Page 8 of 9 [ 121 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,784

16 Jun 2009, 11:56 am

Orwell wrote:


That article was interesting, but I take anything published by on a site like that (George Washington University) to basically have a real high probability of bias in favor of the "status quo."

The writer makes this observation, which I find both interesting and troubling....

Quote:
When the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate certify that Congress has enacted a certain bill text into law, the courts will not question whether that really happened: they will not inquire into whether the House and the Senate really voted on the proper text. This is known as the "enrolled bill rule." Similarly, the Supreme Court has held that when the Secretary of State certifies that an amendment to the Constitution has been ratified, no court is empowered to look behind that claim to determine whether it was really ratified. E.g., Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922).


So, what he's saying is that the government can commit fraud and get away with it because the court will not perform its function. This is what makes government criminal. The design of the American system is that every aspect of its function can be checked and balanced by functions of the other branches. If the court will not do its job when fraud takes place, then the system of government is broken.

Recently (2005) the Real ID Act was passed illegally. How? The law prohibits a bill from being attached to an emergency appropriations bill. This is because emergency appropriations bills sail past most of the procedures that slow down legislation and gives time for public comment. Still, that didn't stop it being illegally attached to a spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it hasn't stopped the government from trying to implement what it contains.

Perhaps the bigger crime is that even though a legal action could be tried, like anything else, that takes lots of money, and the average person cannot challenge the state purely because of limited financial ability. So, the government gets away with criminal behavior.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

16 Jun 2009, 12:07 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
That article was interesting, but I take anything published by on a site like that (George Washington University) to basically have a real high probability of bias in favor of the "status quo."

And your sources aren't biased? :roll:

Quote:
The writer makes this observation, which I find both interesting and troubling....

Quote:
When the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate certify that Congress has enacted a certain bill text into law, the courts will not question whether that really happened: they will not inquire into whether the House and the Senate really voted on the proper text. This is known as the "enrolled bill rule." Similarly, the Supreme Court has held that when the Secretary of State certifies that an amendment to the Constitution has been ratified, no court is empowered to look behind that claim to determine whether it was really ratified. E.g., Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922).


So, what he's saying is that the government can commit fraud and get away with it because the court will not perform its function. This is what makes government criminal. The design of the American system is that every aspect of its function can be checked and balanced by functions of the other branches. If the court will not do its job when fraud takes place, then the system of government is broken.

I don't even know if it's worth the bother to respond to this.

Look, the job of the judiciary is to interpret the law. The legislature passes laws. If the courts claim "you didn't actually pass that law," they are stepping on the legislature's turf and overstepping their own bounds. This is the principle of separation of powers. How is the legislature committing fraud? If the legislature says they passed a bill, they did.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


vibratetogether
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 589
Location: WA, USA

16 Jun 2009, 2:25 pm

Orwell wrote:
vibratetogether wrote:
There is truth to this statement, I am not denying that fact. However, how the need for new tax revenues would dictate the need for a central bank is puzzling.

There was a perceived need for a central bank with or without the income tax, and the central bank was a major disagreement early on in American history. The Federal Reserve Act occurred at roughly the same time as the ratification of the 16th Amendment, but this doesn't necessarily mean that one required the other. There have been times in our history when we had a central bank but no income tax, and other times when we had an income tax but no central bank. A bit less than a hundred years ago we decided we wanted both, and we don't seem to have changed our minds yet.


I think I can admit that perhaps your grasp of American history is stronger than mine. I'll have to get to some research before I can attempt to refute this.

My impression at the moment is that there wasn't actually much desire for such things, but that outside sources pushed them through. As I do, I admit that I could be wrong and will look for unbiased sources to confirm or deny said impression.

Orwell is strong imo. I will *FLEX* for you.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

16 Jun 2009, 2:47 pm

vibratetogether wrote:
I think I can admit that perhaps your grasp of American history is stronger than mine. I'll have to get to some research before I can attempt to refute this.

What was there to refute? The issue of the central bank was probably the biggest unresolved issue early on, remember the feud between Hamilton and Jefferson?

Anyways, US history isn't my specialty, so I could be wrong in places. Most of what I know of US history is just general knowledge, or derived from aimless Wikipedia browsing. But I think I'm mostly accurate on the general statements.

Quote:
My impression at the moment is that there wasn't actually much desire for such things, but that outside sources pushed them through. As I do, I admit that I could be wrong and will look for unbiased sources to confirm or deny said impression.

Hm. Well, there tends to be some populist opposition to the idea of a central bank, as expressed most strongly by the Jackson Presidency. I'm not really up on the history of central banking in the US, so I don't know if there was a general desire for a central bank when we established it, but I know most economists regard a central bank as largely necessary, and our economy seemed to suffer during the times when we did not have a central bank. I do know that there was significant popular support for the introduction of an income tax- it was definitely part of the Democratic platform, and the hugely popular William Jennings Bryan was a major proponent. The idea was that a graduated income tax was more fair than other methods of taxation, and most of the poor and middle class are fine with raising taxes on the rich.

Unbiased sources don't exist. You instead have to look at several different sources, analyze their biases, and take those biases into consideration when forming your own opinion.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Oggleleus
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jun 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 388

16 Jun 2009, 3:25 pm

Orwell wrote:

Well, isn't your claim that you don't have to pay income tax because you don't think it's a real law? I don't see how you've been straw-manned at all, you just hold crazy views and that was recognized by other posters.


I never made this claim. Please re-read my posts at your convenience.

And, yes it is cute to spell AmeriKa with a K. Kalifornia was a precursor. And, no I am not responsible for that movie title.

I really don't know what this "true believer" stuff is. Please explain so that I know what I am being labeled as next.

My only mistake in this post was to mention someone's name that I confused with someone else. And, prefixing my mentioning of this name with "I may be wrong on this name..." is not good enough.

The point that I was making is that it is not good to compare one controversial issue with another simply to prove that the first issue is more absurd. Because, when you do that, there is a greater risk of stepping on someone's toes. For example, how many times on this site has someone been compared to a Nazi simply for thinking one way. If I was to say that the militant wing of feminism is just like the Nazi party or the 9/11 conspiracy people, does this help or hurt?

I have relatives in NJ, knew someone that did not make it out on that day. And, now I am being compared to a 9/11 conspiracy person. Good Day.



Nolan
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 7

16 Jun 2009, 11:41 pm

In describing myself, libertarian is one of the first five qualities that comes to mind. However the political party is not one I can support.



LeonKrahe
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 25 Jun 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 97
Location: New Jersey

17 Jun 2009, 12:18 am

I suppose "Libertarian" is the closest label I can attatch to myself without having to use a 3-letter prefix and/or a hyphen.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

17 Jun 2009, 12:31 am

Oggleleus wrote:
Orwell wrote:

Well, isn't your claim that you don't have to pay income tax because you don't think it's a real law? I don't see how you've been straw-manned at all, you just hold crazy views and that was recognized by other posters.


I never made this claim. Please re-read my posts at your convenience.

You've claimed that the income tax is illegitimate and certainly indicated that you shouldn't have to pay it, though you are compelled to do so. Your belief that the income tax is illegal is demonstrably absurd, so I still don't see what's wrong with pointing out that you maintain insane beliefs. Now, if you, like vibratetogether, simply claimed that the income tax is wrong, or bad policy, I wouldn't take issue. That's an opinion and it can be argued for or against. But when you make silly claims about basic historical facts, I'm going to call you out, and if you persist I'll likely end up insulting your intelligence.

Looking back, it was definitely more zer0netgain than you going off on the alleged illegitimacy of the income tax. But from your posts it seems fairly apparent that you are fond of that particular style of tin hat.

Quote:
I really don't know what this "true believer" stuff is. Please explain so that I know what I am being labeled as next.

A "true believer" is one who is so close-minded and inflexible in their beliefs that opposing evidence leaves them completely unfazed.

Anyways, you're the one who's insisted on keeping the analogy between tax deniers and other conspiracy nuts going- I was going to let it drop until you decided to push the matter.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Oggleleus
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jun 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 388

17 Jun 2009, 10:01 am

Orwell wrote:
Oggleleus wrote:
Orwell wrote:

Well, isn't your claim that you don't have to pay income tax because you don't think it's a real law? I don't see how you've been straw-manned at all, you just hold crazy views and that was recognized by other posters.


I never made this claim. Please re-read my posts at your convenience.

You've claimed that the income tax is illegitimate and certainly indicated that you shouldn't have to pay it, though you are compelled to do so. Your belief that the income tax is illegal is demonstrably absurd, so I still don't see what's wrong with pointing out that you maintain insane beliefs. Now, if you, like vibratetogether, simply claimed that the income tax is wrong, or bad policy, I wouldn't take issue. That's an opinion and it can be argued for or against. But when you make silly claims about basic historical facts, I'm going to call you out, and if you persist I'll likely end up insulting your intelligence.

Looking back, it was definitely more zer0netgain than you going off on the alleged illegitimacy of the income tax. But from your posts it seems fairly apparent that you are fond of that particular style of tin hat.

Quote:
I really don't know what this "true believer" stuff is. Please explain so that I know what I am being labeled as next.

A "true believer" is one who is so close-minded and inflexible in their beliefs that opposing evidence leaves them completely unfazed.

Anyways, you're the one who's insisted on keeping the analogy between tax deniers and other conspiracy nuts going- I was going to let it drop until you decided to push the matter.


Orwell, please show me where I claimed that the income tax is illegitimate and certainly indicated that [I] shouldn't have to pay it. Still waiting.

I WAS JUST pointing out that the other poster had legitimate claims to his statements based on some criticisms of the Income tax and the origins of the tax itself. Which for me, I do not subscribe and never made the statement that I did. You assumed I did. No apology necessary, Orwell. Have a f*ckn good day.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

17 Jun 2009, 2:12 pm

Really? Do I really have to quote you?

Oggleleus wrote:
Orwell, please show me where I claimed that the income tax is illegitimate and certainly indicated that [I] shouldn't have to pay it. Still waiting.

All right then.

Oggleleus wrote:
Maybe google Harry Browne and look at what he has to say. Trying to remember if it is Harry Browne that has over 17,000 IRS documents through FOIA requests that very much backs up what zer0netgain is saying here. If it is the same guy, then I heard him daring the IRS to take him to court.

Claiming that someone has a pile of IRS documents that disprove the validity of the income tax, and indicating that the IRS is unable or unwilling to act against someone who refuses to pay their tax.

Oggleleus wrote:
I have an income and without due process my money is taken.

An indication that you believe the income tax is applied in violation of your rights, which plainly enough translates to a belief that you should not have to pay it.

Oggleleus wrote:
But, today, it is bad to question anything government, especially the IRS. Because of the repercussions and people leaning to socialism and tax, tax, tax. Tyranny anyone. If only our founding fathers could have predicted this. Rolling Eyes

Referring to the income tax as tyranny and lamenting "If only our founding fathers could have predicted this" indicate a belief that the income tax is illegitimate.

Oggleleus wrote:
Many, many, too freaking many laws in this country were and have been passed without the proper number of votes required by their own legislation procedures at whatever level.

In the middle of a discussion about income tax, this certainly seems like a reference to the claims that the income tax was never actually passed into law, or the sixteenth amendment was never ratified.

Oggleleus wrote:
The income tax origins have some dubious and ominous overtones

Only in the minds of conspiracy nuts. The sixteenth amendment was rightfully passed, and besides that multiple court cases have upheld that the power to tax incomes existed before the sixteenth amendment. It only removed some requirements in the way the income tax was applied.

Quote:
I WAS JUST pointing out that the other poster had legitimate claims to his statements based on some criticisms of the Income tax and the origins of the tax itself.

Actually, no, he did not. I've already refuted his claims.

Quote:
Which for me, I do not subscribe and never made the statement that I did.

Quit back-pedaling.

Quote:
You assumed I did.

Yes, I assumed that you believed the claims you yourself made. In future I will not assume honesty on your part, thanks for setting me straight on that point.

Quote:
No apology necessary, Orwell.

Correct, no apology is necessary because I have nothing for which to apologize.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Nolan
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 7

17 Jun 2009, 3:11 pm

Orwell wrote:
Really? Do I really have to quote you?

Oggleleus wrote:
Orwell, please show me where I claimed that the income tax is illegitimate and certainly indicated that [I] shouldn't have to pay it. Still waiting.

All right then.

Oggleleus wrote:
Maybe google Harry Browne and look at what he has to say. Trying to remember if it is Harry Browne that has over 17,000 IRS documents through FOIA requests that very much backs up what zer0netgain is saying here. If it is the same guy, then I heard him daring the IRS to take him to court.

Claiming that someone has a pile of IRS documents that disprove the validity of the income tax, and indicating that the IRS is unable or unwilling to act against someone who refuses to pay their tax.

Oggleleus wrote:
I have an income and without due process my money is taken.

An indication that you believe the income tax is applied in violation of your rights, which plainly enough translates to a belief that you should not have to pay it.

Oggleleus wrote:
But, today, it is bad to question anything government, especially the IRS. Because of the repercussions and people leaning to socialism and tax, tax, tax. Tyranny anyone. If only our founding fathers could have predicted this. Rolling Eyes

Referring to the income tax as tyranny and lamenting "If only our founding fathers could have predicted this" indicate a belief that the income tax is illegitimate.

Oggleleus wrote:
Many, many, too freaking many laws in this country were and have been passed without the proper number of votes required by their own legislation procedures at whatever level.

In the middle of a discussion about income tax, this certainly seems like a reference to the claims that the income tax was never actually passed into law, or the sixteenth amendment was never ratified.

Oggleleus wrote:
The income tax origins have some dubious and ominous overtones

Only in the minds of conspiracy nuts. The sixteenth amendment was rightfully passed, and besides that multiple court cases have upheld that the power to tax incomes existed before the sixteenth amendment. It only removed some requirements in the way the income tax was applied.

Quote:
I WAS JUST pointing out that the other poster had legitimate claims to his statements based on some criticisms of the Income tax and the origins of the tax itself.

Actually, no, he did not. I've already refuted his claims.

Quote:
Which for me, I do not subscribe and never made the statement that I did.

Quit back-pedaling.

Quote:
You assumed I did.

Yes, I assumed that you believed the claims you yourself made. In future I will not assume honesty on your part, thanks for setting me straight on that point.

Quote:
No apology necessary, Orwell.

Correct, no apology is necessary because I have nothing for which to apologize.


Orwell,

While not having followed your debate but having just read this post and the one above it, I'm led to believe you are greatly off-base. Oggleleus is correct that you completely straw-man what you quote. For starters when your replies include "indicates" or "seems like" or "translates" or "only in the minds of conspiracy nuts" you simply are not taking people at their words. I question why you would expend the effort to quote him if you're just going to paint him as you please.

The Harry Browne line is free of these claims but from those three sentences it is hard to see that Oggleleus isn't just conveying someone else's view. I'll take the time to read the thread.

"If only our founding fathers could have predicted this," is said in jest.

When I read the Oggleleus's lines that you quote I do not see where he has claimed income tax is illegitimate. You've said that for him.



Cheers.



Oggleleus
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jun 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 388

23 Jun 2009, 12:33 pm

Thanks Nolan.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

23 Jun 2009, 12:38 pm

My points stand, unless you want to clarify what you actually meant by those comments. How else are they to be taken? Especially with the pattern of them throughout the thread.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Oggleleus
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jun 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 388

23 Jun 2009, 2:47 pm

Orwell wrote:
My points stand, unless you want to clarify what you actually meant by those comments. How else are they to be taken? Especially with the pattern of them throughout the thread.


You could not show, after stating that you could, where I explicitly stated the viewpoint that you chose to assign me. I asked nicely twice. You refused. How else is this to be taken? Overconfidence?

It is difficult to have an open conversation when someone is a "true believer" of whatever they just assumed/labeled about someone else based on a pattern of statements throughout a thread.

Yes, I do not agree with the income tax. A court ruling is just one more court ruling from being overturned. A flat tax would be better but will never happen. It is good to talk about the evils of consumerism but the same people do nothing about it. All talk and more taxes.

Orwell, have a f*****g good life because having to be "right" all of the time will do wonders with the opposite sex.



LosFrida
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 19 Feb 2009
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 281
Location: Canada

23 Jun 2009, 8:03 pm

MattShizzle wrote:
I'm not. I usually agree with them on most social issues (except gun control) but disagree with them in the strongest possible terms on economic issues. Especially the extremist ones that think even roads and such should be private. I'm a very far left Socialist.


Same here.


_________________
Milhouse, give him back his soul- I've got work tomorrow!~The Simpsons