lost? So then, if they join you they're safe. No need for war.
I didn't say they were bad people and I didn't say all of them. There are a few decent judges out there.
There are no good people in the government
So, which is it? The judicial branch is a part of government after all.
If they oppose us, they're not good people.
Riiiiight, 'cause you've got that purity and the light and those kitten's on your side.
And I wouldn't expect to kill the people I plan to free, only those who would oppose me in doing it.
Oh okay, as long as we're free by your rules you won't kill us. Gee thanks.
By the by, please deal with any pro-Bush sentiments apart from your responses to me. I've already said I dislike the guy, and pointed you to an earlier Cellar thread where I've said so before. Getting anti-Bush with me makes it seem like I'm pro-Bush. Don't do that.. I assume that most Cellar Dwellers have read other threads and know my feelings on the sub, but still that's not me.
No, I don't believe that. I believe that rights are a moral construct. Government physically exists because it actually cooresponds to something physical. Rights don't exist physically, they are ideas that correspond to nothing that you can ever objectively prove exists.
Government is a social construct and not a tangible physical thing. It's nothing more than a label for a group of people. People however, do physically exist and so do their natural rights. Natural rights are part of natural law and are as immutable and undeniable as other natural laws like gravity. Even if every person on earth voted to get rid of gravity they couldn't do it. And the same is true of natural rights. They can't be taken or given away. Natural law and natural rights are a science like any other but are apparant to even very small children.
If you don't believe in natural rights such as your right to live, than I wouldn't be committing a crime if I killed you. I wouldn't be violating your right to live since you have none. And there can be no such thing as a crime since nobody's rights are being violated by any action. Nobody would even have a right to complain when they were victimized.
This rights argument will go nowhere, though, because it's like trying to prove that God exists. You'll try to insist that the burden of proof is on me to disprove God/Rights, and I'll try to insist the opposite.
It's nothing like trying to prove god exists because there is no physical being of god but there are physical and tangible beings of people and people out of necessity and reason have rights at birth. You can keep the burden of proof on me because I've proven my point. But you don't have to take my word for it.
It's become painfully clear that you don't do much reading but if you'll read any of the links I posted earlier you'll see a lot of great thinkers proving that natural rights exist. It's even in our own declaration of independence as a self-evident truth. But you can read the works of hundreds of people in every culture on earth for thousands of years talking about how even small children know that natural and inalienable rights exist.
One principle of a legitimate government is consent of the governed. If a "100%" libertarian government were elected overnight, it would not have that consent.
A 100% Libertarian government would be a 100% Constitutional government and as such it would be the government consented to by the people for more than 200 years.
That's why Radar requires a revolution -- avoiding, btw, the obvious question of what happens on day two to non-representative governments. Even if he uses the full force of the military to back up his coup, in the long run the people still have more power than he does.
Actually America requires a revolution because the government no longer works based on the consent of the people and violates our rights. The government is closing all avenues for people to peacefully keep control of the government. And as the Declaration of Independence says,
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
You misunderstand my statement. I'm not talking about immigrants. I'm talking about foreigners in foreign countries where they make all the stuff we'd buy with all this extra money. This increase in spending wouldn't create jobs here, but that's a whole different thread.
And you misunderstand Free Trade vs. Protectionism. When people in other countries have jobs, they can afford to buy our products. Unions are responsible for the majority of jobs that leave America.
You should read this page real quick to get a better understanding of the subject.
http://www.libertarianworld.com/freetrade.html
Radar has become nonsensical. I might stop reading this thread now.
Sorry you feel that way, I feel like I'm one of very few people on this board actually who do make sense.
Hinkley did not kill Reagan. He completely failed in his objective (thanks to the Secret Service, God Bless Them).
His objective was to shoot Reagan and he did. The fact that he was a bad shot is irrelevant. People killed Kennedy too. May the Easter Bunny bless you.
Today, our government officials are highly protected and basically invincible. You're just one man, and history shows that there's no way you could accomplish what you say you will.
History shows that several men have made it past the secret service and who says I'd be alone?
An interesting statement since you're the one talking about doing some killing.
I would only kill in my defense for instance when returning the government back to a constitutional republic if someone were to oppose me. Executing Bush would be defense also because he is endangering America and the rest of the world, and attacking our civil rights in America.
Oh, so slaves only worked for their master 1/4 of the year?
No, but Americans are being enslaved for 1/3 of the year (which amounts to about 1/4 of our lives). Does the fact that they're not enslaved 100% of the time make it any less slavery? No it doesn't.
And got to go out to parties and other entertainment forums, as well as having freedom of speech?
Guess what? You don't have freedom of speech in America. Irwin Schiff just had his book banned by the government and they said he can't talk about it.
So, instead of killing for us how 'bout you just let the ones that want your help join you?
What do you mean killing you? I said I'd only kill those who oppose me and those like me when we take over the government and return it to a constitutional republic. Do you intend to oppose me when I return America back to the greatest nation on earth? If not, you don't have anything to fear. And there are millions like me so don't worry, people are joining me. There were only about 5% of the population involved in the 1st revolution and the rest didn't take part but reaped the rewards of freedom anyway. My guess is you'll be in the 95%.
But I thought you'd made it clear that your movement had never lost? So then, if they join you they're safe. No need for war.
No, I made it clear that none of the students of the particular place where I work have ever lost. The government often railroads free thinkers and puts them in jail. Unfortunately there are many who are house niggers like you and are content to be enslaved. They are scared of those who really value freedom.
So, which is it? The judicial branch is a part of government after all.
Judges make unconstitutional rulings against their own conscience because they don't want to be the one's responsible for overturning the fraud of income taxes. Rather than deciding they point to other decisions instead of the law. Rather than standing up, they think of their political careers and rule poorly. That means they're not good people. They may be a decent judge, but not a good person.
Riiiiight, 'cause you've got that purity and the light and those kitten's on your side.
No, just truth, justice, freedom, liberty, the law, and millions of freedom lovers.
Oh okay, as long as we're free by your rules you won't kill us. Gee thanks.
Not my rules. The rules that established this country. Those that define and limit the role and powers of government.
By the by, please deal with any pro-Bush sentiments apart from your responses to me.
As if I'd make a separate response just for your comfort. Get real. I'll write my responses to everyone. Don't be so vain as to think my posts were just for you.
The government often railroads free thinkers and puts them in jail. Unfortunately there are many who are house niggers like you and are content to be enslaved.
Radar you've crossed a line, shut the fuck up.
edit: sorry was a little ticked off about other things at this point and this line just pissed me off. Though I do think you've crossed the line to insanity Radar.
Radar, <i>nothing</i> in your last post made any logical sense. And that's saying something, since you wrote quite a bit. You are a lunatic and a criminal. You've not only admitted to committing one federal crime, but you've committed a second federal crime twice on this very board!
I sincerely hope that you get caught before you kill somebody. Or that you're only joking. Either way, say hello to Bubba for me. And don't drop the soap.
This is an interesting thread. I have not read all the previous posts, so I hope you don't think I am using bad netiquette when I pick up the converstion from it's current locale.
I agree with Radar that human rights are part of being human and are undeniable, but they don't exist in a vacuum. They depend upon mutual respect for each others human rights - for them to have any real meaning.
But as I read alittle more of Radar's posts, I feel like my opinions diverge greatly from his.
A 100% Libertarian government would be a 100% Constitutional government and as such it would be the government consented to by the people for more than 200 years.
And it would be completely untenable, to boot. The framers of the consitution did not intent it to be a blueprint, they intended it to be a general idea. They knew that times would change and issues would change, but the main idea would remain.
There are many other nations that wrote strict consitutions that functioned as the architectural plan for the government - that eventually had to be scrapped because times changed, technology changed, and the economy changed. Strict constructionsim is fantastic - in theory - but in practice it would be inflexxible, unadaptable, and it would fail to meet the needs of the people.
Actually America requires a revolution because the government no longer works based on the consent of the people and violates our rights.
From the bottom up it certainly looks that way. From the top down, the picture is different. The framers of the constitution started off with a double standard and a system where aristocratic landowners had rights - as opposed to all citizens. They designed America in such a way that it would always have a ruling elite. The ruling elite have maintained a stranglehold on the American government ever since. If you ask them, the government represents the ideals of the people because few of them can see beyond their strata. Many in the middle class have been convinced that they are a part of America's controlling elite, which makes them choose policies that do not necessarily end up benefiting them or anyone in their socioeconomic position. Simply shifting to a stict constructionist government would not change this order. The only way to change this order would be to radically restructure the government into a true liberal democracy. I outlined such a shift in
this thread.
The government is closing all avenues for people to peacefully keep control of the government.
This is as true now as it was in 1778. But it was better than a monarchy at the time - now, I think we should rethink things.
And as the Declaration of Independence says,
It also said "all men are created equal". Obviously, the founders started the union with a bit of hypocricy. Can you accept that the people that wrote those words were not writing them for all men? If they were not really writing them for all men, is it possible that they may not have had the golden key to truth and light - that you seem to think resides in strict adherance to the letter of the constitution?
When people in other countries have jobs, they can afford to buy our products.
This is simplistic and wrong on many levels. First, a job in Managua is not going to pay a worker anywhere near anough money to buy even the cheapest American products. Furthermore, the jobs that go to foreign nations go there to benefit the shareholders of the corporation. This focuses returns into the hands of a tiny segment of the overall population of America. These people want to continue to see high returns and they encourage further exploitation of cheap third-world labor. This is the basic goal of the globalization movement.
Unions are responsible for the majority of jobs that leave America
This is debatable. If there had never been a labor movement in America, the middle class may not exist. Worker safety would never have been an issue, and benefits packages would not exist for the working class. Yes, unions have created a confrontational relationship between labor and management,but they both have a symbiotic interest in maintaining market share and success of a company. As overwhelming evidence can attest, most unions are willing to be very flexible with their compensation and demands in times of recession and national emergency.
Unions, are not the cause of a company's flight south of the border. The demands of the stockholders, market bifurcation, the overall economy, and greed combine as a great incentive to set up shop in a third world nation.
The link you provided was simplistic and was not accurate about a lot of the interelated issues of tariffs, free trade, and general macroeconomics.
I feel like I'm one of very few people on this board actually who do make sense.
Why am I reminded of something Bertrand Russell said?
I agree that the magic bullet theory is malarkey. But that is for another thread.
I would only kill in my defense for instance when returning the government back to a constitutional republic if someone were to oppose me.
The brownshirts may be coming to get you. I would not advocate killing anybody - to me, assasination of a person because of their myopic political positions would completely fly in the face of everything I believe about human rights and democratic values.
but Americans are being enslaved for 1/3 of the year
This is such a weak canard. You are not being enslaved for any period of time. If you don't want to pay taxes, then don't get a job. You are not chained to gang and forced to pick cotton.
Taxes are the price you pay for living in America. If you go to work and drive on a road, your taxes paid for that. If you kids go to the park, your taxes paid for that. If you own a share of stock, your taxes keep the markets sound. If you can sleep well at night - not worrying about a Canadian invasion, your taxed paid for that. If you get mugged and beat up - the cops come because your taxes paid them to come. If you don't have to get your water from the local creek, your taxes paid of that. If the poor are not rising up wanting a redistribution of wealth, your taxes paid for that. If your brother did not die in a care wreck - even though he had no insurance, your taxes paid for that.
Taxes pay for all the things we can't see - but make up the fabric of our society. So any time you hear someone scream about being a slave for 110 days a year, remind them that they, too, receive some benefit from all their labor.
