Page 7 of 9 [ 121 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

IdiousMatt
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 26

14 Jun 2009, 12:28 am

I'm a Ron Paul Republican, which is pretty much the same thing.



timeisdead
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 894
Location: Nowhere

14 Jun 2009, 3:08 am

protest_the_hero wrote:
Libertarianism is just anarchy for rich people.

I value freedom and a strong economy over safety and civility. I will NEVER apologize for that. This is why I am staunchly for preserving the first and second amendments at any cost.



Last edited by timeisdead on 14 Jun 2009, 4:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

timeisdead
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 894
Location: Nowhere

14 Jun 2009, 3:49 am

Orwell wrote:
timeisdead wrote:
Orwell wrote:
MattShizzle wrote:
Look how many people kept saying that taxes were illegal right up to the point they were taken into prison. The whole idea is along the same lines as those who think the government planned 9/11 and such. In other words, the tinfoil hat crowd.

There is quite a bit of overlap between tax deniers and the 9/11 truth movement and the general NWO conspiracy crowd.

The New World Order definitely exists. It has been referred to and has been defended by several politicians, including George H.W. Bush and Henry Kissinger. If it's simply a non-existent entity, why would those in powerful positions not only admit to its existence but defend it as a just cause?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bKwH3kJ ... re=related

Frankly, you've got to be off your f***ing rocker to possibly take those quotes in a context to support the evil cabal NWO/Illuminati/Reptilian conspiracy theories. The Bush quote is quite plainly referring to an altered international dynamic following the collapse of the Eastern Bloc. I didn't feel like listening to the whole Kissinger video, but again, it sounded like just a change in international relations as a result of changing circumstances.Nothing particularly sinister about that. Neither of them refer to any organization called "NWO."

This is a common tactic of people like Alex Jones and his ilk- falsely claim that the powers that be have "admitted" to something when they in fact have not.

Change in international relations= Less national sovereignty. Do you know how to read between the lines? Of course they are looking out for our best interests... Bush would NEEVERRRR suggest a thing! :roll:



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

14 Jun 2009, 4:55 am

timeisdead wrote:
Change in international relations= Less national sovereignty.

Maybe, maybe not. In the case of Bush's speech, it meant we didn't have a major enemy anymore.

Quote:
Do you know how to read between the lines?

Yes, I do. You, however, seem to equate "reading between the lines" with "making up complete bullshit and passing it off as self-evident truth."

Quote:
Of course they are looking out for our best interests...

Did I ever claim that? In any case, there isn't that much evidence that politicians are actively malicious, especially after you apply Hanlon's Razor.

Quote:
Bush would NEEVERRRR suggest a thing! :roll:

This sentence just doesn't even make sense. You left out a word or two somewhere, and your meaning is unclear.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

14 Jun 2009, 10:16 am

Orwell wrote:
vibratetogether wrote:
Orwell, I'm not exactly a proponent of zer0netgain's views, but I would say that the more appropriate position lies somewhere in between where he stands and where you stand. Even with the legal precedent, even if it IS legally justified, it's still wrong.

I never made any claims to the rightness or wrongness of income tax, only as to its historic legality. So actually, there is no room to have a position between mine and zer0netgain's. It is a factual yes-or-no question. My claim is supported by history and law, his by paranoid raving lunatics.


No. Your position is not supported by either.

Go read the book, The Law That Never Was. A man (40 years after the income tax started) investigated the question of if the amendment was ever lawfully ratified. He went to every state in the union that was in existence when the amendment was allegedly passed. The state keeps copies of everything, including the proposed amendment sent for ratification and the response sent to the Secretary of State. He obtained certified copies from every state and found that the required number of states DID NOT ratify the amendment. The Secretary of State (at that time) committed fraud and said the amendment received the required number of votes when it did not. The documents are the historical fact, not the propaganda that the IRS publishes.

When this matter was brought before a court, there was only ONE CASE and the judge in that case did not say the income tax was legal. The judge ruled that since income tax was in existence for over 40 years, he made a "public policy" decision to not reverse it. This violates a primary rule of law that says that a fraudulent act cannot prosper. This was nothing but a corrupt judicial system upholding an illegal practice, but just because the system is corrupt and has one hand washing the other, that does not give it the weight of the "rule of law."

The reason why most people have their minds in shackles is because they believe whatever is told to them by someone who claims to be "the authority." They don't dig for the truth themselves.

As a side note, I can tell you that there was an original "13th Amendment" that prohibits anyone with a title of nobility from holding public office. That means no lawyer or banker could serve in an elected position. People said this was a crazy conspiracy too, but most every state maintains a copy of the current US Constitution reproduced in their local law texts. It took years, but people investigating this claim found several states with the 13th Amendment as it was originally listed and they obtained certified copies of those pages from the archive clerks.

One year, the powers that be decide they don't like the law as it's written. They change it illegally. The average man, knowing nothing of the law, never sees the change and in a few decades, nobody bothers to question. Sadly, the site I used to keep abreast of this topic has closed down, so I don't know if anything new has developed on this front.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

14 Jun 2009, 10:32 am

zer0netgain wrote:
Orwell wrote:
vibratetogether wrote:
Orwell, I'm not exactly a proponent of zer0netgain's views, but I would say that the more appropriate position lies somewhere in between where he stands and where you stand. Even with the legal precedent, even if it IS legally justified, it's still wrong.

I never made any claims to the rightness or wrongness of income tax, only as to its historic legality. So actually, there is no room to have a position between mine and zer0netgain's. It is a factual yes-or-no question. My claim is supported by history and law, his by paranoid raving lunatics.


No. Your position is not supported by either.

Go read the book, The Law That Never Was. A man (40 years after the income tax started) investigated the question of if the amendment was ever lawfully ratified. He went to every state in the union that was in existence when the amendment was allegedly passed. The state keeps copies of everything, including the proposed amendment sent for ratification and the response sent to the Secretary of State. He obtained certified copies from every state and found that the required number of states DID NOT ratify the amendment. The Secretary of State (at that time) committed fraud and said the amendment received the required number of votes when it did not. The documents are the historical fact, not the propaganda that the IRS publishes.

When this matter was brought before a court, there was only ONE CASE and the judge in that case did not say the income tax was legal. The judge ruled that since income tax was in existence for over 40 years, he made a "public policy" decision to not reverse it. This violates a primary rule of law that says that a fraudulent act cannot prosper. This was nothing but a corrupt judicial system upholding an illegal practice, but just because the system is corrupt and has one hand washing the other, that does not give it the weight of the "rule of law."

The reason why most people have their minds in shackles is because they believe whatever is told to them by someone who claims to be "the authority." They don't dig for the truth themselves.

As a side note, I can tell you that there was an original "13th Amendment" that prohibits anyone with a title of nobility from holding public office. That means no lawyer or banker could serve in an elected position. People said this was a crazy conspiracy too, but most every state maintains a copy of the current US Constitution reproduced in their local law texts. It took years, but people investigating this claim found several states with the 13th Amendment as it was originally listed and they obtained certified copies of those pages from the archive clerks.

One year, the powers that be decide they don't like the law as it's written. They change it illegally. The average man, knowing nothing of the law, never sees the change and in a few decades, nobody bothers to question. Sadly, the site I used to keep abreast of this topic has closed down, so I don't know if anything new has developed on this front.


The income tax has been upheld in the courts since 1913. It is de facto law if not dejure law. Just try not paying your income tax. You will end up with your bank accounts and property seized and perhaps will even be imprisoned like that income tax protester Schiff.

Face it. The government has the guns and they have the drop on us.

ruveyn



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

14 Jun 2009, 4:08 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Face it. The government has the guns and they have the drop on us.


And that's a point I try to get people to understand.

Just because the government can impose its will by force does not mean it operates with the "rule of law." The state routinely does things that violate the very "rule of law" it says it abides by. However, since their own courts are corrupt, they act like thugs, not just and noble rulers.

If a man takes your money by the threat of violence, he is a thief. If a man takes your money because the law truly says you must give him your money, that is different.

Taxation in some applications is the product of the rule of law, which can be clearly documented and proven. Taxation which cannot be documented and proven (as in the case of the income tax) is theft by threat of violence.

The key of the exercise is to FREE YOUR MIND from the prison. If you believe you owe the income tax because a state agent with a clear bias to tell you it is the law says so, you are thinking like a slave, a prisoner. If you know you don't owe anything unless that agent can show you the printed law that says you must pay, and that agent takes your money by threat of force, you recognize that the state is a thief and acting as a criminal.

Your mind is free. You question authority. You don't believe you have a legal duty just because someone with a costume and fancy title says so....you want to see the proof rather than let yourself be deceived by someone with something to gain if they lie to you.



Oggleleus
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

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

16 Jun 2009, 8:55 am

MattShizzle wrote:
I don't think any economic views to the right of moderate socialism deserve respect.


Obviously, I have read many of your disrespectful posts in the past.



Oggleleus
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

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

16 Jun 2009, 9:32 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Oggleleus wrote:
Ever wonder why there are people that are guilty as sin but they still get off the hook in a court of law? Because, many times, lawyers have no other option than to investigate the origins of the law. And, if they find that the law was not properly introduced then the law is non-binding. 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.

This country has enough "Well, I was just..." people. Man up.

Actually, I would imagine that a lot of it would really just be exploiting the indeterminate nature of the law, and finding legal loopholes that either exist in the writing of a law, the existence of other laws, or in the practical application of these laws as found by prior courts. I mean, Nick Freeman, a lawyer known for his insane ability with traffic law, does not attack the origins of any law(in fact the lower courts usually don't have much control over what is considered law and what isn't from what I can tell) but rather attacks according to existing loopholes, as can be seen from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Freeman

Where some of these loopholes are things such as "case law from 1922", "Criminal Justice Act of 1925", and little technicalities "the relevant legislation says that the blood must be taken by someone who is not associated with the driver's care. In this case, it was taken by a surgeon directly involved, and so the man was acquitted."

The cases where I would imagine that the nature of the law is seriously taken into question would more likely be in supreme court type cases, as judicial review, where the existence of laws is taken as subject to higher laws, is typically only a serious option for the highest relevant courts.

As for "Well, I was just..." I do not see Orwell's actions as being particularly blameworthy as his efforts were clearly to point out that a certain belief seemed correlated with other beliefs that are typically considered to be signs of a poor belief-forming mechanism. This is not a deductive argument that disproves anything, but it is an inductive argument by which individuals can determine whether or not something seems trustworthy. Therefore, I do not see a major issue with this action.


Thanks for the response, was hoping Orwell would respond for himself but this is the new AmeriKa. I really don't think Orwell would make the same comparisons based on a discussion about religion for example. I could say, comparing every christian to the nuts in Kansas for example. They both read the bible, go to church...must be similar. Yes, the new AmeriKa. But, I see the danger in this kind of weak half-assed association so I do not dabble in it..

Pet Peeve Alert, really grinds my gears when someone starts a post with the word "Actually". Because it is an attempt to correct or disregard someone's previous statements continuing the cycle of disagreement. Much better methods to accomplish the same task.

Drug laws are notorious for not being legislated at the MUNICIPAL or COUNTY levels. When a quorum must be met by municipal or county laws to pass a local bill and people don't show up and the only 2 ELECTED officials that did show up passed the law anyway, then it creates a sense of LAWLESSNESS which defeats the intended purpose. This is just not a problem with local legislative procedures but can also be seen at the federal level.

The original post was about letting any Libertarians have a chance to voice their association. Not, another socialist anti-everything rant repository. But this is WP, so what do you expect.

The income tax origins have some dubious and ominous overtones. I thought this was going to be a good discussion but turned into "this person is a loon because they don't think they have to pay their income taxes because they think it is not a real law" innuendos.

We've been paying income tax for how long now? And, the socialists have not been happy during the same entire time period. Has anyone met a happy content socialists?



vibratetogether
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

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

16 Jun 2009, 10:36 am

Quote:
And that isn't at odds with my claims thus far, as I haven't said anything about whether income taxes are a good idea.


Granted.

Quote:
What conclusions? They continued to argue with each other their entire lives.


I guess I would say policy. And to pre-qualify myself, not all policy, but the fundamental policies.

Quote:
whenever it is convenient for you to do so.


I admit that it would be easy for me to fall into this trap. I will do my best not to. I don't view it as picking and choosing, I'm not conceding every decision they ever made. What I am doing is acknowledging what I see as the fundamentals of a free society, laid down only by this congress, and subsequently destroyed.

Quote:
Or, the government needed new sources of tax revenue as the budget began to expand.


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.

Quote:
Libertarianism is just anarchy for rich people.


Dude, that's just not true. You're young, so I forgive you that. When I was your age (I hated people saying "when I was your age", full circle and all that), I would have described myself as an anarchist. I had a huge mohawk, wore an upside down American flag, volunteered at an alternative media center, worked with Food Not Bombs, all that good stuff. However, as I grew older, I experienced the particularly nasty side of the far-left. There is an element of group-think that is just as pervasive (if not more so) as the group-think of the far right. I was, and still am concerned with the well-being of all human beings, but I am also now concerned with the well-being of the individual. The freedom of the individual to do as they please (without interfering with the freedoms of others) is fundamental if your goal is the betterment of society, if only because of our inherent nature.

I am not some selfish right-wing nutjob, as your statement suggests.

I also don't align myself with those who really buy into Alex Jones' fear-mongering.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

16 Jun 2009, 11:08 am

Oggleleus wrote:
Thanks for the response, was hoping Orwell would respond for himself but this is the new AmeriKa. I really don't think Orwell would make the same comparisons based on a discussion about religion for example. I could say, comparing every christian to the nuts in Kansas for example. They both read the bible, go to church...must be similar. Yes, the new AmeriKa. But, I see the danger in this kind of weak half-assed association so I do not dabble in it..

I didn't respond to your post because it was just a random rant that didn't really seem relevant to my previous post or address any of its points. I simply noted a correlation between belief in one crazy thing and belief in other crazy things. Now, this obviously does not refute claims against the income tax, but it does seem to indicate that it is often not worth the bother to address those arguments in detail because they are, more often than not, held by paranoid nut jobs who fall into the "true believer" category and will not change their beliefs no matter what the evidence says.

Oh, and it's cool to spell "America" with a K. :roll: That really helps demonstrate your point that we're a totalitarian dictatorial society.

Quote:
The original post was about letting any Libertarians have a chance to voice their association. Not, another socialist anti-everything rant repository. But this is WP, so what do you expect.

I'm far closer to Libertarian than to Socialist. But I'm also sane and rational, so I'm not going to deny historical fact. The income tax is legal. Whether you think the income tax is a good or bad idea is a separate discussion, and by all means if you believe it is a bad idea work to change the law in order to abolish it. It's the same thing I tell gun control advocates- from a legal standpoint, we clearly have a Constitutionally protected individual right to bear arms. That's not really disputable, at least not if you're going to be intellectually honest. So if you want strict gun control, you have to change the existing laws rather than make false claims about what our laws say.

Quote:
The income tax origins have some dubious and ominous overtones. I thought this was going to be a good discussion but turned into "this person is a loon because they don't think they have to pay their income taxes because they think it is not a real law" innuendos.

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.

Quote:
We've been paying income tax for how long now? And, the socialists have not been happy during the same entire time period. Has anyone met a happy content socialists?

A bit under a century. Nope, the socialists haven't been happy because we aren't living under socialism. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

16 Jun 2009, 11:34 am

zer0netgain wrote:
Go read the book, The Law That Never Was. A man (40 years after the income tax started) investigated the question of if the amendment was ever lawfully ratified. He went to every state in the union that was in existence when the amendment was allegedly passed. The state keeps copies of everything, including the proposed amendment sent for ratification and the response sent to the Secretary of State. He obtained certified copies from every state and found that the required number of states DID NOT ratify the amendment. The Secretary of State (at that time) committed fraud and said the amendment received the required number of votes when it did not. The documents are the historical fact, not the propaganda that the IRS publishes.

I think I recall reading that his argument largely rested on a claim that the amendment was not valid unless each state that ratified it ratified a verbatim identical version, and some of them had petty things like spelling differences, a (non-crucial) missing or changed word, and similar bits of technicalities. Here's a link.

Quote:
As a side note, I can tell you that there was an original "13th Amendment" that prohibits anyone with a title of nobility from holding public office. That means no lawyer or banker could serve in an elected position. People said this was a crazy conspiracy too, but most every state maintains a copy of the current US Constitution reproduced in their local law texts. It took years, but people investigating this claim found several states with the 13th Amendment as it was originally listed and they obtained certified copies of those pages from the archive clerks.

I remember hearing that people with titles of nobility were barred from public office. I don't understand how you believe this blocks lawyers and bankers. Bankers and lawyers do not typically hold titles of nobility. There are several lawyers in my family, and I don't believe any of them have been granted titles of nobility.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

16 Jun 2009, 11:39 am

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.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

16 Jun 2009, 11:43 am

Orwell wrote:
I remember hearing that people with titles of nobility were barred from public office. I don't understand how you believe this blocks lawyers and bankers. Bankers and lawyers do not typically hold titles of nobility. There are several lawyers in my family, and I don't believe any of them have been granted titles of nobility.


In most every state, a lawyer and a banker often carries the title of Esquire. Some would say it is just ceremonial, but it really is not. Bankers and lawyers have (in many ways as a whole) operated to bring America back under the subjugation of the British Crown. Hence why the original 13th Amendment prohibited anyone who accepted a title of nobility from holding public office....a conflict of interest.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

16 Jun 2009, 11:53 am

zer0netgain wrote:
In most every state, a lawyer and a banker often carries the title of Esquire. Some would say it is just ceremonial, but it really is not. Bankers and lawyers have (in many ways as a whole) operated to bring America back under the subjugation of the British Crown. Hence why the original 13th Amendment prohibited anyone who accepted a title of nobility from holding public office....a conflict of interest.

Except US states do not grant titles of nobility, and besides that Esquire is not even part of the nobility in the old British sense. And it doesn't apply to bankers at all. As far as your paranoid delusions about lawyers and bankers bringing America "back under the subjugation of the British Crown"... :lmao: My ancestors fought in the Revolution, and I can assure you that my lawyer relatives are all loyal American citizens. Besides that, most of the Founders were lawyers, so it seems highly unlikely that they would attempt to prohibit themselves from holding office.

You really are just undermining your own credibility with these kinds of posts.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH