REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Whoops - Joe the Plumber Hasn't Paid His Taxes!

POSTED BY: KWICKO
UPDATED: Sunday, October 26, 2008 12:57
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6814
PAGE 3 of 5

Friday, October 17, 2008 2:49 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"As is Obama's claim to CUT income taxes on 95% of tax payers. Obama keeps on making the same mistake on his claim."

See, and there you are, wrong again. Obama said he would not increase taxes for 95% of people. Can't you get anything right ?

.



He said he'd CUT taxes.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 17, 2008 2:51 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

No Capitation , or other DIRECT TAX , shall be laid , unless in Proportion to the CENSUS or ENUMERATION hereinbefore directed to be taken
Maybe that's why they do a census every ten years.




I have no objection to tax , per se , but it must be within the narrow confines of Limited and lawful government...

The Census is a Constitutional Requirement , but enumerating people is not an authorization or legal establishment of the Income Tax...

Show me the legal foundation for the Income Tax , and the 'Tax Code'...

Warning : You're going to be at it for a long , long time...

There isn't any...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 17, 2008 2:52 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"It's sad to see those who claim to be Browncoats cling so blindly to the Alliance-is-Daddy attitude when it comes to the United States Government."


Yes especially when it comes to government lying its way into a war, spying on its own innocent citizens, and torturing people ... all in the name of saving us from all those evil brown people.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.



No where have you or anyone shown where the Gov't LIED us into war. Were that truly the case, THEN I'd be concerned. But that's not the way of things, you know it, your partisan position is PURELY based on politics, nothing else.

I got no problem if we tortured 3 terrorist and got good intel out of 'em. That's fine by me.



It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager


" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 17, 2008 2:55 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
THOMAS JEFFERSON on TAXES
Quote:

Many of the opposition {to the new Federal Constitution} wish to take from Congress the power of internal taxation. Calculation has convinced me that this would be very mischievous. --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1788.

"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784.

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff5.htm

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.



Not disagreein' on any particular point , SignyM...

Good cites , both...

But , only a beginning in your investigation of what could constitute lawful taxation...

Still , your efforts are laudable...

Question : How does it prove Joe The Plumber is a 'tax cheat' ?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 17, 2008 2:55 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


BEJAMIN FRANKLIN, on BRITISH TAXES
Quote:

That it is supposed an undoubted right of Englishmen not to be taxed but by their own consent, given through their representatives. That the colonies have no representatives in Parliament.
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, on AMERICAN TAXES
Quote:

Friends," said he, "the taxes are indeed very heavy, and, if those laid on by the government were the only ones we had to pay, we might more easily discharge them; but we have many others, and much more grievous to some of us. We are taxed twice as much by our idleness, three times as much by our pride, and four times as much by our folly; and from these taxes the commissioners cannot ease or deliver us, by allowing an abatement....

Away then with your expensive follies, and you will not then have so much cause to complain of bad times, heavy taxes, and chargeable families; for Women and wine, game and deceit,
Make the wealth small and the want great.

www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/52-fra.html

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 17, 2008 3:09 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Anyway, as yu can see O2B, the Founding Fathers were QUITE aware of taxes, and the various forms of taxation. I GET THE DISTINCT IMPRESSION THEY BELIEVED THAT PAYING AMERICAN TAXES WAS PATRIOTIC. I could on with a whole boatload more of quotations, but you can do the same yourself just by goggling (fill in the blank here) + tax

Now, I understand that some ppl have a specific beef against INCOME tax. I think it's a stupid complaint myself and is based on a stretchy interpretation which have been declared legally invalid over and over... and over and over... again... and anyone who portrays otherwise is just setting up the gullible for a big shitload of trouble.

Unlike the colonists you HAVE representation, so use it to push your agenda. And I, of course, will use it to push mine (which seems pretty in-line with Jefferson). But to get all huffy about "un-American taxes" is just silly.


---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 17, 2008 3:22 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Anyway, as yu can see O2B, the Founding Fathers were QUITE aware of taxes, and the various forms of taxation. I GET THE DISTICNT IMPRESSION THEY BELIEVED THAT PAYING AMERICAN TAXES WAS PATRIOTIC. I could on with a whole boatload more of quotations, but you can do the same yourself just by goggling (fill in the blank here) + tax

Now, I understand that some ppl have a specific beef against INCOME tax. I think it's a stupid complaint myself and is based on stretchy interpretations which have been declared legally invalid over and over... and over and over... again... and anyone who portrays otherwise is just setting up the gullible for a big load of trouble.

Unlike the colonists you HAVE representation, so use it to push your agenda. But to be outraged about "un-American taxes" is just silly.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.



You're wrong about these issues being declared legally 'invalid'...

They are not...

If you'd do a sufficient amount of 'goggling' , as you call it , you'll find how wrong you are...

I don't take these issues lightly , at all...

What I have to say represents many years of study and investigation , not just by my self , but by many thousands of other qualified people...

The good news is , WE ARE WINNING !

The bad news is , that we are not just fighting in the Courts , we are also having to fight the sort of ignorance that folk like you are continuing to propagate...

Hardly seems fair...

If you'd help us win , there'd be no stopping us...

That would make things better for everyone !

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 17, 2008 3:24 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Been there, done that, got the T-shirt and mug, O2B.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 17, 2008 3:34 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


First of all, income tax (tax on wages) was NEVER ruled to be "Unconstitutional". The only taxes in question were taxes on "interest, dividends and rent". So whether or not the 16th Amendment was legally ratified or not, WAGE TAXES WERE ALWAYS CONSIDERED LEGAL.

Secondly, by 1913, 42 of 48 states had ratified the 16ht Amendment- more than necessary for its adoption. So, you got no leg to stand on.
---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 17, 2008 3:59 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by out2theblack:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:


Oh, it was just too easy a shot not to take...




Folk forget that Joe The Plumber ain't running
for President...

Oddly hypocritical that there is such a furious attack against HIS 'credentials' , but OprahBamaHussein can't prove himself to be native-born ?

Just a diversion...




Partisan potshots, Outtie?

I had hoped you had the intellect to do better than that...