That being said, I am appalled at the current fiscal and spending policies. We need to massivley overhaul the government and eliminate as much of the extra detritus that we can. I do not think that eliminating all taxes and resorting to a sales tax is realistic in any sense. If this was put in place, our society would collapse, and products would be so expensive that they stifle economic growth.
Personally I think we need to get rid of our iron ring of military might - that girds the world. This will never happen, because our military is part of the threat we use against third world nations to maintain our access to their resources at a cheap price. I would like the rich to be taxed more heavily than they currently are. I think the middle class should be taxed much less than they currently are, and the poor should not be taxed at all. This is a subject for another thread - though.
You don't have freedom of speech in America
I beg to differ. Didn't you just post a comment about killing the president? Do you think you could do that in Iran, Turkey, China, or Egypt?
Irwin Schiff just had his book banned by the government and they said he can't talk about it
I read
The Federal Mafia and
The Great Income Tax Hoax when I was younger, stupider, and leaning toward the lbertarian ethos. The guy's convoluted "logic" and distortion convinced me that his ideas were drivel. Look up the Supreme Court's decision in
Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 406, 415. They make it clear that income tax is constitutionally valid.
And in any case, the constitution is not the be all end all fount of knowledge and truth. It was the general idea that started the union. 200 years of case law and legal wrangling have refined the definition of the govenrment's powers. The Constitution is not absolute.
Do you intend to oppose me when I return America back to the greatest nation on earth?
Ease up Don Qixote, the windmills in here are not the real giants. Personally, I think you might want to expand your base of knowledge. You seem relatively well informed, but also seem pretty credulous. I would encourage you to skeptically examine every point of view you encounter - including your own.
There were only about 5% of the population involved in the 1st revolution and the rest didn't take part but reaped the rewards of freedom anyway.
I am going to have to disagree with you there. the American revolution affected all of the colonies, and there was plenty of tragedy and pain paid by most of the American population. They reaped the rewards of liberty, but it took a long time and a lot of lives to make America what it is today.
The government often railroads free thinkers and puts them in jail.
That is why Harry Browne and Noam Chomsky are sitting in the Hooskow.
The government is holding a lot of people in prison without cause, charges, or legal representaion. but they are not their because they wrote a book that people in power did not like. I hope we can avoid letting things go that far, but I fear the possibility nonetheless.
house niggers like you
Huh? There is a difference between rampant reveolutionary idealism - which is pretty naive if you have not thought it through - and working within the system to make things better. Just because a person is trying to work within the system does not mean that they are somehow a slave to the system or that they simply aquiesce to the govenment's point of view ( though I think a lot of brownshirts are like this ).
Judges make unconstitutional rulings against their own conscience because they don't want to be the one's responsible for overturning the fraud of income taxes
Or maybe their logic extended beyond "I say it must be so - so it must be so". I am no fan of stupid legal decisions, or judges that participate in the degradation of freedom and liberty, but some arguments are sound. The argument that Income Taxes are constitutional is well founded and sound.
Rather than deciding they point to other decisions instead of the law.
There are 2 types of law. Case law and constitutional law. Case law bases decisions on consideration of issues as they pertain to the constitution and other judges previous decisions. Since the law is a fluid entity - and it is always changing, judges use other judges' opinions and rulings to form their positions. Constitutional law is the consideration of whether a law actually falls within the bounds of the constitution. Some cases are decided using case law - which includes constitutional agreement, other cases are decided based on the basic issues of freedom entailed in the Constitution.
they think of their political careers and rule poorly
Federal judges are appointed for life. They may make decisions based on a political stance, but their decisions are based upon their own personal ideology - not a fear of loosing their job.
The rules that established this country
We already know those rules were not perfect or absolute. I think your reasoning is pretty shaky on all of this.
If it's Scott vs Radar at this point, the rest of us can safely depart the thread -- and there's a good chance we'll never hear from either one of them, ever again.
I agree with Radar that human rights are part of being human and are undeniable
Maybe in "civilized society" but in the jungle you get what you can win and hold. Nothing more.
here's a good chance we'll never hear from either one of them, ever again
What, are you trying to say I am long-winded?!?!?!
i agree xoxoxoxoxoxBruce.
Not only that, but there's the fact that if there's one constant in the universe, it's that Radar will never stop arguing with you as long as you're willing.
as long as you're willing.
BINGO.
Radar, nothing in your last post made any logical sense. And that's saying something, since you wrote quite a bit.
No, everything I said, especially about natural rights made perfect sense and had logic so solid you can't refute it. Therefore instead of trying, you just dismiss it.
You are a lunatic and a criminal. You've not only admitted to committing one federal crime, but you've committed a second federal crime twice on this very board!
I haven't committed any crimes. It's not a crime to keep the money I earn, particularly when income taxes are illegal which I and many others have proven countless times. And I haven't committed a crime on this board either. I haven't threatened anyone and everything I've said is protected speech. Although since the government doesn't abide by the Constitution they could arrest me, or you for that matter with or without cause.
I sincerely hope that you get caught before you kill somebody. Or that you're only joking. Either way, say hello to Bubba for me. And don't drop the soap.
The only way I'll see Bubba is if I visit him between his daily rapings of you. And I don't have to worry much about dropping the soap at my house. But if I do, I'll have my sexy Vietnamese wife pick it up for me.
I agree with Radar that human rights are part of being human and are undeniable, but they don't exist in a vacuum. They depend upon mutual respect for each others human rights - for them to have any real meaning.
Agreeing to respect the equal rights of others is part of living in a society. It doesn't always happen but that's the goal and those who violate the rights of others can and should be punished.
And it would be completely untenable, to boot.
No, it's extremely tenable. It's logic is undeniable and solid as a rock and a Libertarian government would be extremely easy to uphold, defend, and sustain.
As Thomas Jefferson said, "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."
The framers of the consitution did not intent it to be a blueprint, they intended it to be a general idea. They knew that times would change and issues would change, but the main idea would remain.
They
DID intend for it to be a blueprint. A blueprint for freedom. And the principles they used to create it are immutable and unchanging. They did know that they didn't know everything and made government able to change through amendments, but not through case law. They created the constitution to be the highest law of the land in all cases and always applicable.
There are many other nations that wrote strict consitutions that functioned as the architectural plan for the government - that eventually had to be scrapped because times changed, technology changed, and the economy changed. Strict constructionsim is fantastic - in theory - but in practice it would be inflexxible, unadaptable, and it would fail to meet the needs of the people.
I disagree. Other nations didn't write their constitutions with the same level of freedom, and the ability to change when times change. They also made it difficult to change so it wouldn't be done lightly. But some people violate thier oaths and look for loopholes in the constitution and argue over specific words like "militia". Rather than upholding and defending the Constitution they are violating it and attempting to nullify it.
The framers of the constitution started off with a double standard and a system where aristocratic landowners had rights - as opposed to all citizens.
As I mentioned, times changed and so did the constitution. But at that time, those with property needed to defend it. They had the most to lose. America has no class struggle. Many point to disparagies between the haves and have-nots and claim it's because the poor are victimized by the wealthy but nothing could be further from the truth.
It also said "all men are created equal". Obviously, the founders started the union with a bit of hypocricy. Can you accept that the people that wrote those words were not writing them for all men? If they were not really writing them for all men, is it possible that they may not have had the golden key to truth and light - that you seem to think resides in strict adherance to the letter of the constitution?
Blacks and women weren't considered "men" at the time. They were property. But things changed and so did the constitution and the words they used about "all men" are more true now than they have ever been.
This is simplistic and wrong on many levels. First, a job in Managua is not going to pay a worker anywhere near anough money to buy even the cheapest American products.
Eventually it will. As more jobs go there the economy becomes stronger and salaries go up. Soon you've got a larger skilled worker pool and they can buy American products. Without these jobs most would starve to death.
Furthermore, the jobs that go to foreign nations go there to benefit the shareholders of the corporation.
There's nothing wrong with that. Corporations aren't some big scary monster, it's a bunch of regular people from all walks of life. Housewives, Lawyers, Doctors, and Taxicab drivers all invest thier money and expect a return on their investment. The executives of the corporation have a duty to get their stockholders the most profit they can. Unions have made it impossible for many companies to make a profit in America so they move to somewhere they can pay people a fair salary and they can expect someone to work for 8 hours to get 8 hours worth of pay or 10 hours, 12 hours, or whatever.
This focuses returns into the hands of a tiny segment of the overall population of America. These people want to continue to see high returns and they encourage further exploitation of cheap third-world labor. This is the basic goal of the globalization movement.
3rd world workers aren't being "exploited". They're given work which they wouldn't have had otherwise. They are given an opportunity to survive and they're paid the going rate in those parts of the world. I've personally been to Vietnam and seen people who make an average of $1 day to carry bricks from one side of a busy highway to another on their backs. And these people weren't exploited. They were paid the going rate for unskilled labor in that part of the world. It's unreasonable and ignorant to expect American corporations to pay American salaries in another part of the world or to follow American labor laws.
I'm as against the New World Order as anybody else, but corporations are in business to make profits and their loyalty belongs to their stockholders.
If there had never been a labor movement in America, the middle class may not exist. Worker safety would never have been an issue, and benefits packages would not exist for the working class.
Labor unions aren't responsible for changes in worker safety, shorter work days, or even ending child labor. All of these were done voluntarily by businesses when people boycotted thier products. Nothing speaks louder than money.
Yes, unions have created a confrontational relationship between labor and management,but they both have a symbiotic interest in maintaining market share and success of a company.
Unions are responsible for many companies going bankrupt. Labor costs become so high that the business can't make a profit. And companies are paying for lazy union workers to sit around doing nothing while there's work to be done because they say, "that's not my job".
As overwhelming evidence can attest, most unions are willing to be very flexible with their compensation and demands in times of recession and national emergency.
Even more overwhelming evidence can be provided detailing corruption and socialism in unions. Not to mention Unions want raises even when their productivity doesn't rise and they're costing a company so much they can't remain in business in America.
Unions, are not the cause of a company's flight south of the border. The demands of the stockholders, market bifurcation, the overall economy, and greed combine as a great incentive to set up shop in a third world nation.
It's not "greedy" to expect a return on your investment. But I'll agree with the demands of stockholders to make a profit. And they can't make a profit paying inflated labor costs for products that aren't any better than those created by the union workers.
The brownshirts may be coming to get you. I would not advocate killing anybody - to me, assasination of a person because of their myopic political positions would completely fly in the face of everything I believe about human rights and democratic values.
I too value human rights, natural rights, and civil rights and as such I would only kill in the defense of myself, my property, or my country. Even if that means defending my country against my government.
This is such a weak canard. You are not being enslaved for any period of time. If you don't want to pay taxes, then don't get a job. You are not chained to gang and forced to pick cotton.
Let's try to be at least a little bit realistic. Telling someone they don't have to work is like telling them not to eat.
Taxes are the price you pay for living in America. If you go to work and drive on a road, your taxes paid for that. If you kids go to the park, your taxes paid for that. If you own a share of stock, your taxes keep the markets sound. If you can sleep well at night - not worrying about a Canadian invasion, your taxed paid for that. If you get mugged and beat up - the cops come because your taxes paid them to come. If you don't have to get your water from the local creek, your taxes paid of that. If the poor are not rising up wanting a redistribution of wealth, your taxes paid for that. If your brother did not die in a care wreck - even though he had no insurance, your taxes paid for that.
Yes, and all of the things you mentioned can be paid for completely without a single penny of income based taxes. I've said many times that I'm not against taxes, just income taxes. And 100% of all the Constitutional parts of government can be paid for with tariffs and excise taxes and that's without stealing a single penny from citizens in the form of income taxes.
Taxes pay for all the things we can't see - but make up the fabric of our society. So any time you hear someone scream about being a slave for 110 days a year, remind them that they, too, receive some benefit from all their labor.
Taxes are far from being the "fabric of our society". But all of the things you mentioned are paid for with excise taxes, tariffs, sales, taxes, property taxes, etc. Not one penny of income taxes is required to run a Constitutional federal government. And the operative word in your quote is "some". People are turned into slaves for a third of the year and if they're lucky get 1/100th of what they could have done if they had paid for the services on thier own. Every single thing the government does other than what is enumerated in the Constitution can be better provided at a superior quality and a lower cost by private businesses.
Personally I think we need to get rid of our iron ring of military might - that girds the world. This will never happen, because our military is part of the threat we use against third world nations to maintain our access to their resources at a cheap price.
I agree that America's military isn't a constitutional "defensive" military but rather an imperialistic show of force spread out all over the world like the world's largest bully to push other countries around and make them adopt our policies.
I read The Federal Mafia and The Great Income Tax Hoax when I was younger, stupider, and leaning toward the lbertarian ethos. The guy's convoluted "logic" and distortion convinced me that his ideas were drivel.
So if someone prints a book with convoluted logic they don't have the right to free speech?
Look up the Supreme Court's decision in Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 406, 415. They make it clear that income tax is constitutionally valid.
I'll tell you what. Rather than just citing a court case, quote some of it here so we can discuss it. But one thing I can tell you is that the supreme court doesn't add amendments and they can't make less than 36 votes into 36 votes. And there were less than the 36 required votes to pass the 16th amendment. But that's far from being the only way that income taxes are unconstitutional.
And in any case, the constitution is not the be all end all fount of knowledge and truth. It was the general idea that started the union. 200 years of case law and legal wrangling have refined the definition of the govenrment's powers. The Constitution is not absolute.
The Constitution is the single most perfect thing ever written by humans, including all religious texts like the bible in my personal opinion.
I am going to have to disagree with you there. the American revolution affected all of the colonies, and there was plenty of tragedy and pain paid by most of the American population. They reaped the rewards of liberty, but it took a long time and a lot of lives to make America what it is today.
Being "effected" isn't the same as taking part in the revolution.
That is why Harry Browne and Noam Chomsky are sitting in the Hooskow.
No, but it's why Peter McWilliams and Irv Rueben were both jailed and murdered by the U.S. Government.
Just because a person is trying to work within the system does not mean that they are somehow a slave to the system or that they simply aquiesce to the govenment's point of view ( though I think a lot of brownshirts are like this ).
You can't fix the system from within the system because the government doesn't stick to the rules of the game. The government has government workers on a short leash. They have them by their paychecks so in essence they are slaves to the system.
The argument that Income Taxes are constitutional is well founded and sound.
There is no legal requirement to pay income taxes. The argument that income taxes are constitutional is completely and utterly false. It's a case of outright fraud against the American people and is perpetuated by the corrupt court system.
There are 2 types of law. Case law and constitutional law. Case law bases decisions on consideration of issues as they pertain to the constitution and other judges previous decisions.
In practice that's true, but not according to the way things are supposed to be. Case law is supposed to be irrelevant. But both of those fall below natural law which is the highest law of all.
Originally posted by Radar
I haven't committed any crimes. It's not a crime to keep the money I earn, particularly when income taxes are illegal which I and many others have proven countless times. And I haven't committed a crime on this board either. I haven't threatened anyone and everything I've said is protected speech. Although since the government doesn't abide by the Constitution they could arrest me, or you for that matter with or without cause.
Tell it to the judge.
Well, well, well ... This suddenly got very interesting again!
(*little dance*) Go Scott! Go Scott! Go Scott!
UT ... My money's on Scott. Not to win, as this is not a contest of strength or logic, but to continue to hang out.
This thread was originally about paying taxes. April 15th came and went, and the Federal government owes me $94. I've seen arguments about the legality of income taxes. All portions of the Constitution have been eaten away at in some form or another.
So anyway, let's get hypothetical about the specifics. We all seem to have some ideas on what taxes are, where they should come from. We all complain in some form or another. So what should be done ... specifically?
1. What is the tax pie to be made of?
2. What kind of taxes?
3. Who pays the taxes?
4. Are they to be taxes on goods and/or services?
5. Are there any fundamental shifts in the way things are done that if implemented would alter this pie?
6. How tall will the pie be [silly Dubya!]?
7. What is it spent on? [Worms, can, can opener]
Where do we get the money from to run the country, and do it well? Should the nutbar who just wrote this post have this moved to another thread?
Originally posted by Radar
Being "effected" isn't the same as taking part in the revolution.
But being
affected is! Learn the difference, you ignoramous.
Originally posted by Uryoces
6. How tall will the pie be [silly Dubya!]?
:D
But being affected is! Learn the difference, you ignoramous.
No it isn't dickhead. Being affected by something doesn't mean you took part in it asswipe.
Does being able to pick out a grammatical error in a small novel I wrote on the fly make you smarter than I am? Not on your best day and my worst.
Originally posted by Radar
No it isn't dickhead. Being affected by something doesn't mean you took part in it asswipe.
Does being able to pick out a grammatical error in a small novel I wrote on the fly make you smarter than I am? Not on your best day and my worst.
Just because you spread lies among your own differential opinion and worthless ideology doesn't make you any better than the rest of your dissident anti-patriot companions and weak-minded light-weights. I celebrate the day that you realize your misled inner-constitution and egotistical flaws are your greatest enemies, and not your sole weapons.
Radar,
Your method of argument leaves much to be desired. Basically all you did was refute everything I said - but offered no clarifying arguments to make your position seem more lucid. I am sorry, but I feel that - whatever the argument I use that may disagree with you - you will simply refute it.
I really don't care to play, "I say it is so - so it is so." SO I'll just leave it here:
You are wrong on many levels with regard to globalization, the impact of unions, the power of the working class shareholder, constitutional interpretation, and macromeconomics. I don't really feel like typing a long diatribe about each flawed argument you made. If you feel that this is a victory, so be it. Congratulations.
If, however, you want to get a broader understanding of law, macroeconomics, and the constiution, I think you should take a trip to the library and look for books from authors that are not simply trying to prove that the Libertarian ethos is beyond question.
Thanks
Seems it didn't take ScottSolomon long to realise he was talking to a mule. Smart man.;)
Damn. I kept reading this thread. Oops.
Originally posted by Radar
They also made it difficult to change so it wouldn't be done lightly. But some people violate thier oaths and look for loopholes in the constitution and argue over specific words like "militia". Rather than upholding and defending the Constitution they are violating it and attempting to nullify it.
Radar, do you believe that the right to keep a well organized militia refers to the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms or that it refers to having a state militia (currently, the coast guard)? Since the West interprets the term in the former way and the Southeast interprets the term in the second way, which segment of the American population is completely and utterly wrong? How will you go about proving to them that they read the Constitution in a completely and utterly wrong way? What was the original intent of writers of the Constitution -- keeping some military power with the states or allowing the citiZens to remain armed so as to prevent abuses of power by their government? Which words of Jefferson will you use to prove that you are irrefutably correct?
Originally posted by Radar
Being "effected" isn't the same as taking part in the revolution.
This one really irked me. Since you emphasized "effected", I believed that you were pointing out poor use of grammar by the person you disagreed with. However, the person you disagreed with used "affected", which is the proper term for the situation. I found it very annoying that you accentuated this.
As I recall, the reason we switched from using largely tariff-based taxes to largely income-based taxes was that we found tariffs to be a cause of dissension (ref: Civil War) and to be bad for business. You seem to be quite pro-business, so why do you want to return to a more detrimental tariff-based taxing system?
(edit: sentence error fixed)
I gotta get in on this here ... The Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) IS an individual right.
None of the other rights in the bill of rights refer to collective rights or rights of the state ... they are the rights of the people ... the individual citizens. Why should the 2nd amendment be interpreted any differently.
The 5th US Circuit court HAS affirmed RKBA as an individual right, even if they didn't think that Dr. Emerson retained that right in his case ...
US v. Emerson.
There is a very good analysis of the case
here.Ah! Really? I'll have to keep that in mind then -- so scratch most of the message of my previous post. It looks like the task I challenged Radar to do has already been done for him.
However, I see how you could interpret it differently: "a well regulated militia" (oops, I used the wrong word in my previous post) might indicate that it applies to a state army of private citizens. There were also many more advocates of state's rights and freedoms in face of the federal government than there are now.
However, I find it interesting that the article says that the 2nd Amendment was largely interpreted as endorsing state militias for a few decades (and that this view is still held in some Circuits), rather than individual possession of weapons. Looking at the text of the Amendment, it looks to me like both are true. I attempted to bold text that I felt possibly indicated state militias, and italicize text that I felt possibly indicated private gun ownership.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
(edit: added why the quote is bold and italic)
Does the fact that they're not enslaved 100% of the time make it any less slavery? No it doesn't.
If this line makes sesnse to you then you have no clue what actual slavery is, so this is pointless.
What do you mean killing you? I said I'd only kill those who oppose me and those like me when we take over the government and return it to a constitutional republic. Do you intend to oppose me when I return America back to the greatest nation on earth?
This may well be the closest you come in this entire thread to asking about anyone elses opinions...
To answer your question yes, I would oppose you. The reason is that I don't believe that you would "return it to a constitutional republic." Everything you've posted to this point makes you sound like a fanatic. I don't trust fanatics, no matter how good what they say sounds. That's exactly how the Spanish Inquistion and Hitler came to power. You have shown no sign of hearing anything anyone has said to you.
Frankly, I think that if someone like you did take over you would feel it was necessary to maintain the position to "insure our freedom." You want proof?
Unfortunately there are many who are house niggers like you and are content to be enslaved. They are scared of those who really value freedom.
In this statement you belittle everyone not like you to the point of insignifigance. It's also sounds like you've got a lot of hate in your heart. No, I don't trust you. You are a fanatic, with false claims of your values. If you actually believed that all men are created equal you couldn't think in such terms.
Judges make unconstitutional rulings against their own conscience because they don't want to be the one's responsible for overturning the fraud of income taxes. Rather than deciding they point to other decisions instead of the law. Rather than standing up, they think of their political careers and rule poorly. That means they're not good people. They may be a decent judge, but not a good person.
So, a decent judge can decide to make unconstitutional rulings? Didn't expect you to say that.
You should read this page real quick to get a better understanding of the subject.
http://www.libertarianworld.com/freetrade.html
Taken from that site:
Protectionist laws raise taxes (tariffs) on imported goods and/or impose limits (quotas) on the amount of goods governments permit to enter into a country. They are laws that not only restrict the choice of consumer goods, but also contribute greatly both to the cost of goods and to the cost of doing business. So under "protectionism" you end up poorer, with less money for buying other things you want and need
But you had previously said:
But many people don't know that the constitutional parts of government can be paid with the tariffs and excise taxes already collected
So, to tariff or not to tariff? Which is it?
If they oppose us, they're not good people.
Just to add a little more to the fanatic point...
Radar, do you believe that the right to keep a well organized militia refers to the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms or that it refers to having a state militia (currently, the coast guard)? Since the West interprets the term in the former way and the Southeast interprets the term in the second way, which segment of the American population is completely and utterly wrong?
First, it's not a right to keep a well organized militia, it's a right for individuals to keep and bear arms because militias are "necessary to the security of a free State". Second, anyone who reads it another way is wrong. As mentioned by someone else, everytime the phrase "the people" is used in the rest of the Constitution, it refers to the general populace. And Thirdly because we all have a right to life, we have a right to defend that life any way we see fit and that includes using guns.
You seem to be quite pro-business, so why do you want to return to a more detrimental tariff-based taxing system?
I would be interested in a very low flat-rate tariff on all trading partners. Right now some pay huge tariffs and some pay no tariffs at all. I'd be talking about 3% across the board which wouldn't be detrimental to business, especially considering the lower labor costs abroad.
If this line makes sesnse to you then you have no clue what actual slavery is, so this is pointless.
Slavery is being forced under duress to labor without compensation. I think we can all agree on that point. So if the guns of government are going to come after me if they don't get the fruits of my labor, it's slavery.
To answer your question yes, I would oppose you. The reason is that I don't believe that you would "return it to a constitutional republic."
If you would oppose me in my efforts to return America to a Constitutional republic, I would kill you plain and simple. Because you would represent those who oppress us, rob us, threaten us, and even murder some of us.
So, to tariff or not to tariff? Which is it?
As I've said, I'm not interested in raising tariffs (protectionism). I'm interested in keeping the same amount of tarifs we already collect but spreading it out evenly and fairly among all those who import good into America.
Just to add a little more to the fanatic point...
I'm not a fanatic in any sense of the word. I am a citizen of America and have popular sovereignty. I
DEMAND that the government I've given power to follow the rules set up in the beginning. The government answers to me, not the other way around. The Constitution wasn't created to limit our rights, but to limit the powers of the government. The government will follow the limitations on thier powers listed in the Constitution or blood will be spilled. It's that simple.
If you would oppose me in my efforts to return America to a Constitutional republic, I would kill you plain and simple. Because you would represent those who oppress us, rob us, threaten us, and even murder some of us.
So you want to create a republic based on the Constitution yet are planning on killing those that oppose you. You're one of the most hypocritical people I've ever met.
So you want to create a republic based on the Constitution yet are planning on killing those that oppose you. You're one of the most hypocritical people I've ever met.
I don't plan on creating anything. I plan on returning America to a Constitutional republic and if someone opposes that they are a traitor and traitors should be shot. If people oppose me, they oppose America. There's
NOTHING hypocritical, illogical, or wrong about me or any of my values.
If someone opposes the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America, they oppose me to the death and don't deserve to live in this country.
Originally posted by Radar
they oppose me to the death and don't deserve to live in this country.
Funny I was thinking the same thing about you a few days ago. Then I realized that this is America where people with different view points are allowed to have those views. But I must be wrong if someone with such great knowledge of the constitution believes he has the right to kill those that oppose him.
So, Radar, do you have any hobbies other than politics? Are you married? What's bartending like? What's one thing your parents did that most aggravated you?
Just curious.
Funny I was thinking the same thing about you a few days ago. Then I realized that this is America where people with different view points are allowed to have those views. But I must be wrong if someone with such great knowledge of the constitution believes he has the right to kill those that oppose him.
Of course you can have different views. You just can't legislate your views when those views contradict the Constitution. And I'm discussing who would die if there were a second American Revolution. I'm not some raving whacko who's going to just grab a machine gun and start indiscriminately killing people because I don't like thier viewpoints.
So, Radar, do you have any hobbies other than politics?
Sure. Juggling, movies, video games, backgammon, etc.
Are you married?
I will be in a few months.
What's bartending like?
It's fun. It's like getting paid to party. You meet cool people and everyone likes you. And you get paid for it. I'm not doing any bartending these days though. I've been making a living with my politics.
What's one thing your parents did that most aggravated you?
Got divorced, beat the hell out of me, treated me like shit, etc.
But the best thing they did for me was teach me to be self-reliant...they taught me how to cook, do laundry, etc. They also taught me from a very young age that I can do or be anything I want. And I truly believe that even still.
How about you juju? What's your favorite color? Your favorite dish? What countries have you been to? How old are you? What music do you like? What bothers you most about the America? What would you do to make it better?
Slavery is being forced under duress to labor without compensation. I think we can all agree on that point. So if the guns of government are going to come after me if they don't get the fruits of my labor, it's slavery.
Slavery is being owned by another human being. And you repeatedly say you proved, you don't have to pay taxes. Nobody does, according to you. So, look up the word slavery, in a dictionary instead of interpreting it's meaning to be what you want, and decided whether you're being forced to pay taxes or if you don't pay taxes.
If you would oppose me in my efforts to return America to a Constitutional republic, I would kill you plain and simple. Because you would represent those who oppress us, rob us, threaten us, and even murder some of us.
You've made it clear that if a person doesn't have your opinion then that person is an idiot. Also that they are not good people. Oh, sorry, if they're to afraid to oppose you then they are ok. Hmm, you've threatened, insulted, seek to oppress anyone with a different opinion. Hmm, haven't heard you say you're into robbery outright, but three out of four ain't bad. Yep, sounds like you'd fit right in with such a crowd. Maybe you and Bush should get together sometime and go bowling.
Because you would represent those who oppress us, rob us, threaten us, and even murder some of us.
Obviously it's I'd oppose you because you've led me to believe you would oppress us, threaten us, and even murder some of us.
As I've said, I'm not interested in raising tariffs
Uh, yeah. I believe the question was to "tariff, or not to tariff" your link led to a guy that explains why tariffs are bad. You say that limited tariffs are ok. So, why post a link to someone that says otherwise?
Yeah, you're a fanatic. What's more, you
DEMAND the government be shaped by your say so, the constitution references are your own illusion to make you feel better. As far as blood being spilled, it won't happen. You're supposed "Millions" are not going to rise up. You're just being pretentious. Keep ranting. I think it's cute. You big bad internet tough guy you
Originally posted by Whit
You big bad internet tough guy you
whit, youre awesome. :D
~james
Taken from that site:
[quote]quote:Protectionist laws raise taxes (tariffs) on imported goods and/or impose limits (quotas) on the amount of goods governments permit to enter into a country. They are laws that not only restrict the choice of consumer goods, but also contribute greatly both to the cost of goods and to the cost of doing business. So under "protectionism" you end up poorer, with less money for buying other things you want and need
[/quote]
Obviously it's I'd oppose you because you've led me to believe you would oppress us, threaten us, and even murder some of us.
I've said nothing that would lead anyone to believe I'd oppress anyone. And I only threaten those who threaten the Constitution (which is the same as threatening America) and I would never murder anyone. I might kill someone in my own defense or the defense of my country. But I'd never murder them.
What's more, you DEMAND the government be shaped by your say so, the constitution references are your own illusion to make you feel better.
Try again loser. My Constitutional references are above reproach and are 100% accurate. I don't want the government to be "shaped" by you, me, or anyone else. Unlike the morons who advocate violating the Constitution, I read it for what it says, not what I want it to say.
As far as blood being spilled, it won't happen. You're supposed "Millions" are not going to rise up. You're just being pretentious.
It's already happened. The government has already killed private citizens who opposed their violations of the Constitution. And blood will be spilled, especially if the second patriot act passes. And yes, millions will rise up because there are millions of Americans like me who respect the Constitution and will die to defend our country against our government. I see them every single day. I travel around the country meeting them and doing public speaking engagements. I'll be doing 3 of them in the next 3 days.
Keep ranting. I think it's cute. You big bad internet tough guy you
And keep talking shit. You make yourself look more and more stupid each and every time. It's amazing. I didn't think it was possible for you to look more stupid yet you never disappoint. And if you want to find out how tough this internet guy is, feel free to look me up anytime. I don't start fights, but I always finish them.
And if you want to find out how tough this internet guy is, feel free to look me up anytime. I don't start fights, but I always finish them.
Wow Radar I don't think I could have laughed any harder than I did just now, nearly stained my pants. So in other words you're trying to say "I can beat you up" OMG that is funny.
Originally posted by Radar
How about you juju? What's your favorite color? Your favorite dish? What countries have you been to? How old are you? What music do you like? What bothers you most about the America? What would you do to make it better?
Ehh, I don't really have a "favorite color". Most all of them can look really cool if they're used right, I think.
The only other country I've been to is Mexico. It was on a church trip -- one of those deals where they go "witnessing" to people. This basically involves going around knocking on people's doors and harrassing them about religion. We also passed out little "salvation" pamplets to strangers on the street. The interesting thing about it, though, was that not one person ever refused a pamphlet. Whenever one was offered to them, they would just take it and read it. It was really bizarre behavior, not at all what I'm used to -- and I live in the South! I was pretty surprised by the fact that everyone took the time to read some pamphlet that a stranger handed to them. I guess it's just a different culture down there. Or maybe they just hadn't been barraged by commercialism yet?
That was probably when I was around 16, and I'm 27 now. Anyway, I found that Christianity didn't really have the answers I was looking for, and I found the church culture to be somewhat offensive. They were supposed to be addressing all these big questions, but really it was more like a big party. What a waste of time.
Then, between the ages of 18-24, I was deeply into witchcraft and thought I was a powerful demi-god. Fun stuff!
Today I'm completly different than all that, though. I'm pretty much the most anti-religious person you could ever know, mostly because of my experiences with what faith can do to a person.
I really love listening to progressive rock, like Rush, Yes, and Dream Theater. Any music that's reasonably complicated has the potential to hold my interest, though. I like it when I can listen to a song over and over again, and catch a new nuance every time. You know, like songs that have layers of complexity. Most of the popular music just seems to loop the same riff over and over again. That's fun for a while, but it just seems to get old quickly.
The thing that bothers me most about America.. Well, it does have a lot of flaws, so I guess there's plenty to choose from. The fact that everyone seems to think it's the greatest nation on earth is really irritating. If the people who said this had actually done hard research into every other nation on earth and really made an informed decision, that would be okay. But most of it seems to amount to nothing more that high-school football team rah-rah. It's like, the group that you're a member of is automatically the best just because you're a member of it.
I do like America, though, don't get me wrong. There are a ton of really, really awesome things about it. But the problem I have is that more often than not, Patriotism stems from "It's good because I live here", and not, "It's good because of X, Y, and Z".
The other thing I dislike is that Corporations have too much power. I'm not sure what could be done about this, because we do need to have a Free Market and we need the goods they produce. But the fact that they can railroad politics the way they do is just terrible.
Congratulations on getting married! I'll be celebrating my 1st wedding anniversery in about a month and a half, and I'll have a helpless, newborn child in early November. Whodathunk it? We had an outside wedding, behind my mom's house. I'm really not much into church, and I wanted it to be more of a relaxed atmosphere. It worked out really well, too. It was like one big, casual party. Not formal and stuffy at all.
Originally posted by Radar
It's fun. It's like getting paid to party. You meet cool people and everyone likes you. And you get paid for it. I'm not doing any bartending these days though. I've been making a living with my politics.
I was always uncomfortable in bars because I don't drink (I consider it a form of voluntary mind control). But I imagine that would be fun. I'd have a sense of ownership of the place, too -- like everybody was just partying at my place.
What kind of political job do you have? Are you working for the Libertarian Party? Any idea who the next Libertarian presidential candidate will be?
I keep thinking I would like to bartend next year, I think my mother would kill me if I started doing that though. How did you get into that Radar, did you know a lot about making drinks before you started, or did they pretty much teach you how to make the most popular drinks and then set you loose.
So in other words you're trying to say "I can beat you up" OMG that is funny.
No, that's not what I was saying in other words. What I was saying is someone is acting like I write checks with my mouth that my ass can't cash. All I'm saying is my bank account is full and I've never bounced a check. I don't look for fights, but I don't run away either.
The other thing I dislike is that Corporations have too much power. I'm not sure what could be done about this, because we do need to have a Free Market and we need the goods they produce
It would be nice if we had a free market, but sadly politically influencial Corporations and corrupt politicians have turned our markets into protectionist mercantilism.
Like you, I think that true patriotism means keeping a watchful eye on government and ensuring they don't step beyond their authority. Also I detest people who say bullshit things like, "love it or leave it" and ignore the glaring problems here. The cheerleader mentality you spoke of is disgusting in many ways.
The witchcraft thing is strange. I listened to a bit of gothic and punk in college but never did the white face thing. I don't have to. I'm Irish.
Congrats on the new kid. I hope that works out well for you. I hope this marriage works out better than my first. My new wife is from Vietnam. I met here while I was there on vacation a couple of years ago. Unlike many of the ignorant people who support socialism or communism, I've personally seen the damage it does.
What kind of political job do you have? Are you working for the Libertarian Party? Any idea who the next Libertarian presidential candidate will be?
Mostly I've been doing legal paperwork for people having trouble with the IRS or State Tax collectors. I've also been managing an office, and travelling to freedom rallys, forums, etc. to sell books, videos, cd's, tapes, etc. and to give away lots of flyers, audio cd's, and other information about what's happening. I also attend a lot of Libertarian events. I'll be speaking at one in May. I'm not working for the LP at the moment, but I have in the past and most likely will in the future before I'm elected to public office.
Several people are trying for the Libertarian Presidential ticket. My favorite is Bill Masters. He's a Colorado Sheriff who has been re-elected several times. He's extremely intelligent, but unlike Harry Browne he doesn't sound like a Political Science professor. He's got a lot of "folksy" charm. He reminds me of Andy Griffith. He says things like, "I'm just a small town Sheriff but even I know that the drug war is wrong..."
Check him out at:
http://libertybill.net/home.html
There's a Judge in Southern California who just joined the party and wants to go for the Libertarian Ticket too. Judge Gray is in Orange County. I don't know if he'll have as much appeal to the public though.
Do you interpret the Second Amendment, when it says "necessary to the security of a free State", to refer to preservation of the independences of States confronted with a strong central government, which would be done by permitting the states to keep militias, or the freedoms of the people? I feel that the first interpretation has some credence given how many supporters there were of partially autonomous states at the time of the writing of the Constitution (eg; United
States), and precedents that this view has in Europe (until the consolidation under absolutist monarchies, which were viewed as being terrible nations for the citizens to live in).
Um, you included a quote opposing tariffs. I am somewhat confused.
Originally posted by Radar
My Constitutional references are above reproach and are 100% accurate.
Wow. That is incredible if true. Are we arguing with God?
Thanks, perth!
Also taken from that site:
Protectionism is a misnomer. The only people protected by tariffs, quotas and trade restrictions are those engaged in uneconomic and wasteful activity. Free trade is the only philosophy compatible with international peace and prosperity
Hey, thanks for taking the time to cut out the portion of the site that you linked to that you actually agreed with.
I've said nothing that would lead anyone to believe I'd oppress anyone. And I only threaten those who threaten the Constitution (which is the same as threatening America) and I would never murder anyone. I might kill someone in my own defense or the defense of my country. But I'd never murder them.
Oh right all you said was that you'd overthrow the goverment and kill anyone that opposed you. LOL Where would we get the idea that you're forcing anything (including death) on us? Oh, becuase that's what putting the goverment you want in effect and killing those that oppose you means...
Try again loser. My Constitutional references are above reproach and are 100% accurate.
That must be why you ignored Juju's post/link about Alexander Hamilton. Heh.
I don't want the government to be "shaped" by you, me, or anyone else. Unlike the morons who advocate violating the Constitution, I read it for what it says, not what I want it to say.
Oh of course, and we should all trust the guy that calls us names and says he'll kill us if we're in opposition. 'Cause he's a nice guy that wants to help us. Suuuure he is.
millions will rise up because there are millions of Americans like me who respect the Constitution and will die to defend our country against our government. I see them every single day.
Ok, you just hold your breath waiting for them to take up arms.
And keep talking shit. You make yourself look more and more stupid each and every time. It's amazing. I didn't think it was possible for you to look more stupid yet you never disappoint. And if you want to find out how tough this internet guy is, feel free to look me up anytime. I don't start fights, but I always finish them.
This is exactly why you're an internet tough guy. You talked about killing me and then said I was talking shit. Oh yeah, and I should look you up. LOL Obviously you're the one that cares here. I'm posting for my own amusement. You're getting emotional.
By the by, congrats on the upcoming nuptuals.
I keep thinking I would like to bartend next year, I think my mother would kill me if I started doing that though. How did you get into that Radar, did you know a lot about making drinks before you started, or did they pretty much teach you how to make the most popular drinks and then set you loose.
I attended a bartending school and then looked for work. I started off doing banquet bartending at hotels and restaurants to get experience. But it's best if you know someone who owns a bar and will give you a shot. I later returned to teach bartending and I think that made me a better bartender. Just like when I used to teach Microsoft Certification to would-be engineers. I felt like teaching them helped me be a better engineer. They would try new things I'd have to find a way to fix it.
Um, you included a quote opposing tariffs. I am somewhat confused.
The quote was against protectionism. Right now all of the constitutional parts of government can be paid for using the amount of money we already collect in tariffs and excise taxes. I'd be satisfied to spread it out evenly so nobody had an unfair advantage over another and it wouldn't be a large burden on those who bring goods here. Perhaps one day we'd be able to eliminate tariffs too if we started using usage taxes. But regardless of whether or not we do have tariffs, the income tax is unconstitutional and amounts to slavery. And as such nobody is required to pay them. In fact it's unamerican to pay income taxes because of this. Everything short of violence has been tried to get the government to address this issue except for one thing. Check out Bob Schulz at
http://www.givemeliberty.org to see the extent to which he went just to get the government to answer a few questions. He invited them to discuss it with him on CSPAN and they claimed they'd show but didn't. He went on a hunger strike and they said they'd meet with him so he'd end the strike on the 19th day but they didn't show. He showed up in Washington D.C. with representatives from all 50 states to exercise their 1st amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Nobody in Washington knew what to do. It had never been done before. They made a list of questions and gave them to every member of congress and the president, but nothing they did, including taking out full page ads in the USA Today got the government to address the problems.
The only thing left to do short of violence is for people to stop paying income taxes. We the people are the master's of government. They are our public servants. What is a free people to do when a servant starts taking over the house? Starve them. Don't give them the means to support themselves and you'll make a point very quickly.
Wow. That is incredible if true. Are we arguing with God?
No, just an honest and well-educated man of honor.
Hey, I'm all for getting a Libertarian to make a stronger than usual run at the presidency, since that would most likely take votes from Bush.
Oh right all you said was that you'd overthrow the goverment and kill anyone that opposed you. LOL Where would we get the idea that you're forcing anything (including death) on us? Oh, becuase that's what putting the goverment you want in effect and killing those that oppose you means...
No, I said I'd overthrow those who have taken over government and return government to a Constitutional Republic like what we started with only with the additions to the constitution included (not the parts that were added illegally like the 16th amendment). And no I wouldn't be putting the government that I personally want, but rather the government all of us agree to live under with the Constitution. Without the Constitution there is no United States of America. I'm not interested in taking over, or in replacing our government. Just in removing those who have violated the Constitution and returning government to one that sticks to the rules. Not MY rules, or even new rules; just the same rules they've always been
REQUIRED to follow.
That must be why you ignored Juju's post/link about Alexander Hamilton. Heh.
The Federalist papers are not part of the Constitution. And for the record the anti-federalists were right in what they said and Hamilton was wrong.
By the by, congrats on the upcoming nuptuals.
Thanks. I appreciate that.
When you bartend, is the difficult part keeping track of 10 different orders? Do you serve people by taking order A and filling order a, then taking order B and filling order b, or is it more like ABCDaEbcF ...
It depends on what kind of bartending you're doing. In a lot of restaurants they've got printouts and you can go by them. In banquet bartending you've got to take people one at a time, or in a club you've got to keep track in your head.
Radar, dude, if some guy you didn't know was talking about revolution and assured you he wasn't intending to take over, just make it like it was supposed to be, would you believe him?
It would depend mostly on who the guy was, what his reasons were, and what his goals were. I would believe me. But I wouldn't believe George Bush, Al Gore, or Ralph Nader.
Originally posted by Radar
It would depend mostly on who the guy was, what his reasons were, and what his goals were. I would believe me. But I wouldn't believe George Bush, Al Gore, or Ralph Nader.
Radar I think your hopeless.
Like I said, you'd have to take the guys word on his reasons and his goals.
You would believe yourself.
I wouldn't.
I would believe me were I someone else. I have far more credibility, integrity, honesty, and intelligence than any of those I mentioned.
Yep and that's why you find yourself sitting in the Oval office right??
Actually I've never run for the office of president but I'd imagine as an honest and truly patriotic man, I'd be at a disadvantage to obtain it. I'll be satisfied when another Libertarian holds that spot. But I will be elected at some position in government whether it be congress, the senate, or governor of a state, I'm not sure.
would urge you to run for office. It gives one a fine perspective on the challenge and reality of politics. I never ran myself but I have managed several campaigns.
I've held office within the party, nothing big though. I will run for office and I'm in a fairly rural area so I don't think the competition will be too tough. I am thinking about starting off either at a city council level although my friends think I should start off in some non-partisan race like water district. When I run, I intend to win so I'll be saving a few bucks and hitting up a lot of Libertarians for campaign donations and to volunteer. I'm not sure who I'll have manage my campaign. Mark Selzer has been doing a bit of that lately in between doing his Libertarian cable access television and radio shows.
I recommend you include a link to this thread in any promotional materials you make for the campaign.
And why would you recommend that? (he said sarcastically)
If you win, you can say, "Ha!"
If you lose, we can jeer.
I anticipate losing a few elections before winning one. It takes awhile to get name recognition and the skill to run an effective campaign. So there's nothing in it for me to link this site. Besides, why would I give this site free publicity or advertising?
Originally posted by Radar
It takes awhile to get name recognition and the skill to run an effective campaign.
And for the anti-psychotic drugs to kick in.
-sm
BTW, what's the cellar record for mass accumulation of a thread? 17 pages in 15 days? that's pretty good.
-sm
Originally posted by Radar
Besides, why would I give this site free publicity or advertising?
Quite frankly, I'm surprised you haven't sent any of your fellow cult members over here...seeing as we need schooling here and all.
Originally posted by smoothmoniker
BTW, what's the cellar record for mass accumulation of a thread? 17 pages in 15 days? that's pretty good.
That is pretty good...but I think we've done faster accumulations...there's one thread in my forum that went to 7 pages in 3 1/2 days. Some of those threads involving Cairo went out of control pretty fast too.
I have managed several campaigns.
You should tell us about that in a new thread. Please.:)
bruce! dont encourage him. :p
~james
Hey, if it offends you, sit somewere else on the bus. :eek:
close to the exit. ;)
~james
Hey as long as you're near a window you can break it and jump out.
And for the anti-psychotic drugs to kick in.
Sounds like the voice of experience talking.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised you haven't sent any of your fellow cult members over here...seeing as we need schooling here and all.
The "cult" of constitution followers. Scary.
You should tell us about that in a new thread. Please
Actually, I'd be interested to read that too.
Originally posted by Radar
The "cult" of constitution followers. Scary.
Constitutional followers my ass...you yourself don't follow the 16th amendment.
The "cult" of constitution followers. Scary
Any cult is scary, no matter what their intended purpose. :eek:
Originally posted by sycamore
Constitutional followers my ass...you yourself don't follow the 16th amendment.
Damn it syc, don't you remember that the 16th amendment is not part of the constitution. You need to listen to Radar more, he's the foremost scholar of the constitution, whatever he says is so.
Until a court decision says otherwise, the 16th amendment is. No amount of documentation, fact-finding, personal statements, etc. matters until the courts say so.
And that's what I know...so pbbbt!
Originally posted by sycamore
Until a court decision says otherwise, the 16th amendment is. No amount of documentation, fact-finding, personal statements, etc. matters until the courts say so.
And that's what [b]I know...so pbbbt! [/B]
I'll toast to that, if for no other reason than having an excuse to have a beer. :beer:
Originally posted by Cam
You need to listen to Radar more, he's the foremost scholar of the constitution, whatever he says is so.
Yeah...I could probably get a better argument from a high schooler than this...thing...on the Constitution.
Beer, hey Radar... er bartender...more beer.
Yeah! Radar can be our beer bitch...he'll need to get used to being a bitch anyway, with the whole prison gig possibly approaching and all.
All right guys, you've had your fun. Now be nice and quit teasing the libertarian.:angel:
Originally posted by Whit
All right guys, you've had your fun. Now be nice and quit teasing the libertarian.
It's not about teasing the libertarian. It's about poking fun at the asswipe from California who happens to be a violent libertarian.
Constitutional followers my ass...you yourself don't follow the 16th amendment.
I've already proven for a
FACT that the 16th amendment wasn't legally ratified and is thus not a part of the constitution.
Allow me to direct you to Article VI paragraph 2 of the constitution which states...
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Which means no part of the constitution may be added that is contrary to any of the rest of the constitution. The 16th amendment goes directly against the main body of the Constitution which says...
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
That alone makes it unconstitutional. But given the fact that there weren't even close to the number of votes required to pass the amendment since many of the states violated their own state constitutions when voting on the matter and changed the language of the amendment before signing it.
It's unconstitutional also because it violates the 13th amendment and the 5th amendment. But we've been through this. There is no doubt what-so-ever that the 16th amendment
IS NOT part of the constitution.
I'm a strict constitutionalist.
Any cult is scary, no matter what their intended purpose
I'm not a member of any cult. But those who want to discount what others are doing accuse them of being in a cult. For instance some religions call themselves religions but discount other religions as "cults".
You need to listen to Radar more, he's the foremost scholar of the constitution, whatever he says is so.
Not what I say, what the Constitution says. Not what I want it to say, or wish it said like many of you, but what it really says in black and white. And you're correct about me being a constitutional scholar.
Until a court decision says otherwise, the 16th amendment is. No amount of documentation, fact-finding, personal statements, etc. matters until the courts say so.
Court decisions don't mean shit. The highest law in the land is the Constitution. Not what the courts claim the Constitution says, or what case law says. There need not be any court case regarding the 16th amendment. And there won't be one since the corrupt Supreme Court won't hear it.
And that's what I know...so pbbbt!
So you're saying you don't know shit.
I'll toast to that, if for no other reason than having an excuse to have a beer.
I don't need an excuse to have a beer. I'm Irish. :)
I was going to tell you to pull the stick out of your ass Radar then I read your last line, put me in a better mood I didn't think you had a bit of fun in you.
Yeah...I could probably get a better argument from a high schooler than this...thing...on the Constitution.
A high schooler would be beyond your comprehension.
Yeah! Radar can be our beer bitch...he'll need to get used to being a bitch anyway, with the whole prison gig possibly approaching and all.
If I go to prison it'll only be to visit you and give you more soap on a rope.
It's not about teasing the libertarian. It's about poking fun at the asswipe from California who happens to be a violent libertarian.
No, it's about you being a dickhead. I'm not a violent person. But I will kill or die to defend my country and my rights when I'm attacked. And that's happening right now. If the government stuck to the Constitution and didn't attack our civil rights, I'd never even think about taking up arms in my defense against them.
Okay I was wrong you really do need to pull that stick out of your ass.
Nope...sorry. Don't buy it. 16th amendment stands. The end. Thank you and good night.
Originally posted by Radar
So you're saying you don't know shit.
Actually, I know lots of shit. An easy glance at some of my 4100 some-odd posts and a quick survey of the regulars would make your above assertion laughable.
I pity you, Radar...know why? Because you are nothing more than a rabblerouser who tries to push his opinions as fact. A ballbag who takes his view of the Constitution (which is merely another interpretation of said document) and tries to cram it down others' throats. You're just another Cairo, another George W. Bush, another John Ashcroft...an unfortunate mistake that acts as an impediment to making the United States greater than it already is. You and your kind bring down the collective IQ of our nation.
You have yet to win an argument here. For all the knowledge you have, you lose by virtue of your asinine online personality. My funniest posts will be taken more seriously than any fecal matter you throw on this site.
So, why don't you fetch me that beer, bitch, then run along to that constitutional altar that you worship. While you're at it, keep telling yourself, "I'm right! I'm always right on the Constitution! They're all wrong! All wrong!" Murmur it to yourself quietly, like a lullaby.
You seem so intelligent...and yet you're such a waste. A pity. But I'll tell ya what...when you get your shit together, and want to talk on the level that most folks here know as "reality," don't hesitate to post. I'll be waiting for that day.
Originally posted by Radar
So there's nothing in it for me to link this site. Besides, why would I give this site free publicity or advertising?
Because, it would show the public what a freaking nut you are!
That's a good point, the media anywhere would have a heyday with some of the stuff you've posted here.
Oh hell, I hadn't even thought of that. Can you imagine what would happen to someone running for public office if it got out that he was online calling people "house niggers"?
The only nigger in here is Radar...he and his kind don't belong here.
And what was up with the "sexy Vietnamese wife" remark? It's not like I go around saying "my wonderful African-American fiance"...what was that? A "some of my best friends are black"-type comment?
Actually, I know lots of shit. An easy glance at some of my 4100 some-odd posts and a quick survey of the regulars would make your above assertion laughable.
I'm supposed to be impressed because you've made 4100 ignorant and lame posts? I've got over 5,000 posts on several boards. BFD
A ballbag who takes his view of the Constitution (which is merely another interpretation of said document) and tries to cram it down others' throats.
I've owned you since the day I got here you pathetic ass pirate. Save your pity for those who aren't your intellectual superiors. Although there aren't many in this world who qualify. I don't "interpret" the Constitution and I'm not trying to force anything down anyone's throats. I follow the law and I expect....no DEMAND that government do the same because they work for me.
You have yet to win an argument here. For all the knowledge you have, you lose by virtue of your asinine online personality. My funniest posts will be taken more seriously than any fecal matter you throw on this site.
I have yet to lose an argument on this site. And there will never be a day you beat me in any argument. You couldn't outwit me if I were dead for a year. Every post you make just digs your hole deeper and makes you look worse. Keep talking shithead. I find it amusing.
That's a good point, the media anywhere would have a heyday with some of the stuff you've posted here.
I've backed up every single thing I've said on this site and every other I post on. I offer verifiable facts and sometimes my well thought out opinions. I have nothing to be ashamed of from anything I've said in here. And the phrase "house nigger" refers to those who side with their oppressors because they think it'll get them a few more scraps from the feast of freedom rather than taking thier rightful seat at the table.
And what was up with the "sexy Vietnamese wife" remark?
Just because you couldn't get laid in a women's prison with a fistful of pardons, don't hate those of us who have to turn down the many offers for pussy.
The only pussy you have in your life is when you look in the mirror.
Keep talking, nigger...dig that grave some more...I'll even lend you a shovel.
Originally posted by Radar
I have yet to lose an argument on this site. And there will never be a day you beat me in any argument.
If this isn't proof that this motherfucker is delusional, I don't know what is.
And the phrase "house nigger" refers to
Heh, I don't think it matters what it refers to. Us of the "N" word is politcaly bad.
Originally posted by Whit
Heh, I don't think it matters what it refers to. Us of the "N" word is politcaly bad.
What? Are you trying to replace jag now?
I don't censor myself for the political correctness or comfort of others. I don't sugar coat anything. I didn't invent the phrase. I just make sure I use it properly.
Radar you have officially become the first person I’ve ever met online that I’ve hated. Every time I see your name in front of a new post my mouth fills up with the taste of bile. Not because I disagree with everything you say but because your such a god damn pompous asshole. That last post was asinine, especially considering you think you’re such a fucking political genius. Do you really think the American public gives a damn whether or not you’ve backed up your posts? They don’t, hell I don’t really give a damn at this point.
Not only that but you have yet to “back up” shit on this site. Instead, as almost everyone here has pointed out to you, you just spew the same shit over and over again. In fact I believe you’ve even quoted yourself as “proof” that you are right. Also if you haven’t noticed the use of racial slurs or discriminatory remarks by our government officials are not tolerated. “House Nigger” isn’t going to be tolerated anymore than Trent Lott’s comments were. But wait you are the bringer of truth and justice to us mere mortals so the millions are bound to rise up in your defense….right.
You say you’ve never lost an argument on this site and say you will never loose. As I’ve said before you remind me of myself when I was in high school, I thought I new everything, and refused to admit I was wrong no matter what someone said. But then I GREW UP, and realized I’m not a genius, just an ordinary human being who is wrong sometimes. You still haven’t come to that realization and in some ways that is the saddest thing about you.
You know if you’re so much smarter than us why the hell do you keep coming back, you sure as hell won’t be missed by anyone around here, we might actually be able to hold an intelligent conversation if you left.
Originally posted by Radar
I don't censor myself for the political correctness or comfort of others. I don't sugar coat anything. I didn't invent the phrase. I just make sure I use it properly.
But your running for office somewhere, good luck.
But then I GREW UP, and realized I’m not a genius, just an ordinary human being who is wrong sometimes.
I've got bad news for you. You didn't grow up. And I admit when I'm wrong, I've just never been wrong with regard to the constitution and not one of you have proven I am.
You know if you’re so much smarter than us why the hell do you keep coming back, you sure as hell won’t be missed by anyone around here, we might actually be able to hold an intelligent conversation if you left.
I come around so there will be someone with intelligence in here. And since you've never had an intelligent conversation before, what makes you think you could if I left?
I've got bad news for you. You didn't grow up. And I admit when I'm wrong, I've just never been wrong with regard to the constitution and not one of you have proven I am.
Where are my smilies that are running their heads into brick walls and digging themselves into a hole.
Radar you have officially become the first person I’ve ever met online that I’ve hated.
What an honor. I can see how important I am to you. I wish I could say the same for you but I'm really indifferent towards you. For all intents and purposes you're invisible. The only thing that makes you interesting at all to me is your name. And that's because I have a friend named Cam.
Let's see if I can muster up some hate for you. I don't hate you as a person but I do have a general distates and hatred of ignorance so I guess you could qualify that way. I also hate loudmouth delusional spineless retarded idiots who are incapable of rational thought, but I don't think you really qualify for this. Sycamore on the other hand is a perfect candidate for that catagory.
Where are my smilies that are running their heads into brick walls and digging themselves into a hole.
It was an effort to think of a way to hate you and now you want me to think of a simile for you? Ok, you are like a baloon because you're an airhead, you arguments hold no weight, and if you floated away nobody would miss you.
Originally posted by Radar
I also hate loudmouth delusional spineless retarded idiots who are incapable of rational thought, but I don't think you really qualify for this. Sycamore on the other hand is a perfect candidate for that catagory.
Awww! Aren't you cute as a button! *pats him on the head* Big words from a little man! So precious!
Originally posted by Radar
It was an effort to think of a way to hate you and now you want me to think of a simile for you? Ok, you are like a baloon because you're an airhead, you arguments hold no weight, and if you floated away nobody would miss you.
He said
smilies, nutstain.
Originally posted by Radar
It was an effort to think of a way to hate you and now you want me to think of a simile for you? Ok, you are like a baloon because you're an airhead, you arguments hold no weight, and if you floated away nobody would miss you.
Ahhhhh how clever :) :D ;) :p :cool: :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Cam
Okay I was wrong you really do need to pull that stick out of your ass.
Maybe he's enjoying it?
Originally posted by sycamore
And what was up with the "sexy Vietnamese wife" remark? It's not like I go around saying "my wonderful African-American fiance"...what was that? A "some of my best friends are black"-type comment?
I think he got her mailorder.
Yeah...so desperate for a woman that he had to go overseas.
I have yet to lose an argument on this site. And there will never be a day you beat me in any argument. You couldn't outwit me if I were dead for a year. Every post you make just digs your hole deeper and makes you look worse. Keep talking shithead. I find it amusing.
Yeah...so desperate for a woman that he had to go overseas.
Try again cum bubble. I just happened to be overseas while on vacation. Those of us who make a decent living do that sort of thing. Perhaps when you get promoted to the assistant manager of your neighborhood McDonalds, you'll find out what that's like.
She's better looking, kinder, and more cultured, intelligent, and caring than any woman a loser like you have ever known let alone dreamed to be marrying. And she's lucky to have a guy like me just as I'm lucky to have a woman like her. We're a match made in heaven.
Sorry, but the only thing on mail order is your inflatable sheep. I'm sure you'll be happy together.
As good as mine. No matter where on earth you travel. Because you're a loser.
Originally posted by Radar
Try again cum bubble. I just happened to be overseas while on vacation. Those of us who make a decent living do that sort of thing.
Yeah? So sucking dick on Sunset Blvd. pays you well, eh? That's great, Radar. It's awesome that you suck so much dick that you can buy a trophy wife. That's what this country is all about!
Stealing photos from the internet will get you nowhere.
Sycamore, you seem to know more about sucking dick than anyone I know. Don't hate me because I'm more than you'll ever be. Don't hate me because I'm your intellectual superior. Don't hate me because women find me more attractive than you. Don't hate me because I'm a better man than you'll ever be. Hate yourself for being a pathetic whining loser who has nothing to offer to the world but ignorance and bitterness.
Stealing photos from the internet will get you nowhere.
This is perfect. My reality is better than your fantasy. I feel sorry for you. This is the woman I'll be married to. And she's very jealous over me. She is afraid other women will steal me away. You accuse me of stealing photos from the net and that just makes me laugh because she's in love with me and I'm in love with her. She's more woman than you'll ever have and I'm more man than you'll ever be. You'll never have the happiness or love that we have. At least not until you take a serious look at your many character flaws and address them. Start with getting a personality.
Radar, I think I see the big picture here. Your jealousy, lack of understanding, and poor debating skills have retarded your postings here from day one. And I know it hurts your head wondering why I am so well-loved by the masses here, while you are nothing more than an infected herpes sore. I can't say I know what that feels like...but I want to try and empathize here...let me try...
Nope...sorry...not working for me. I don't know what it's like to be a profoundly retarded individual such as yourself. But when I rest my eyes this evening, I'll say a prayer to God for you...I'll pray that you may have enough intelligence one day to tie your shoes.
God bless you, child...
For fuck's sake, won't someone lock this thread down?
Originally posted by Radar
I feel sorry for you.
Why? Life is good in Sycamoreland.
And she's very jealous over me. She is afraid other women will steal me away.
Nah...she's just scared as shit of losing her green card.
I think I'll use a movie quote to speak for me at this moment.
When a person is insane, as you clearly are, do you know that you're insane? Maybe you're just sitting around, reading Guns & Ammo, masturbating in your own feces...do you just stop and go, 'WOW! It is amazing how fucking crazy I really am.
Brad Pitt (as Detective David Mills in the movie "Seven")
Go on Radar...let that hurt out. Come back to reality with us! Be healed!
$10 says that chucklehead had that quoted towards him by somebody on another forum. Man, he can never come up with anything original.
On your best day and my worst, I'll still be a better man than you and I'll still be loved by more people than you. If I were to throw a bus load of orphans and nuns into a giant wood chipper, I'd still be more popular than you. How does that make you feel? It must be tough knowing you've never beaten me in an argument, I'm intellectually superior, I am financially superior, I'm better educated, have a better woman, and am happier than you'll ever be.
It's ok man. You can admit you wish you were me. We all know it. Perhaps you can come to grips with your inferiority and do something about it. Hell, I feel sorry for you. I'll even chip in a few bucks for your disparately needed years of psychotherapy.
Even though you're a twisted fuck nut, you're sill a person. Even a worthless scumbag loser such as yourself deserves a break now and then. The first step to fixing your problems is to admit them. So whenever you're ready to admit your jealous of me and my life, you can get on the road to getting a life of your own.
That's it, Radar...keep letting it out. You're on the road to recovery. You can do it!
[SIZE=3]OK folks...move along...there's nothing to see here. [/SIZE]
Originally posted by Radar
Sorry, but the only thing on mail order is your inflatable sheep. I'm sure you'll be happy together.
Hey, what's wrong with a fuck sheep?! Ooh, and .....didja notice the model number of this little beauty? TW 445!! :)
What an honor. I can see how important I am to you. I wish I could say the same for you but I'm really indifferent towards you. For all intents and purposes you're invisible. The only thing that makes you interesting at all to me is your name. And that's because I have a friend named Cam.
Hate was a bad word to use here i'll admit. But I do dislike you to a point where everytime I read something you post I get a bad taste in my mouth. It's not like I sit up at night thinking about you or anything as you seem to think.
My name if you want to know is made up of my initials. Nothing too creative, or exciting, just functional.
Lock the thread down? Why? Anyone in it has the ability to stop it, any time they like, including everyone reading.
it will just erupt somewhere else anyway ... no point in killing it.
I know syc asked this at one point, but UT, is he 'intolerably irritating' yet? I don't mean that you would have to do anything about it if he IS, I just want to have a better understanding of your definition of this standard.
Is there precedent for a thread like this becoming something more interesting? Although at 22 pages and counting, somebodies interested.
Say Wolf, did Slang wash away last night? I hear Brad Co is pretty chewed up.
He's on pretty high ground. Also there is a good-sized disaster-magnet (trailer park) in town, so if anything happens it will happen there or at one of the numerous churches.
I haven't talked with him yet today ... our work schedules are kinda opposite right now (he's working days and sleeping nights, I'm sleeping days and working nights) but I do believe he posted this morning, so that's encouraging.
He's nowhere near intolerably irritating. He practically only posts in one thread, and in that thread he is the center of attention. Intolerable would be if he posted in every thread just to try to make a point, or if he posted 27 times a day in this one just to try to make a point.
He's here because you all like it; he interests you. If nobody replied he would leave.
If you really honestly wanted to get rid of him, this would be the last post in the thread.
I'm still considering him to be entertaining.
He's entertaining but not really a hillbilly. The real hillbillies actually live down in the hollows where the flood waters flow. Oh, you mean Radar... nevermind.
Sorry, I don't qualify. I've got all my teeth, don't have sex with my sister, don't live in a trailer, don't shop at piggly wiggly, don't watch NASCAR, don't drive a pick-up truck with a gun rack, don't have a large belt buckle, don't attend monster truck pulls, I don't wear overalls, I have a job, I don't say "y'all", I don't listen to country or western music, I don't do line dancing, don't wear a cowboy hat, don't have a car on blocks in my front yard, I don't chew tobacco, I don't trust or support, George W. Bush, I don't play a banjo, I don't have collector plates, and I don't watch or star on the Jerry Springer Show or Cops.
I'm a city dweller. I can't stand hillbillies.
I guess you're right, UT. I should learn really to think before I post at 3am. :)
I guess I was just annoyed at all the pointless and blatant flaming. I thought we had a much more subtle sort of trolling thing going here, masked under the veneer of really intelligent debate. In my mind it was so much more noble.
Originally posted by Radar
On your best day and my worst, I'll still be a better man than you and I'll still be loved by more people than you. If I were to throw a bus load of orphans and nuns into a giant wood chipper, I'd still be more popular than you. How does that make you feel? It must be tough knowing you've never beaten me in an argument, I'm intellectually superior, I am financially superior, I'm better educated, have a better woman, and am happier than you'll ever be.
It's ok man. You can admit you wish you were me. We all know it. Perhaps you can come to grips with your inferiority and do something about it. Hell, I feel sorry for you. I'll even chip in a few bucks for your disparately needed years of psychotherapy.
Even though you're a twisted fuck nut, you're sill a person. Even a worthless scumbag loser such as yourself deserves a break now and then. The first step to fixing your problems is to admit them. So whenever you're ready to admit your jealous of me and my life, you can get on the road to getting a life of your own.
Shall I reiterate for you, Radar?
Originally posted by That Guy
Just because you spread lies among your own differential opinion and worthless ideology doesn't make you any better than the rest of your dissident anti-patriot companions and weak-minded light-weights. I celebrate the day that you realize your misled inner-constitution and egotistical flaws are your greatest enemies, and not your sole weapons.
Shall I reiterate for you, Radar?
No, I'm sick of your ignorance and lies. Unlike you, everything I've said is completely true, and backed up by indisputable facts. I've shown you the exact parts of the Constitution that prove it.
I am more of a patriot than you'll ever be you pathetic little worm. I would kill or die to defend the Constitution of America because without the Constitution there is no America.
Your weak attempts at wit are laughable and so are you. If I were you, I'd save my celebrations for the day you grow a brain and can keep up with me intellectually. But you shouldn't get your hopes up. It's not looking good for you.
My only flaw on this board is kindness. I keep coming back here to school you over and over even though you seem incapable of learning and unworthy of my attention. What can I say? I'm a softy.
Originally posted by Radar
What can I say? I'm a softy.
What else would we expect from the land of fruits and nuts? Cisco, huh?
Noo! Don't close this thread! It's wonderful! I read this thread almost every day, and I relish Radar's posts. In fact, I giggle excitedly whenever I realize that the next post was made by him.
In fact, because he's the only one who realizes that he's performing for our entertainment, he is rapidly becoming one of the only people in this thread that is worth reading. His posts are long and filled with amusing comments. By contrast, everyone else seems to be deflated. It's rather frustrating.,
In fact, because he's the only one who realizes that he's performing for our entertainment, he is rapidly becoming one of the only people in this thread that is worth reading. His posts are long and filled with amusing comments. By contrast, everyone else seems to be deflated. It's rather frustrating.,
LOL. I wouldn't say such things in here. You might be ridiculed or accused of being crazy. Or if you provide indisputable facts, people will ignore them or call them your "interpretation" of the facts as though facts were open to interpretation. If you prove something people will say you never proved it. If you prove it again and reply to thier same old lame ideas, they will say you're just repeating the same old stuff and can't come up with anything new. If you beat them at every single debate with superior logic, intelligence, verifiable facts, and debating technique they will say you've never won an argument or debate. They will continue to their denials, insults, ignorance, and cult-like hatred of me and perhaps you.
Here's what happens with me.
1. I respond to a thread or start one.
2. I'm immediatley attacked, ridiculed, and lied about.
3. Someone posts a thread or poll in this or one of the other forums on this site.
4. I'm accused of being insane, ignorant, a cult member, one who lacks original thought, unreasonable, unwilling to listen or read other opinions, unable to change my thought patterns, unwilling to admit when I'm wrong, etc. (all of which are 100% false)
5. I'm amused at the idea of people on the verge of being retarded accusing me of being stupid, crazy, or ignorant so I reply with facts and information and jide them back a bit.
6. More of the same.
So basically on this site, it's not a good idea to like me or my posts, agree with me, or otherwise be happy to see anything that might be connected to me because the cellar cult will get you.
What do you do copy my posts and put them into a spell checker? I make far less spelling errors than most others who post. Why is it you don't correct thier spelling?
Fuck You.
Did I spell that correctly?
And I give less than a shit about who you do or don't like. I'll just put you on my ignore list because nothing you post has any valuable content anyway.
okay. sorry. i know it gets to you, so thats why i do it. i will stop if you will read this carefully and think about it.
it seems to me that youre not really interested in being a part of the cellar community. you very seldom post in threads you didnt start, and when you do, its always politically motivated. while debate is an important part of what makes the cellar what it is, there is much more to it. i simply cannot imagine that your only interests are political.
we have a board called 'food and drink'. you are or have been a bartender, and i imagine that you could bring a lot to that board. why dont you? i suspect its for one of two reasons. either you have nothing to say or youre not interested in saying it. i seriously doubt its the first. if its the second, then why are you here?
to 'win fucking arguments'?
the problem with that is, even before youve posted anything or before youve read anything anyone else has to say, you have already decided that youre right. you say that you can admit when youre wrong, but seriously, when was the last time that happened? you already know, with 100% certainty that you are right and that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.
and guess what? i bet theres a lot of people here who would agree with a lot of what you have to say (myself included, though at this point i am loathe to admit it), if you were more open to debate, more willing to have your beliefs challenged. but youre not. and youre not very nice about it.
a long while ago, shortly after you arrived here and i called you an idiot and you called me an asshole, you made a joke in some thread about shoes (im not going to dig it up, i assume you remember it). and i thought to myself, 'maybe hes not such a bad guy'. but that was the one and only time you posted something that didnt come off like political extremist on drugs.
it seems to me (and i would love to be proved wrong) that youre simply a troll. an ubertroll, but a troll nonetheless.
dont be the kid who sits at the edge of the game making cracks because youre 'too good' for us. join the game. i bet people would be a lot more interested in what you have to say if they knew you as someone other than what youve come across as so far. i would be.
~james
p.s. i deleted my previous two posts because they were immature and im going to try and show you at least some respect. so again, i apologise for my behaviour but i stand beside what i said in this post.
I recieved a letter today from the National Constitution Center, The Bourse, Suite 560, 111S. Independence Mall E., Philadelphia, PA. 19106 (
www.constitutioncenter.org). They are soliciting funds for "the revolutionary new museum and outreach center" opening July 4th 2003.
[FONT=courier new]" The Constitution and Bill of Rights are - to this day - the subject of passionate debate (i.e., freedom of religion, prayer in school, freedom of the press, and the right to bear arms). When the supreme court becomes involved in these matters, the document to which they turn for resolution is the constitution. And we Americans cannot understand the issues involved if we do not know and understand the Constitution."[/FONT]
Radar, when you come to visit, I'll buy you a Philly cheesesteak and all the beer you can drink.
Originally posted by Radar
So basically on this site, it's not a good idea to like me or my posts, agree with me, or otherwise be happy to see anything that might be connected to me because the cellar cult will get you.
That's not *entirely* true. I have said many times I agree with many of your posts/beliefs. It's the cutting harshness of what you post that I found annoying. Most of that has gone away. Thank you. It's much easier for someone to agree with you when you arent calling people cock smokers. :)
I can't really say that I hold that much respect here, so supporting some of your assertions isn't damaging to my reputation. There are some ideas you post that I strongly agree with, like:
* the 16th A and the tax system are only in force due to intimidation and are not legal.
* The second A means what *it says* :)
* That Bill Gates is not really the ant-christ but a good capatalist.
* People that make money should vacation
On the other hand, we disagree on the role of the US military and Bush. So there you have it, enough common ground to keep us posting back and forth.
OOh, and......I'm ignoring the fact you dont like hillbillies (til I get done fucking my sister in the car on blocks in the front yard anyway). :)
Radar, when you come to visit, I'll buy you a Philly cheesesteak and all the beer you can drink.
Slang, I'll make you the same offer.:)
it seems to me that youre not really interested in being a part of the cellar community. you very seldom post in threads you didnt start, and when you do, its always politically motivated.
I'm a politically motivated guy and I'm posting in a political forum.
while debate is an important part of what makes the cellar what it is, there is much more to it. i simply cannot imagine that your only interests are political.
You're correct there. I have many other interests but the political fire in my belly and my love of arguments drives me towards political discussion. I like movies, juggling, world travel, computer networking, sky diving, etc. I've worked as a casino craps dealer/pitboss/surveillance, a computer network engineer, a bartender, and various other jobs to makes ends meet.
we have a board called 'food and drink'. you are or have been a bartender, and i imagine that you could bring a lot to that board. why dont you? i suspect its for one of two reasons. either you have nothing to say or youre not interested in saying it. i seriously doubt its the first. if its the second, then why are you here?
To be honest I find political discussion far more exciting than talking about food or drink. But since you're taking the high road and challenging me to do the same, I'll check it out.
dont be the kid who sits at the edge of the game making cracks because youre 'too good' for us. join the game. i bet people would be a lot more interested in what you have to say if they knew you as someone other than what youve come across as so far. i would be.
I'll keep that in mind and turn down my asshole setting a notch or two.
p.s. i deleted my previous two posts because they were immature and im going to try and show you at least some respect. so again, i apologise for my behaviour but i stand beside what i said in this post.
Apology accepted and thanks for taking the high road.
Radar, when you come to visit, I'll buy you a Philly cheesesteak and all the beer you can drink.
That's a very kind and gracious invitation. I've always wanted to visit Philadelphia and see the historical sites. Although it might be dangerous to promise me all the beer I can drink. ;) I play a mean game of darts and would insist on buying my share of the rounds. But if I am going to make it out that way, I'll let you know I'm coming.
OOh, and......I'm ignoring the fact you dont like hillbillies (til I get done fucking my sister in the car on blocks in the front yard anyway).
I've never had a problem with you Slang. And I'll let the hillbilly thing slide if I get a turn with your sister next.
:D
Originally posted by slang
I can't really say that I hold that much respect here,
That's not true at all! Well, I respect you, at least.
Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Slang, I'll make you the same offer.:)
Thankyou. I rarely drink alcohol because I am most always carrying a (or many) handguns. The state frowns on people being intoxicated while driving....you can imagine how unhappy they are with someone toting 5 handguns drunk (or ability impaired).
I plan on coming to Philli sometime over the summer and when I do we'll hafta get together. I can eat like a wild animal , and to take advantage of free food I'll bring a wheelchair and stretchpants. :)
Originally posted by juju
Well, I respect you, at least.
Thanks Juju. It's hard to respect a guy with a blowup fucksheep (with lotsa guns).
I really don't agree. Maybe I'm just different. :)
Originally posted by slang
I can eat like a wild animal , and to take advantage of free food I'll bring a wheelchair and stretchpants. :)
He's not kidding.
Hey Juju, you know you've been in Arkansas to long when the sheep thing doesn't bother you. On the other hand you live close to campus as well as attending school so you probably see more disturbing things on a regular basis.
Or maybe it's just the fact that you've lived close enough to Oklahoma to know it could be so much worse...
Nah, I just don't pass judgement on people who do harmless things. It is blowup, after all. And in the end, why should I really give a damn if somebody likes to fuck inflatable sheep? It's not as if it's going to creep into every other aspect of their personality.
Yeah, yeah, I know you were only kidding, giving me a hard time, and blah blah blah. Look, I'm operating off of 3 hours sleep, here. I did a last-minute cram-studing session last night for my Spanish final (which I'm pretty sure I did okay on. Go last-minute cramming!) Anyway, I feel pretty lucky that I can even form coherent sentences. Forming coherent paragraphs, though? That's a bit out of my reach right now..
::head falls on keyboard::
zzzZZzzzz...
He's having that dream where he oversleeps his alarm and then arrives at the Spanish final naked and only knows how to speak Brazilian Portugese...
Nah, I just don't pass judgement on people who do harmless things. It is blowup, after all.
Yup, you've been living to close to Oklahoma. Just because you have to make the distinction of blow up or not.
I'm just harrasing you, I think you're point is somewhat valid. I do question what the rest of their personality would be like if they look at a blow up sheep and think, "Umm yeah, that looks good to me." It seems to me it very well might effect the rest of their personality.
it's possible that it may influence some small parts of their personality, but I don't think you can say that fucking inflatable sheep is <i>the</i> direct cause of personality. I tend to think that personality is brought about by all of our experiences combined. And besides, it's rather ludicrous to suggest that Slang had no personality before he fucked inflatable sheep.
:)
Argh! I made an oversight. You said "the rest of their personality". Still, I think that experiences that happened after the fact would also contribute to personality.
I'm so goddamned tired right now...
Sorry, I meant to suggest that the fucking of inflatable sheep displayed a preexisting problem in their personality. Rereading I was very unclear on that. And yeah, the problem most likely existed before the experience. I'm not sure what leads one to have a desire for such a device, but I'd still like to think it's uncommon.
While we're on the subject, did you hear they have found a new use for sheep in Oklahoma?
Wool!
I know, I was just being a jerk about affect/effect. :)
A few years ago some smart ass friends gave me a "love Ewe" inflatable sheep for Christmas. I blew it up and diplayed it on a table in the living room. The thing had a hole with a pouch in each end. You get the picture.
Well, everytime these same smart ass guys came over, they would stick their finger in MY sheep. That is until I filled both holes with cold hand cream.
Priceless!:D
Arkansans making fun of Oklahomans...that's like one retard calling another retard "stupid." :)
I plan on coming to Philli sometime over the summer and when I do we'll hafta get together. I can eat like a wild animal , and to take advantage of free food I'll bring a wheelchair and stretchpants.
Your on. I'll film it any make a profit.
Oh, by the way, in Philly you don't need a gun. It's the city of brotherly love.:rolleyes:
Arkansans making fun of Oklahomans...that's like one retard calling another retard "stupid."
Dude, I know that was in jest, but it's insane what happens just across the stateline. Like the cadaver dogs found a skeleton in the woods buried three feet down. The Okie police said they weren't runling out foul play. I'm thinking, "No shit? You don't think this person died of natural causes and then buried themselves three feet down?"
Heck, the nickname for the place is Kill County. Some of the guy's from over there that I worked with would joke that you couldn't live there unless you'd been convicted of a felony. And you couldn't be a cop unless you'd been convicted of three, it was a joke of course. Okie cops do whatever they want without fear of being held accountabe. I once got a speeding ticket over there, I wasn't going to fight it so I mailed my payment in. My check was cashed, but the ticket was never filed. It's not on my record. I called and asked and the woman I talked to said there was no record of me in their system. Not even the check they cashed. I let it go since this way it wasn't on my record.
Arkansas at it's worst is Oklahoma Lite. The heaviest substance I've heard of cops selling in Arkansas is pot. I used to know the names of some Okie cops that would sell crystal meth and the like.