By the way, who the hell is OprahBamaHussein, anyway? I've never heard of him. Or her. Perhaps you're thinking of Barack Hussein Obama, the junior senator from Illinois and Democratic nominee for the Presidency of the United States.

If so, I had hoped you could spell his name better than that...



Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 17, 2008 5:02 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


OTB

You know, I was all set to apologize, and then I remembered this little gem:


Had you figured for a radical...

Now you show what you know about the weather...

Same as you know about anything else...Zip ! Nada ! Zilch !

That bolt going through the sky ? That would be 'Lightning'...You should be so fortunate as to be struck by it...Something like that might do the void
within your cranium some good...

Oh , BTW , that Bill Ayers character was something of a 'chemist' , too...Just not a very good one...You two would get along so WELL !


I noticed you didn't apologize when I pointed out the info came from WIKI. It seems you freely dish it out, and cry like a sissy when it comes back to you.
So guess what -

you.



***************************************************************

Dickwipe.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 17, 2008 5:14 PM

CHRISISALL


The Alliance peeps are laughing, their plan is working- browncoats against browncoats...

McCain or Obama, what is the difference? At least it won't be Bush.

Let's do the impossible; let's be mighty...


Let's not be fighting amongst ourselves.

isall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 17, 2008 5:43 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
The Alliance peeps are laughing, their plan is working- browncoats against browncoats...

McCain or Obama, what is the difference? At least it won't be Bush.

Let's do the impossible; let's be mighty...


Let's not be fighting amongst ourselves.




True words , Chris...

More True than you are even likely to know...

There are Alliance plotters against free-thinking , Independent-minded Folk...

Always have been...This is our Serenity Valley .

It's odd that anyone would accuse me of being partisan...

I'll take it in the most complimentary possible sense...

" Browncoat Partisan : a) member of a body of detached light troops making forays and harassing an enemy b): a member of a guerrilla band operating within enemy lines..."

Neither McShame nor ObammySammy are friends of mine...If you mean to vote , by all means , make it your own personal version of Independent...

I'm just standing up for Truth , Justice , and that Way-thing...American ?

Folk get weak on reliable cites when they come in with opinions blazing...

There are plenty of Facts to go 'round...Put your Facts first , people !

Help share THAT wealth , and Hang On to your wallets...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 17, 2008 7:08 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:


...I could on with a whole boatload more of quotations...


...I think it's a stupid complaint myself and is based on a stretchy interpretation which have been declared legally invalid over and over... and over and over... again... and anyone who portrays otherwise is just setting up the gullible for a big shitload of trouble.

Unlike the colonists you HAVE representation, so use it to push your agenda. And I, of course, will use it to push mine (which seems pretty in-line with Jefferson). But to get all huffy about "un-American taxes" is just silly.




Please refrain from going on and on...

Besides , I never said anything about all taxes being "un-American" , or anything even close to that...

Ironically , what you 'think' about our legitimate beefs with Income Tax is purely ridiculous , considering the source...

How is it that Folk are to find you credible in your 'thinking' on the Income Tax , and whether Wages constitute 'Income' (they don't) , when you admittedly don't know the difference between 'DEFICIT' and 'DEBT' , which you , like many , wrongly use interchangeably...

It's a Logical Fallacy for you to 'think' that you have the correct answers to this issue , and opine that Other Folk are 'stretchy', when you can completely overlook Accounting Fundamentals , like those two critically important terms , Deficit and Debt...

The CONgress takes advantage of your Innumeracy , as do the Federal Reserve Banksters and the Robber-Barons of Wall Street...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 17, 2008 7:33 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
First of all, income tax (tax on wages) was NEVER ruled to be "Unconstitutional". The only taxes in question were taxes on "interest, dividends and rent". So whether or not the 16th Amendment was legally ratified or not, WAGE TAXES WERE ALWAYS CONSIDERED LEGAL.

Secondly, by 1913, 42 of 48 states had ratified the 16ht Amendment- more than necessary for its adoption. So, you got no leg to stand on.




As seems to be your common practice , you make broad and sweeping , dogmatic and general statements that are demonstrably UNtrue...

" In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was
not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution. "

www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html

Now , look at this one :

http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm

HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY
RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT

Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.

The 16th amendment had been sent out in 1909 to the state governors for ratification by the state legislatures after having been passed by Congress. There were 48 states at that time, and three-fourths, or 36, of them were required to give their approval in order for it to be ratified. The process took almost the whole term of the Taft administration, from 1909 to 1913.

Knox had received responses from 42 states when he declared the 16th amendment ratified on February 25, 1913, just a few days before leaving office to make way for the administration of Woodrow Wilson. Knox acknowledged that four of those states (Utah, Conn, R.I. and N.H.) had rejected it, and he counted 38 states as having approved it. We will now examine some of the key evidence Bill Benson found regarding the approval of the amendment in many of those states.

In Kentucky, the legislature acted on the amendment without even having received it from the governor (the governor of each state was to transmit the proposed amendment to the state legislature). The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income" from the text, so they weren't even voting on an income tax! When they straightened that out (with the help of the governor), the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Yet Philander Knox counted Kentucky as approving it!

In Oklahoma, the legislature changed the wording of the amendment so that its meaning was virtually the opposite of what was intended by Congress, and this was the version they sent back to Knox. Yet Knox counted Oklahoma as approving it, despite a memo from his chief legal counsel, Reuben Clark, that states were not allowed to change it in any way.

Attorneys who have studied the subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not have been counted as approvals by Philander Knox, and, moreover, if any state could be shown to have violated its own state constitution or laws in its approval process, then that state's approval would have to be thrown out. That gets us past the "presumptive conclusion" argument, which says that the actions of an executive official cannot be judged by a court, and admits that Knox could be wrong.

If we subtract Kentucky and Oklahoma from the 38 approvals above, the count of valid approvals falls to 36, the exact number needed for ratification. If any more states can be shown to have had invalid approvals, the 16th amendment must be regarded as null and void.

The state constitution of Tennessee prohibited the state legislature from acting on any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution sent by Congress until after the next election of state legislators. The intent, of course, is to give the proposed amendment a chance to become an issue in the state legislative elections so that the people can have a voice in determining the outcome. It also provides a cooling off period to reduce the tendency to approve an idea just because it happens to be the moment's trend. You've probably already guessed that the Tennessee legislature did not hold off on voting for the amendment until after the next election, and you'd be right - they didn't; hence, they acted upon it illegally before they were authorized to do so. They also violated their own state constitution by failing to read the resolution on three different days as prescribed by Article II, Section 18. These state constitutional violations make their approval of the amendment null and void. Their approval is and was invalid, and it brings the number of approving states down to 35, one less than required for ratification.

Texas and Louisiana violated provisions in their state constitutions prohibiting the legislatures from empowering the federal government with any additional taxing authority. Now the number is down to 33.

Twelve other states, besides Tennessee, violated provisions in their constitutions requiring that a bill be read on three different days before voting on it. This is not a trivial requirement. It allows for a cooling off period; it enables members who may be absent one day to be present on another; it allows for a better familiarity with, and understanding of, the measure under consideration, since some members may not always read a bill or resolution before voting on it (believe it or not!). States violating this procedure were: Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois. Now the number is reduced to 21 states legally ratifying the amendment.

When Secretary Knox transmitted the proposed amendment to the states, official certified and sealed copies were sent. Likewise, when state results were returned to Knox, it was required that the documents, including the resolution that was actually approved, be properly certified, signed, and sealed by the appropriate official(s). This is no more than any ordinary citizen has to do in filing any legal document, so that it's authenticity is assured; otherwise it is not acceptable and is meaningless. How much more important it is to authenticate a constitutional amendment! Yet a number of states did not do this, returning uncertified, unsigned, and/or unsealed copies, and did not rectify their negligence even after being reminded and warned by Knox. The most egregious offenders were Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota - which did not send any copy at all, so Knox could not have known what they even voted on! Since four of these states were already disqualified above, California is now subtracted from the list of valid approvals, reducing it to 20.

These last five states, along with Kentucky and Oklahoma, have particularly strong implications with regard to the fraud charge against Knox, in that he cannot be excused for not knowing they shouldn't have been counted. Why was he in such a hurry? Why did he not demand that they send proper documentation? They never did.

Further review would make the list dwindle down much more, but with the number down to 20, sixteen fewer than required, this is a suitable place to rest, without getting into the matter of several states whose constitutions limited the taxing authority of their legislatures, which could not give to the federal govern authority they did not have.

The results from the six states Knox had not heard from at the time he made his proclamation do not affect the conclusion that the amendment was not legally ratified. Of those six: two (Virginia and Pennsylvania) he never did hear from, because they ignored the proposed amendment; Florida rejected it; two others (Vermont and Massachusetts) had rejected it much earlier by recorded votes, but, strangely, submitted to the Secretary within a few days of his ratification proclamation that they had passed it (without recorded votes); West Virginia had purportedly approved it at the end of January 1913, but its notification had not yet been received (remember that West Virginia had violated its own constitution, as noted above).






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 17, 2008 8:06 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt and mug, O2B.




I think you must mean that you went somewhere , got mugged , and they took your T-shirt...

Wouldn't that be a more honest account of what really happened ?



" The issue of direct v. indirect taxes has been debated in Congress beginning not long after the constitutional ink had dried. From page 1898 of The Annals of Congress (the 4th Congress, 1797) Representative Williams from New York was recorded as reminding Congress of the Roman example of direct v. indirect taxation.

"History, Mr. W. said, informed them of the annihilation of nations by means of direct taxation. He referred gentlemen to the situation of the Roman Empire in its innocence, and asked them whether they had any direct taxes? No. Indirect taxes and taxes upon the luxuries and spices from the Indies were their sources of revenue but, as soon as they changed their system to direct taxation, it operated to their ruin; their children were sold as slaves, and the Roman Empire fell from its splendor. Shall we then follow this system? He trusted not.

"At the time the Constitution was written in 1787, there were only two authorities upon which the framers relied for the terms "direct tax" and "indirect tax." These were Adam Smith, who wrote Wealth of Nations in 1776, and Frenchman Jaques Turgot author of Plan d'un memoire sur les impositions in 1764. Smith's Wealth of Nations states, "Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labour, and are attended with all the inconvenience of such taxes."

The IRS has steadfastly maintained that an income tax on wages is a direct tax exempted from the Constitution's apportionment rule. But when Congress approved the 16th Amendment and sent it out to the states for ratification, four times the Senate rejected the opportunity to create this "apportionment rule exemption for income taxes."

...According to Hart,

"The executive branch of government cannot do something that was not authorized by the legislative branch."

" By the late 1800s and up until the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913 the people of this country demanded their legislators levy an income tax on accumulated wealth. This was because families such as the Camegies and the Morgans were virtually untaxed and controlling national politics with their vast and ever-increasing fortunes.

By reading the Congressional Record, House and Senate documents, newspapers, magazines, law journal articles of the time and the writings of the people who were intimately involved in the development of the 16th Amendment, we will find that the intent was to tax the annual profit from unincorporated businesses and the net annual income from personal property. Wages and salaries from labor were not considered income within the original meaning and intent of the 16th Amendment.

http://www.constitutionalincome.com/sup_ct_pet.php

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 18, 2008 5:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


In 1986, the Seventh Circuit observed:

Quote:

Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. “Tax protesters” have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead — so tax protesters think — to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.


---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 18, 2008 8:19 AM

OUT2THEBLACK


Why do you so fervently believe in empowering Big Government to unlawfully take what is rightfully yours ?

Oh , yeah , isn't it because you're counting on them for your paycheck ?

It is just as Jefferson predicted : The 'Money Power' is in control of your life...

Seems they control your thoughts , too...

The Circuit court opinion pales in the face of the January 1991 ruling of the US SUPREME COURT :

"...The Supreme Court ruled today that taxpayers who sincerely believe the Federal income tax laws do not apply to them cannot be convicted of criminal tax violations, even if there is no rational basis for their belief. "

Like I said , we're winning !

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 19, 2008 4:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


CRAPO
Quote:

He said he'd CUT taxes.
Crapo, do you even listen? He said he'd cut taxes for ppl who make less than 200,000, and not increase taxes for peeps between 200,000-250,000.

Now, you claim he "lied" when he said that. Seems a little early to make that claim! How do YOU know whether Obama is "lying" or not?


---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 19, 2008 4:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


OUT2BLACK... I've looked into the issue of income tax. The Supreme Court ruling which you claim ruled income tax illegal did nothing of the kind. What you're doing is trying to put a new interpretation on an old ruling, which in LEGAL terms is a no-no. (In that sense you're like Rapo, trying to re-interpret UN Resolutions to meet the ideological need of the moment.)

Yes, I work for government. (And BTW- No, we are not funded by taxes. So all taxes could disappear tomorrow and we'd still be chugging along.) But as even HERO will tell you, when a law is written or a ruling is made, there are a lot of background documents that are retained in order to indicate the reasoning behind the decision. That is supposed to prevent accidental RE-interpretation of the ruling or law, if the actual wording is unclear. Peeps who like to reinterpret after the fact like to drill down on a single word or phrase, remove it from context, blow it up out of proportion, and then say See, it COULD mean this Well, it "could"- except it doesn't, when all taken into consideration.

My point being that in the ruling that you point to, the whole concept of "wage" taxes was never in doubt. Which is sad, but true.

Personally, I think the whole tax system should be re-done. Every April, it drives me bat-shit crazy, and I've posted several threads on the topic. But that's just my opinion, not the Supreme Court's.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 19, 2008 4:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


WULF
Quote:

Obama IS a socialist. Socialism = BAD for America = Obama is likewise bad for America.
If Obama is a Socialist, so was Thomas Jefferson.
Quote:

Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff5.htm

Now, if the mere fact that Obama thinks we should be paying taxes makes him a "socialist:" in your view, then MANY of the Founding Fathers were socialists! I quoted Jefferson, Washington, and Ben Franklin on txes and guess what??

They all said you should pay 'em as it is your patriotic duty.

I guess Obama got that idea from them, since he's a Constitutional lawyer.


---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 19, 2008 6:34 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
CRAPO
Quote:

He said he'd CUT taxes.
Crapo, do you even listen? He said he'd cut taxes for ppl who make less than 200,000, and not increase taxes for peeps between 200,000-250,000.

Now, you claim he "lied" when he said that. Seems a little early to make that claim! How do YOU know whether Obama is "lying" or not?


---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.



It seems so easy for CRappy to see the "lies" others spread, and so hard for her to see the lies that she spreads.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 19, 2008 9:23 AM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
OUT2BLACK... I've looked into the issue of income tax. The Supreme Court ruling which you claim ruled income tax illegal did nothing of the kind. What you're doing is trying to put a new interpretation on an old ruling, which in LEGAL terms is a no-no. (In that sense you're like Rapo, trying to re-interpret UN Resolutions to meet the ideological need of the moment.)

Yes, I work for government. (And BTW- No, we are not funded by taxes. So all taxes could disappear tomorrow and we'd still be chugging along.) But as even HERO will tell you, when a law is written or a ruling is made, there are a lot of background documents that are retained in order to indicate the reasoning behind the decision. That is supposed to prevent accidental RE-interpretation of the ruling or law, if the actual wording is unclear. Peeps who like to reinterpret after the fact like to drill down on a single word or phrase, remove it from context, blow it up out of proportion, and then say See, it COULD mean this Well, it "could"- except it doesn't, when all taken into consideration.

My point being that in the ruling that you point to, the whole concept of "wage" taxes was never in doubt. Which is sad, but true.

Personally, I think the whole tax system should be re-done. Every April, it drives me bat-shit crazy, and I've posted several threads on the topic. But that's just my opinion, not the Supreme Court's.





What you mean to say , rather than " I've looked into Income Tax " , is that you've taken a cursory glance into yet another subject about which you are massively uninformed , made yet another snap judgment , and formed yet another unfounded opinion...

Then you put your false 'spin' on what you perceive to be my 'interpretation'...

It's no wonder that you are chronically confused...

With the kind of pattern that you employ , you can't hope to apprehend and then apply accurate information...Don't worry , though , you have several others like you , in your little posse'...

You folk imagining yourselves to be 'patriotic' make life more difficult for those of us who actually are .

The Supreme Court ruling from January 1991 could hardly be considered 'old' , considering how infrequently such issues actually get to make it to the Court .

The recent ruling known as 'Heller' , concerning the District of Columbia's long-standing , illicit 'ban' of handguns , was the first major 2nd Amendment-related ruling in about 70 Years .

Which illustrates how long it can take to eradicate BAD LAW...

Like I've said before , you have no difficulty uncovering several facts in a row , but you do have much trouble with applying them accurately or illustrating their relevance...

Your 'hero' might not do a lot better....I would hope that he could inform a discussion about this issue with some applicable cites...He's been oddly silent about standing up to the attacks made against Joe The Plumber...

" ...when a law is written or a ruling is made, there are a lot of background documents that are retained in order to indicate the reasoning behind the decision. That is supposed to prevent accidental RE-interpretation of the ruling or law, if the actual wording is unclear. Peeps who like to reinterpret after the fact like to drill down on a single word or phrase, remove it from context, blow it up out of proportion..."

Oddly for you , you're not even good at it when you apply your own assertion...

Otherwise , you could never pile on when folk claim that some Average Joe is " a tax cheat " .

How 'Patriotic' is that ?

You still haven't informed us about how Title 26 has been enacted into positive Law...

You don't because You can't...Better still , it hasn't .

You could inform Folk about how the intent of the 16th Amendment was never to impose a tax on anyone's labor or their compensation...But you didn't , because you didn't manage to expose that fact...

But , I did...

You misapplied the quote from Jefferson , as is your practice...

Jefferson was not proposing an income tax , nor would he ever think it...

What Jefferson was favoring , was a Fair Tax on property , that would not impose an undue burden on those least able to afford it . Rather , it would have most heavily taxed Property Holdings of the Wealthy Folk who'd gained the most from the fruits of the land , and the Labor of others...It's an egregious Slander of him , for you to take that to mean he was a Socialist , or for you to compare him to those who actually are...

In the face of that , your other Founders quotes are especialy misinterpreted and , ' not applicable '.

Particularly , the Franklin quote from Poor Richard...

Hey , if that Title 26 " tax code " crap makes you 'bat-shit-crazy' every April , you should work to expose it...That's what real 'Patriots' are doing...

We are Petitioning the Congress for 'Redress Of Grievances' , as is our Constitutional Right...

If you still believe that we have 'Representation' , you should look into how far we are getting on that front...

Otherwise , your choice is "voluntary compliance" ( oxymoron; Gov't. "Doublespeak") , and remaining bat-shit...

Not to worry , though , that April 15th fever will only infect you for about a year at a time...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 19, 2008 11:02 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Then you put your false 'spin' on what you perceive to be my 'interpretation'...
Kinda like your assumption that my job depends on taxes?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 19, 2008 11:15 AM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

Then you put your false 'spin' on what you perceive to be my 'interpretation'...
Kinda like your assumption that my job depends on taxes?




I didn't assume that , nor did I state such a thing...

What I said is that you believe in allowing Big Government to take what is rightfully yours...

And you DO depend upon them for your paycheck...

Never mentioned 'taxes' at all , in that comment...

Like others among the ruefully-retarded , the best you can manage , knowing that you've been so badly beaten , is to attempt to put words in my mouth...

You folk only fool yourselves...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 19, 2008 11:27 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Look, I'm kinda busy today. I'll go thru the rulings in detail tomorrow, maybe.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 19, 2008 11:29 AM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:


Now, if the mere fact that Obama thinks we should be paying taxes makes him a "socialist:" in your view, then MANY of the Founding Fathers were socialists! I quoted Jefferson, Washington, and Ben Franklin on txes and guess what??

They all said you should pay 'em as it is your patriotic duty.

I guess Obama got that idea from them, since he's a Constitutional lawyer.





No , the Founders did not say such a thing at all...

You misapply what they said...Hoping to make it prop up your position...While you slander our dead heroes who are no longer able to respond or to defend against your spoutings of lunacy...

They were never in favor of the Taxation Without Representation such as exists today...

We cannot get a hearing , or even the courtesy of a response , from a vast majority of the members of CONgress...

The 'Money Power' is firmly in CONtrol of our 'government'...

That is what the Founders defined as 'Tyranny' !

Obama is no 'Constitutional' lawyer...

Can you name a single case where he ever successfully argued on Constitutional issues and was ruled to be correct ?

Of course you can't...

Turns out , in your rampant favoring of Socialism , you are wrong once again...

A much better case can be made that Obama is a Socialist , than that he is a Constitutional 'lawyer'...

But , you don't even wanna go there...

'Cause that would be fighting a war that you've already lost...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 19, 2008 11:34 AM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Look, I'm kinda busy today. I'll go thru the rulings in detail tomorrow, maybe.




Yeah , I guess you figure that it's your 'ball' .

You Socialists are always like that...

Never mind that you stole the ball from the kid who bought it with his own hard-earned coin...

Take it on home...

You kids run along now...If the game isn't played the way you want it to be played , that's the best you can manage...

Take it and go home...You'll never play with the Big Kids...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 19, 2008 12:51 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Funny how nobody mentioned the Shay's or Whiskey Rebellion, and exactly what started them.

And just how right the Anti-Federalists were about Hamilton and the rest of those fucking Federalist scum, which haunt us even today in the personage of the GOP.

The worst of it is that those two incidents proved beyond a doubt that the Federalists lied through their teeth about that whole "consent of the governed" thing and only our arms would protect us from their inevitable abuses, coming to a head in 1851 when it could be tolerated no more, and America as expressed in the Constitution was prettymuch assassinated by that meglomaniacal tyrant monster Lincoln shortly thereafter.

It disgusts me that we built a monument of such a monster.

Let's just quit pretending this country rules by "consent of the governed" ok, cause the truth is that when we the people withdraw that consent, the Gov takes up arms and forces compliance, which is, no bones about it, rule of the gun.

And a pretty powerful incentive to not meekly hand ours over, thank you verra much.

Those pricks up on Capitol Hill do NOT respresent us, and it's laughable to suggest that they do in the face of plain realities, so as such, would it not in fact be taxation without representation ?

Let's cut the bullshit, Mather Byles did have a point when he said "which is better—to be ruled by one tyrant three thousand miles away, or by three thousand tyrants not a mile away?"

In spite of what those fancy pieces of paper say, the "arm of our discontent" as Pat Henry and Madison expressed it, is force of arms, and since there is no longer a parity of that between us citizens and the forces of Government, we've been reduced to essentially chattel begging the master for favors, is what it is.

All the pretending in the world isn't gonna change that, not unless and until folks are willing to bleed to make it untrue, and for a fact, they ain't.

So let's not hear any more tales of Government benevolence, when it's so painfully clear to anyone who knows our history at all what lies behind that paper thin facade.

They want, they outgun us, and so they take, and all else is just fucking excuses.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 19, 2008 1:37 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Funny how nobody mentioned the Shay's or Whiskey Rebellion, and exactly what started them.



"...And just how right the Anti-Federalists were about Hamilton and the rest of those fucking Federalist scum, which haunt us even today in the personage of the GOP.

The worst of it is that those two incidents proved beyond a doubt that the Federalists lied through their teeth about that whole "consent of the governed" thing and only our arms would protect us from their inevitable abuses, coming to a head in 1851 when it could be tolerated no more, and America as expressed in the Constitution was prettymuch assassinated by that meglomaniacal tyrant monster Lincoln shortly thereafter.

It disgusts me that we built a monument of such a monster. "



All good points , Frem...

It's always all manner of pleasin' to see you in top form .

The reason not to bring up matters of historical inconvenience like Shay's or the Whiskey Rebellion , is that if folk still don't get the
'Basic basics' , they probably won't get the finer points (!) of history , either...

I don't like feeding the monster , or its progeny...

" Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
--Mao Tse-Tung

What those leaning toward Socialism fail to take into account is that Karl Marx considered socialism only an intermediate step into Communism...

Considering how weak we've become due to 'domestic' enemies , we're more than half the way there...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 6:49 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"In the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. the Supreme Court declared certain income taxes — taxes on income from property under the 1894 Act — to be unconstitutionally unapportioned direct taxes. The Court reasoned that a tax on income from property should be treated as a tax on "property by reason of its ownership," and should therefore be required to be apportioned. The reasoning was that taxes on the rents from land, the dividends from stocks and so on burdened the property generating the income in the same way that a tax on "property by reason of its ownership" burdened that property.

This meant that, after Pollock, while income taxes on wages (as indirect taxes) were still not required to be apportioned by population, taxes on interest, dividends and rent income were required to be apportioned by population. "

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0157_0429_ZO.h
tml



***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 7:09 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Taxes are the lifeblood of any government.

OF COURSE THEY WANT TAXES. Helps to control the population just that much more.

Socialists here, like Rue, want that. They want the government in control of their lives. But they want the Government THEY LIKE to have that power.

I, on the other hand, think government should get the fuck out of my way.

Sure, its a necessary evil.

We need roads, and to curtail corporations from getting too powerfull or ruining peoples lives or the environment.

We need a standing army, and we need Education.

We need to protect the environment, and to secure our borders.

Not to mention cops.

However, this can all be done with no income tax.

Rue and her ilk, just don't want to put in the effort of protecting/doing for themselves. Its always "someone elses job"

Which is basically the Lib mantra. Its always some form of passing the buck.

Don't wnat to protect yourself? MORE COPS!

Don't want to lose weight? BAN TRANSFATS!

Want to drive less than a block to Whole Foods without feeling guilty? GET A PRIUS!

Feeling guilty for your stupidity? ZOLOFT!

Can't raise your kids right? RITALIN!

Want to make an easy buck? SUE OVER HOT COFFEE or CLAIM RACISM!

Guns make you feel icky? GUN LAWS!

So fat you can't fit in the seat of an airplane? FAT DISCRIMINATION!

PASS THE BUCK! And ALWAYS pay for it with MY MONEY.

Screw that. let the chips fall where they may, and get rid of any income tax.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 7:28 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Chris, Is All

I haven't had a chance to go back through all the posts, but I think your question got lost in the shuffle.


Here is my take on it:

I believe a higher tax on luxuries vs necessities probably wouldn't work.

To get to the details first:
How do you define a luxury ? Let's say I'm a billionaire and I buy an estate for $250M. Is that a luxury, or is that just my 'housing, which is a necessity ? Since $250M seems excessive for mere 'housing' perhaps price could be used as a cutoff. But one thing we know is that housing (whether purchase or rental) is much, much higher in some places (NYC) than in others places (Watertown). So maybe the housing 'necessity' baseline should be apportioned based on median prices. But what happens when a farmer in Montana who's been struggling with a marginal dairy farm for generations decides to sell her acreage to a developer for multi-million dollar amount, and that developer then creates multiple multi-million dollar estates ? (This is some thing that is an actual issue in Montana.) Suddenly the median housing prices goes waaaayyy up - from the cost of the one original farmhouse to the multiple multi-million dollar estates. But even if you somehow figure that into the scheme, you still have to adjust local prices for hotter and more expensive moves in the housing market year by year, or for declines in the housing market - like now.

The same could be said for cars, food, and clothing, and other necessity / luxury purchases. You need to draw a reasonable line somewhere, and then you need to keep redrawing that line every year. And then of course people will find ways around it (off the books sales, barter). In terms of administration, it's far from the simple automatic system it may first appear to be.


The second question is whether or not such a tax could actually fund government. The only way to get a really good idea would be to model the effect of the tax policy. (There did used to be such a system, but Bush had the computer shut down and the people who did the work disbanded before his first income tax cuts - so he wouldn't have to say what the effect on government income would be. It was a good predictor - I just mention it b/c I want to point out that that kind of prediction is complicated.) But my feeling is that such a tax wouldn't be enough. If luxury spending and investment ('tinkle-on' economics) aren't enough to drive an economy, I suspect luxury taxes wouldn't be enough to fund a government either.


This isn't to say I like the way income taxes are currently structured. I think it's ridiculous that people below the poverty line pay any taxes at all, which they do. I think if businesses get to deduct their expenses and get taxed only on the 'excess' income (profit), then people should be allowed to do the same ----- or the other way around. In other words, I don't believe in two sets of rules, one that favors businesses and hammers individuals. And so on and so forth.

But I think progressive taxes are an important tool to maintain a democracy by preventing the rise of a wealthy kleptocracy. Which then, as we see in practice, runs the government for its own economic benefit. BTW, Adam Smith (father of capitalism - or at least capitalism theory) believed the wealthy should pay a HIGHER percentage of tax on their income as an ECONOMIC means of redistributing wealth and keeping the pumps of capitalism primed (the terminology comes from Keynes, the idea comes from Smith). I'll try to get the quote later.


***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 7:34 AM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:


Rue and her ilk, just don't want to put in the effort of protecting/doing for themselves. Its always "someone elses job"

Which is basically the Lib mantra. Its always some form of passing the buck.

Don't wnat to protect yourself? MORE COPS!



I thought it was always the Republicans who claimed the "law and order" plank, and wanted more, more, and always MORE cops.

You say "Libs" can't or won't protect or do for themselves. How does that square with your "standing army", your defense budget, your homeland security department, and all other manner of your "protect us from terrorists!" governmental bullshit?

Fact is, you're as guilty as those you try to paint as "socialists". You want to keep a huge standing army (a socialist form of defense), which takes up sixty cents of every single tax dollar collected in income taxes. How is that any different from what you accuse Rue of? Rue wants better schools, better healthcare, better education, and a better system of paying workers. You basically say "Fuck that - give it all to the army and they'll figure it out." And you act as if that's a better plan!

What you don't get is that we're screwed either way. You're not going to do away with taxes. You're not even going to LESSEN taxes by any appreciable amount; if you do, look for them to be immediately replaced with "fees" and other "hidden taxes" invented to keep YOUR money flowing to the government, always and forever, amen.

IF we're going to have to give up a chunk of our money (and we are), all Rue, Signy, and others are asking is that we at least get value for money on it. Instead of pissing away three to six TRILLION dollars bombing the fuck out of people we don't have a legitimate gripe with, why can't we take that money and invest it in our future? That kind of money would buy health insurance and a college education for nearly every man, woman, and child in this great nation of ours.

Which do you think would make us a stronger nation? One with a well-educated, healthy populace ready and eager to face the challenges of a 21st-century economy, or one with a lot of planes, a lot of bombs, and a lot of ditchdiggers?

EC


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 9:05 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


I had back taxes of nearly $1500 a year ago? So what? A lot of people have back taxes. It doesn't mean you aren't paying your taxes - unless of course you question the Left, then you're a fraud and a tax evader.

What’s really sad about this is all the Liberals who scream and yell about abuse of power when it comes to the Right, but now that we have an innocent man being investigated for the criminal act of questioning the righteous Obama – there’s no concern whatsoever.




Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 9:17 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


What a load - like usual.

The question isn't whether or not 'Joe the Plumber' lied - it's how MANY lies he told.

BTW - before McCain decided to spotlight 'Joe the Plumber' and his non-existent tax problem he should have vetted him. But once McCain put the spotlight on 'Joe', it was 'the media' who camped out on his front lawn, dug into his records, and exposed the lies. And once those come to the attention of the authorities (no plumber's license, driving on a revoked Texas driver's license) they have no choice but to investigate. 'The Democrats' haven't and aren't investigating anyone.

***************************************************************

'Joe the Plumber' - just another McCain-crafted fraud.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 9:30 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Yes, rue, I understand that you’re, to at least some extent, unconcerned with the way people are treated if they don’t push a certain line. You don’t have to make that point any further.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 9:42 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Rue and her ilk, just don't want to put in the effort of protecting/doing for themselves. Its always "someone elses job"
Hey, I happen to kow Rue. Rue lived in some pretty rough neighborhoods, and used to work in County Hospital just down the hallway from emergency psychiatric. It was pretty common for strung-out addicts and crazies to wander in the stat-lab looking for drugs. Rue has talked, walked, blustered and threatened her way out of more tight spots that you can imagine. So you!

OTOH, when it comes to terrists, you can't WAIT to have someone "do it for you" even if it means rounding up innocent people, spying on nearly everyone, and pretty much giving up habeas corpus. You'll call in the military, the police, the spies... someone, anyone, to protect you from the bogeyman!
Quote:

Yes, rue, I understand that you’re, to at least some extent, unconcerned with the way people are treated if they don’t push a certain line. You don’t have to make that point any further.
Joe the Plumber put himself before the media. If he didn't want media scrutiny he shouldn't have invited media attention. One comes with the other, and if HE didn't understand that then his handlers should have. Gawd, you right-wingers are a bunch of pansies! (I'm talking about the flower.)

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:08 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"... now that we have an innocent man being investigated for the criminal act ..."

Of driving without a valid license. Of working as a plumber without a valid license. Of not paying last year's income taxes.

But hey, if he's innocent then he really has nothing to fear, right ? You said the same thing about the US PATRIOT Act, Americans being spied-on and eavesdropped-on. So, what's YOUR problem ?

***************************************************************

What goes around, comes around.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:18 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


HA!

Sigy you never fail to amuse me.

I NEVER said that what the government is doing is right when it comes to terrorists....

But lets list what you said and answer each in turn, shall we?

1. Spying. Fuck that shit. If I could get away with it, and not hurt anyone, I would burn down all the databases and files on everyones. Then I would destroy all the goddamned cameras.

2. Rounding up innoncent people. I have never thought, now would I ever believe, that being Muslim was a crime. Do I think they should lock Farra-fucka-khan up? Maybe torture him a bit? Sure. But NOT because hes Muslim.

3. Habeus Corpus. If you are a citizen of this country, that is a right that should never be taken away.

4 As to Rue. Hell, most of us here have seen a lot of shit. Delt with the scum and came out alive, in the very least. Im not taking that away.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 10:46 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


WULF- Then why the trash-talk? If you're going to diss someone at least do it on something real, not on your notion of what they think.

You make a lot of assumptions about "liberals", and prolly most of them are wrong.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 12:28 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Sig, I think Wulfie means well, he's just tellin it like he's been told - factually I think there's more common ground there than either of ya might admit, you could try seekin it.

Me, now - the idea of a standing army is offensive cause it's unconstitutional and a danger to liberty, especially now that the powers that be intend to deploy it against us...

But the real, and more dangerous "standing army" that our founders feared was in fact what amounts to our federalised, militarised police force which acts more like an invading army than voluntary protectors.

And Knox did flake us on that, but Gov isn't gonna admit that and choke that golden goose, oh hell no they won't.

It's not taxes that bother me, although I'd be a liar if I said they didn't - it's what we DO with em, roads, schools, hospitals, education, sure...

Foreign aid, corporate welfare, feeding the Military Industrial complexes ravenous appetite, oh hell no.

Instead of a 1040, we should adapt a new form where each person gets to decide for themselves exactly where every penny of their taxes go - if the people are unwilling to fund it, it doesn't get done, simple.

We'd see a lot of this bullshit stop pretty quick, wouldn't we ?

But nope, that's the whole consent of the governed thing, which we threw out the window in 1851 - if you don't pay, they use force and violence against you, whether or not you want, use or benefit from the stuff they're paying for.

Rule of the gun, in all honest truth, plain theft, institutionalised and codified.

How you think I feel about my money going to "faith based initiatives" that skim a good chunk of it to finance preaching hate against folk like me ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 12:40 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Well yanno Frem, I really sick and tired of ppl trashing anyone who isn't an evangelical, small-town, Attila-the-Hun ultra-right-wing. This, just from CNN

'Liberals hate real Americans'

Fuck that shit, and 'em all.
Quote:

(CNN) — A North Carolina congressman locked in a tight re-election race admitted Tuesday to recently telling a crowd of John McCain supporters that "liberals hate real Americans," the latest in a string of comments from Republicans that appear to question Democrats' patriotism. Rep. Robin Hayes, a five-term Republican who has been heavily targeted by Democrats this election cycle, first denied making the remarks, but conceded Monday afternoon that he was accurately quoted.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

Palin apologizes for 'real America' comment
And her too.
www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/21/palin.sitroom/index.html

Why should I put up with that small-minded, vicious crap?



---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 12:51 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
HA!

2. Rounding up innoncent people. I have never thought, now would I ever believe, that being Muslim was a crime. Do I think they should lock Farra-fucka-khan up? Maybe torture him a bit? Sure. But NOT because hes Muslim.

3. Habeus Corpus. If you are a citizen of this country, that is a right that should never be taken away.




So you're all for full rights for "citizens", but not so much for Farrakhan. Last time I checked, wasn't he a U.S. citizen? But I guess it's okay if you just torture him a little bit, eh?

You're not in favor of rounding up innocent people, and you don't think being Muslim is a crime - so what crime is it that you think Farrakhan has committed?

Or do you just think it's okay to round up and torture those whose views don't match yours?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 1:00 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Then why the trash-talk?"

Because I don't agree the country should be on the gold standard and because I don't think income tax is illegal.

Other than that, we pretty much agree on most things.

***************************************************************

ETA - Oh wait - that was OTB. NEVER mind !

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 1:40 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Well, sure, it can be annoying and offensive - but I do not take Wulf for a dyed in the wool koolaid chugger, just someone who's been drinking it unknowing a long time, and has recently started to realize it tastes kinda funny...

I might be sharp with him, but I have a lot of respect for the fact that he honestly seems to be trying to challenge even his own preconceptions about the way things are.

Like I told Out2B in another thread, you could try a reasoned, dispassionate approach to educate before you haul out the flamethrowers sometimes.

And it's not like he's the only blisteringly insulting needlehead around here to deal with - given that we tend to go rounds so often as well.

And yet even we have common ground.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 1:53 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Well, sure, it can be annoying and offensive - but I do not take Wulf for a dyed in the wool koolaid chugged, just someone who's been drinking it unknowing a long time, and has recently started to realize it tastes kinda funny...

I might be sharp with him, but I have a lot of respect for the fact that he honestly seems to be trying to challenge even his own preconceptions about the way things are.

Like I told Out2B in another thread, you could try a reasoned, dispassionate approach to educate before you haul out the flamethrowers sometimes.

And it's not like he's the only blisteringly insulting needlehead around here to deal with - given that we tend to go rounds so often as well.

And yet even we have common ground.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it



Needlehead?

lol

Frem, the truth AS ALWAYS is somewhere in the middle.

It is not your anarchistic world view, any more than it is Rue's socialistic one. Nor Citizens bowing to the crown, or anyone else bowing to whomever is in charge.

The solution is ALWAYS to let people do as they will, and let the culture and society they come from guide them.

Yes, it may cause wars, as 2 cultures can clash. But you know what? GOOD. We overpopulate as a matter of course. So a little thinning of the herd is not such a bad thing.

I'm reminded of the Matrix....humans can be just like the flu.

Lets be honest. War is a good thing, from an overpopulation standpoint. We cut down on our numbers while keeping a viable genetic pool going.

Thats why there won't ever be a cure for cancer. Even if we found one, it would never reach the gen pop. We need cancer, and A.I.D.S, and heart disease too.... as a way to keep our numbers down.

I know I sound like PN in this, but prove me wrong.

Ok, now I've really gone off on a tangent and my head hurts....I'll see you guys in a bit.


And Frem? Wtf is with the Kool-Aid thing? Is this a Jim Jones reference or am I way off?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 2:39 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:


'Liberals hate real Americans'

Quote:

(CNN) — A North Carolina congressman locked in a tight re-election race admitted Tuesday to recently telling a crowd of John McCain supporters that "liberals hate real Americans," the latest in a string of comments from Republicans that appear to question Democrats' patriotism. Rep. Robin Hayes, a five-term Republican who has been heavily targeted by Democrats this election cycle, first denied making the remarks, but conceded Monday afternoon that he was accurately quoted.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com

Palin apologizes for 'real America' comment

www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/21/palin.sitroom/index.html

Why should I put up with that small-minded, vicious crap?




Because you're small-minded and vicious ?

And , calling you that's an insult to the small-minded and vicious community...

Your crap has an odor about it , too...


To be fair , you might've included a bit of what the article actually said :

'...Palin also apologized Tuesday for any misunderstanding caused when she referred last week to the patriotic values of "the real America" and "pro-America areas of this great nation."

Democrats and others criticized Palin for seeming to imply that some parts of the country are more patriotic than others.

Palin denied that was her intention in an interview with CNN on Tuesday.

"I don't want that misunderstood," Palin said. "If that's the way it came across, I apologize." '

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 2:44 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:


'Liberals hate real Americans'

F*#k that sh!+, and 'em all.




Upon further reflection , seems we do have common ground...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 2:54 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Because you're small-minded and vicious ?
O2B, for the most part I've discussed your ideas on their merits. I don't think I've called you names. I've actually looked up the rulings and so forth in question, and have promised that I would try to get back with you point by point when I have the time. But in our discussions, the minute I deviate from your brain-track you start name-calling, just like you're doing now.

And yanno what? Sarah Palin can apologize all she wants. But she should take responsibility for what she said (After all, her party stands for "accountability" right?), which was
Quote:

We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans.
So somehow people who live in big cities aren't "real", "everyday" Americans? That pretty much goes along with Bill O'Reilly's "You can bomb the Coit Tower" moment, and all those other little goodies brought to you by the intolerant right.


---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
MAGA movement
Sun, November 24, 2024 05:04 - 14 posts
Will Your State Regain It's Representation Next Decade?
Sun, November 24, 2024 03:53 - 113 posts
Any Conservative Media Around?
Sun, November 24, 2024 03:44 - 170 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Sun, November 24, 2024 03:40 - 42 posts
Where is the 25th ammendment when you need it?
Sun, November 24, 2024 01:01 - 18 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sat, November 23, 2024 23:46 - 4761 posts
Australia - unbelievable...
Sat, November 23, 2024 19:59 - 22 posts
Elections; 2024
Sat, November 23, 2024 19:33 - 4796 posts
More Cope: David Brooks and PBS are delusional...
Sat, November 23, 2024 16:32 - 1 posts
List of States/Governments/Politicians Moving to Ban Vaccine Passports
Sat, November 23, 2024 16:27 - 168 posts
Once again... a request for legitimate concerns...
Sat, November 23, 2024 16:22 - 17 posts
What's wrong with conspiracy theories
Sat, November 23, 2024 15:07 - 19 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL