Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5 ] |
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
http://www.schiffiswrong.info/ -- F. Lee B., 15:53:31 06/26/03 Thu
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Steven Swan -- Howard Roark, 20:15:45 06/26/03 Thu
Steven Swan is a cheat and a liar. He was doing fine following the law and then decided to branch out and create his own theory, which has NOTHING to do with Mr. Schiff. When Swan got in trouble for whatever crap he was promoting, he BLAMED everything on Schiff.
He most likely cut a deal with the government to sue Schiff in return for them going easy on him.
Swan is a crybaby. See the FACTS at http://www.paynoincometax.com
And if you REALLY need clarification, WALK into an IRS office with a copy of the Internal Revenue Code and ask them to show you the LAW that makes you liable for the "income tax" and then to SHOW you the LAW that requires you to pay the "income tax".
By the way, you will most likely have to bring your own code book, because, NO IRS office that I ever visited had a copy of the law!
Guess what, they CANNOT do it. I know first hand. And before anyone posts any disagreement on here, you first MUST personaly visit an IRS office.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Look In The Internal Revenue Code Index For Income Tax LIABILITY! -- billstoddard, 23:30:37 06/26/03 Thu
If you look in the index to the Internal Revenue Code, you can look at the lists of statutes that apply to taxes other than income, such as alcohol, tobacco, gasoline, etc., and you will see that there are statutes under each that provide for liabilites, as well as penalties for non payment of, those particular taxes.
If you look at the statutes that according to the index, apply to "Income Taxes", you will see that there are NO STATUTES LISTED THERE FOR "LIABILITIES" OR "PENALTIES"!
The same thing if you look in the index under "Liabilities" and "Penalties". You will see a long list of taxes that have liability and penalty statutes connected with them, but a liability or penalty statute for INCOME TAXES is conspicuously ABSENT!
WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?
F. Lee, maybe you should be more sure of your facts before you go around accusing people of being crazy!
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
It might help if you actually gave us some law numbers so we could look this up more easily. For example, when I was on the air on WMEL and was challenging a local candidate's eligibility to run for office, I was very careful to cite specific laws from the Florida state code, and to give the requisite code numbers so that my listeners could follow-up on their own. The federal code is similar, so give us some code numbers. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Details are so pesky, ain't they?), 03:38:51 06/27/03 Fri
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
No No No you got it backwards, you show some law numbers -- Fernando Powers, 05:01:34 06/27/03 Fri
I believe that the burden falls on the accuser so if one person tells another that they are liable for anything. The person accusing should be able to point to the law or site it right? So you Mr. Vince villenova it's a lot like getting a ticket for a moving violation and on the ticket the officer sites on the ticket the actual law that you have violated right? Non of this will you know government can do this and that and so on. Just site the law, regulation to be exact. Personally the IRS has not been able to show me the law in their office and their mission statement says that they have to show and explain the law to taxpayers (yes I pay taxes please stay focused) and their job description tells me that the irs employees are suppose to know the law extensively so just show me . Pleassssssssssssssssssse. How did you say it bada beem baadaboom or something of sort. BAMM!
Semper Fi, Fernando Powers
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I replied to the wrong message. In Bill Stoddard's "Code Index" post, he said he'd found mentions of the penalties attached to other tax laws. I was asking him to provide THOSE code numbers so that we could see what to look for exactly. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Geez, work with me here...), 03:18:32 06/28/03 Sat
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Details Are Pesky Only When They're Not Needed. What Law Requires One To Pay The "Income Tax"? -- billstoddard, 02:20:52 06/30/03 Mon
Vince, the exact Internal Revenue Code statutes that create liabilities for, and penalties for nonpayment of, taxes OTHER than "Income" are of no concern here. I don't argue the point that they do exist because they do. The point is that there are NO similar penalties or requirements listed in the Internal Revenue Code index in connection with "Income Taxes".
Basically, there are NO Internal Revenue Code sections that REQUIRE one to FILE an "Income Tax" return, or to PAY an "Income Tax". Additionally, the word "income" is not defined in the IR Code either.
Of course if that's incorrect, then I'm sure you can use some of those "pesky" little details that you may have at your disposal to prove me wrong.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
It's a simple request: if you can give me specific examples of penalty provisions for other taxes, then I'll know what to look for in the income tax statutes. I'm not trying to argue with you; I'm asking you for more information. Why not give it to me? You seem more interested in demagoguing this issue than in actually changing anyone's minds. Notice that you haven't convinced anyone yet with your current methods? That might be a sign to try a different tactic. -- "Vince From Villanova" (If it doesn't work, don't keep doing it.), 21:10:59 06/30/03 Mon
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
You're Missing The Point, Vince! -- billstoddard, 00:08:47 07/01/03 Tue
The details of the statutes that provide filing requirements for, and payment of, these other taxes are unimportant because I haven't questioned their existence or validity. What's important here is that by comparison, I cannot provide you similar statutes that provide filing requirements for, or payment of, "Income Taxes" because they do not exist! IRS employees and government attorneys cannot show them to you either for the same reason! The banning of Mr. Schiff's book has occured because of what he has written about the "INCOME" Tax, but not these "other" taxes.
They have claimed that Irwin Schiff has broken the "law" by teaching details he has uncovered regarding the "Income Tax" in his book "The Federal Mafia", though they cite no proof of his alleged malefaction. It's rather interesting to me that you don't ask for proof of the GOVERNMENT'S claims instead!
It's also interesting that the abridgement of Mr. Schiff's First Amendment rights to free speech by our government, which was the original point of this thread of messages, doesn't seem to bother you, particularly that as a former talk radio host (if you really were), the same criminal disregard of the First Amendment provisions of the Constitution by the US government could be brought to bear against YOU as well, if the government decides that you have said something they don't like, or hadn't you considered that?
BTW, a "demagogue" is a "person who tries to stir up the people by appeals to emotion, prejudice, etc, in order to win them over quickly and so gain power."
I'm not trying to gain "power" over anyone. I have nothing to sell. I'm not calling anyone names. I'm not being emotional, and I'm not appealing to any prejudice! I merely stated the events concerning Mr. Schiff and the unlawful suppression of his book.
Vince, do you file an "Income Tax Return"? Do you pay an "Income Tax"? If you do , who told you to? Did you ever ask to see proof that you were required to pay the "Income Tax"? If you didn't, then how do you know that you are supposed to?
If you can point to a statute that makes Americans LIABLE for an "Income Tax", why not cite it for us? Better yet, as per Mr. Schiff's challenge to the lawyers at the Toledo Law School (see http://www.paynoincometax.com), why not cite the statute for Mr. Schiff and collect $50K?
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I give up. If you want to convince someone of something, and they ask you for more information, the standard response is to give them that information. Your continued refusal to do so has convinced me of nothing, except for this: you're more interested in watching yourself type than you are in winning anyone over on this issue. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Questions are meant to be answered.), 08:07:18 07/01/03 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
They believe your questions can be answered by buying Schiff's book first. This push to sell someone's book is probably more of a scam that possibly paying income tax. -- Law Abiding Tax Paying Citizen, 10:03:27 07/01/03 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Side Issues Are Not Important! FOCUS! -- billstoddard, 17:37:29 07/01/03 Tue
If it was possible to condense Mr. Schiff's book into a few paragraphs, there would be no need for the book in the first place!
The Internal Revenue Code Index sections I refer to total several pages of small print. It would not be practical for me to reproduce them here, particularly since mentioning all of them and describing their contents does not serve to further the REAL issues at hand, specifically, WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT BANNING MR. SCHIFF'S BOOK WHEN THEY HAVE NOT PROVEN THAT HE HAS COMMITTED A CRIME BY PUBLISHING AND SELLING THE BOOK?
The First Amendment of the US Constitution has been destroyed in this process! Why as a former broadcaster (if you really were, Vince, which I seriously doubt) does this not bother you as the government could just as easily censor YOU as well?
And Vince, a few posts ago, you claimed that the "Federal Code" is similar to the "Florida state code". Were these statutes that related to "Income", or some other types of statutes?
Additionally, as a supposed authority on the "Income Tax", or at least Florida's state version of the "Income Tax", if there really is a statute REQUIRING the filing of an "Income Tax" raturn, as well as the payment of the "Income Tax", you should be able to cite these statutes. No need to go to the trouble of reproducing them here, JUST POINT THEM OUT TO US, THAT'S ALL!
If you or anybody else reading this post has their own personal tax attorney or CPA, please ask these people to cite for you the Internal Revenue Code statutes that REQUIRE you to file an "Income Tax" return, or that REQUIRE you to pay the "Income Tax". You could go down to your local H&R Block office as well and ask these questions. You may be very surprised at how they respond!
And Vince, if you find the answer, please post it here, then call Irwin and claim your $50K prize!
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
VINCE OF VILLANOVA IS A FAKE PHONY FRAUD! HERE'S WHY: -- billstoddard, 16:03:49 07/03/03 Thu
Anybody who's been viewing these posts can now safely disregard ANYTHING and EVERYTHING "Vince Of Villanova" says, because he is a disinformation artist!
In a post above he claims that while he was a talk show host in Florida (GIVE ME A BREAK!), he queried a local political candidate as to specific details concerning the Florida State Income Tax codes. He then asks me to cite certain Federal "Income" Tax codes, since he claims that the Florida Code is similar to the Federal Code.
Well, guess what? THERE IS NO FLORIDA STATE INCOME TAX!!!!
AND IF THERE IS NO FLORIDA STATE INCOME TAX, THEN HOW CAN THE FLORIDA "CODE" BE SIMILAR TO THE FEDERAL CODE?
And Vince, now that you've been caught in this lie, don't try to claim that you were comparing code sections for other types of laws, because you know damned well that you were speaking of "INCOME" Tax laws, STATE V. FEDERAL!!
Additionally, this explains why the abrogation of Irwin Schiff's free speech rights doesn't bother Vince, who as a supposedly former talk radio host, could have the same unconstitutional restrictions imposed on HIM. This is of no consequence to "Vince" because "Vince" ain't NEVER BEEN, and NEVER WILL, be a RADIO TALK SHOW HOST!
So, Vince, now that you've been unmasked as the fake, phony, fraudulent, lying disseminator or disinformation that you are, tell us, WHAT LAW REQUIRES AMERICANS TO PAY THE "INCOME" TAX? AND HOW COME THE GUBMIT CANNOT PROVE THAT IRWIN SCHIFF HAS ACTUALLY BROKEN A LAW?
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Ah, you can't give me the info I want, so now you're going to misquote me, eh? Too bad the quote is right there for all to read... "For example, when I was on the air on WMEL and was challenging a local candidate's eligibility to run for office, I was very careful to cite specific laws from the Florida state code..." I was referring to ELECTION LAW. Geez, dude, no wonder you're not convincing anyone. Grow up. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Bill... is your last name really Clinton?), 16:40:21 07/04/03 Fri
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Vince Was Misquoted Accurately! -- billstoddard, 17:57:01 07/04/03 Fri
Here is Vince's COMPLETE post from above:
"It might help if you actually gave us some law numbers so we could look this up more easily. For example, when I was on the air on WMEL and was challenging a local candidate's eligibility to run for office, I was very careful to cite specific laws from the Florida state code, and to give the requisite code numbers so that my listeners could follow-up on their own. THE FEDERAL CODE IS SIMILAR, SO GIVE US SOME CODE NUMBERS." (emphasis added)
This whole thread of posts is about "Income" Taxes and the trashing of the Constitution! It has NOTHING to do with "ELECTION LAW", and you know it! You made no mention of "election law", even though I gave you a chance to clarify yourself two posts prior. I caught you in your lie and you don't like it. Too bad!
I don't mind a fake, phony, fraudulent disinformation artist, but being a CUT RATE fake, phony, fraudulent disinformation artist as you are, Vince, is really retrograde! Pretending to have been a radio host is pretty lame too. Shame on you!
And you still haven't told us WHY IRWIN SCHIFF'S FIRST AMENDEMENT RIGHTS HAVE BEEN STOLEN, nor have you explained WHAT LAW MAKES AMERICANS LIABLE FOR AN "INCOME TAX"!
Irwin is waiting to write you the $50K check.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Okay, let me spell out the point I was trying to make real simply: Both. the. Florida. codes. and. the. federal. codes. use. statute. numbers. to. make. referring. to. specific. laws. easier. to. do. Okay? I. was. using. Florida. election. law. as. an. example. of. this. simple. concept. Now. turn. on. your. brain. and. read. my. posts. again. and. you'll. see. the. point. I. was. trying. to. make. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Hooked on phonics worked for me!), 05:06:50 07/05/03 Sat
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Your "Point" Is Moot! THINK!!! -- billstoddard, 14:03:11 07/05/03 Sat
I'm sure we're all impressed to know that you mastered "Hooked On Phonics", Vince. From the level of non-reasoning you display on this board, I figured "Hooked On Crack" was more your speed (no pun intended).
Now that you have "Hooked On Phonics" under your scholastic belt, you should consider developing your reading and comprehension skills to a POST-second grade level for a change. Then in a few years, you may be ready to harness your formidable intellectual gifts to help us answer the PERTINENT questions I have raised here several times now:
1) WHY IS THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CENSORING IRWIN SCHIFF WHEN THEY WON'T EVEN CITE A SINGLE LAW THAT HE HAS BROKEN?
2) WHAT LAW REQUIRES AMERICAN CITIZENS TO PAY THE "INCOME TAX"?
I don't really have anything against you, Vince. Even though you lied about having worked in radio as an on-air personality, your're probably not a bad guy, but you just don't have your priorities straight. This is not about YOU! It's about THE LOSS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH, THE LOSS OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES! If the government can silence Irwin Schiff not because he broke any laws, but because they merely don't like what he says, what protection do ANY OF US have then?
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
If I'm a liar, I'd say that makes me a bad guy, so you can quit patronizing me. Oh, except for one thing: I'm not a liar. Ask Gary, a.k.a. Surf. As for your original point, exactly how many new Irwin Schiff allies have you lined up from this message board with your ridiculous, heavy-handed tactics? Time to re-think your "strategery," my friend. -- "Vince From Villanova" (Flies? Honey? Remember that?), 17:00:25 07/05/03 Sat
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Vince, Take A Valium. Better Yet, Take Two! -- billstoddard, 23:48:32 07/05/03 Sat
Okay, you're a bad guy, Vince. Does that make you feel better? Geez, you're a paranoid solipsist. Everything revolves around YOU, or so you think.
And why do you need Gary/Surf to intervene on your behalf? Aren't you capable of handling your own verbal battles, especially when you start them? Well, you can HANDLE them, you just can't WIN them.
If I'm wrong about your having been a radio host, apparently your friendship with Gary/Surf isn't sufficiently strong enough, nor does he hold you in high enough esteem to feel the need, without being prompted by you, to have corrected me on this point so far. But I'll keep an open mind if that changes.
Also, I am not being condescending to you, nor am I patronizing you. And if you ever WERE to broadcast on the radio, I wouldn't patronize your station either, nor would anyone else, I suspect.
As far as your reference to honey, it tastes good, and it greatly enhances the sweetness of breads, cereals, and other edibles to which it's added. Some people even claim that honey has agalgesic properties when applied to minor, open flesh wounds. As for flies? Well Vince, I think if you start to shower with water AND soap more than once a week, preferably every day, you'll find that the flies will eventually leave you alone.
BUT WHAT DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT? Again, Vince, you display absolutely no ability or inclination to STAY ON TOPIC! Your extreme states of paranoia and solipsism lead you to believe that everything in this thread is ultimately about YOU. It's not! It's about FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EVERY AMERICAN'S GOD GIVEN CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO PRACTICE IT! It's also about the fact that there is NO LAW REQUIRING AMERICANS TO PAY THE "INCOME TAX"!
I don't know how many "Irwin Schiff allies" I've "lined up from this message board" so far. And I really don't care! I just want to make sure that as many of the people who view these posts as possible know that FREE SPEECH IS UNDER ATTACK IN THIS COUNTRY, and that this is a clear and present danger to each and every one of us!
BTW, Vince (or anyone else), DO you pay taxes that you are NOT LIABLE for?
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I invoked the name of Surf because he once called into my show when it was still on the air. As for the rest, I'm going to now do what I meant to do 2 days ago: leave you to have the last word and stop keeping this thread active. Go re-group, re-think your strategy, and troll around some other message board. Maybe you'll have better luck there. -- "Vince From Villanova" (It's been fun...), 05:43:38 07/06/03 Sun
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Let's put it this way, you'll have to come up with something more credible for your defense of lawlessness than the personal website of a convicted felon like Mr. Schiff. -- Ellsworth Toohey, 02:28:17 06/27/03 Fri
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
defense of lawlessness? -- Mike Powers, 21:37:02 06/28/03 Sat
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
defense of lawlessness? -- Mike Powers, 22:36:23 06/28/03 Sat
The man quotes law and that is lawlessness? The man is a convicted felon for asking "show me the law" that requires me to file. Now why can't it be, "here is the law it is right here". It has never happenned? Come on that's not a hard question to answer.
Unless your Joe Banister former special agent of the IRS he couldn't find it either and shortly afterwards left and well as Sherry Peel Jackson former IRS agent and CPA. If you honestly look you might run into some problems. You can find these names on the internet and then make your own conclusions if you dare. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17023
http://stillaslave.blogspot.com/
Do you pay bills right off if you can't understand the charges? If upon receiving a bill from your mechanic and there is something in the bill you don't understand or didn't agree to, you just pay the bill don't you. You have this same belief for taxes too then.
Well the Federal Crop Insurance case (Supreme Court) verifies the right to question and have answers to those questions before agreement or action can be taken.
You can look up this case on the internet and you will be able to verify the exact words. You'll will find it's legal and lawful.
What is lawless. The lack of law or misapplication of it. Where is the law making me liable for the imposition of tax in section 1. as is outlined in Section 6001 and 6011 as referenced in the Privacy act of a 1040 Instruction booklet almost to the exact wording.
If you can't find the law that makes you "liable", since this is a lawful requirement, this is lawless.
The imposition of a penalty regarding Alcohol, Tabacco and Firearm (ATF)upon someone who is filing an income return is also lawless. Would you pay someone for putting lawn mower spark plugs in your car and then pay him on top of that for the repairs now necessary for trying to shove those into your engine? Well if you would pay the penalty, can I be your mechanic.
You should first start reading the other side of the issue. Be skeptical of course I know I am. "The Great Income Tax Hoax" by Irwin Schiff is a very technical and precise history of the income tax. www.paynoincometax.com
Mike Powers
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Wannabe fake -- Mike Powers, 19:15:12 06/28/03 Sat
"Jackie Chiles" is a fictitious wannabe like attorney Johnnie Cochran on the sitcom "Seinfeld". You’re laughable to chicken to use your real name. Just a fakes fake. I was right you want to be a wannabe fake and you are.
Mike Powers
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
George Castanza aka Jackie Chiles -- Mike Powers, 21:37:54 06/29/03 Sun
Hey George where are you. I love your short winded, George Castanza, type logic. What was it too cold for you and your brain shrunk too. Double the embarrassment. You’re a funny guy. I miss you. Caught you with your pants down so to speak. HA HA
Mike Powers
Mike Powers
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
If libertarians ever expect to be embraced by the mainstream of America they need to stop leading these freak fringe causes that will go no where. Having a convicted felon leading their cause doesn't help, either. Oh well, America needs comic relief, it might as well be you guys plus the black helicopter/cattle mutilation crowd. -- "Art Van DeLay", 22:16:29 06/29/03 Sun
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
What a clown -- Mike Powers, 01:01:44 06/30/03 Mon
George,
1) I'm a registered Republican
2) If your mechanic gives you a bill that includes charges you don't understand, do you have the right to question the bill?
a) Do you need a court order to know you have that right?
b) If the mechanic sues you in court, should you have the opportunity to challenge the charges in the bill? Shouldn't the court attempt to get your legitimate challenges answered? In fact isn't the burden of proof placed upon the accuser or the one that sues?
c) If you went to jail because you wanted proof or verification of the mechanics' and were labeled a felon that would be OK with you?
d) That’s how Irvin Schiff as you say became the dark, sinister felon. He asks a court to show him the law that he couldn't find. THE COURTS ANSWER WAS, YOU ARE A FELON FOR ASKING?
3) You’ve employed a typical liberal or political ploy.
a) Don’t address the questions. (Which you sorely are incapable of)
b) Label and name call.
c) Then dismiss.
Wow isn't that original.
4) Your favorite leader is Bill Clinton a certified liar. (So the court said) That makes me want to be a Democrat.
5) You are now dismissed George. Stick to being a clown.
Mike Powers
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Comparing the fed govt to a car repair shop is a joke. I didn't know that employees of car repair shops are elected representatives that assemble to pass to create and vote on legislation that affects this nation's citizens. -- Law Abiding Tax Paying Citizen, 10:22:58 07/01/03 Tue
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
There ARE Differences Between Car Repair Shops And The Federal Government! -- billstoddard, 16:33:01 07/01/03 Tue
Law Abiding Tax Paying Citizen is correct. There are MAJOR differences between auto repair shops and the gubmit:
1) Auto repair shops provide a useful and necessary service to the general population.
2) Auto repair shops don't have the power to forcibly extort money from citizens at the point of a gun.
Mr. Powers did not say that the two entities were identical. He is explaining the difference between the LAWFUL actions of a retail establishment (in his example he used an auto repair shop, but it could be any other type of service oriented business as well) which has to provide to their customers an explanation of what they expect their customers to pay for services rendered, while the gubmit merely announces that Mr. Schiff has said things the gubmit doesn't like and so uses the power they wield to silence him WITHOUT AN EXPLANATION!
What Mr. Powers illustrated above is called a COMPARISON, LATPC. I realize that the teaching of reasoning and logic (as well as most other useful subjects) was long ago abandoned in the public (gubmit) schools, and the responses to me and Messrs. Powers confirm this sad truth, but like Vince of Villanova, you're missing the point.
Maybe you could answer this question LATPC: as a "Law Abiding Taxpaying Citizen", I assume that you pay all taxes that you are liable for, correct? The important question is: do you pay taxes that you ARE NOT LIABLE for as well?
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Keep wavin' that freak flag! This is the problem when people take Ayn Rand's "philosophy" too seriously. But I must ask .... -- Law Abiding Tax Payer (and proud Neo-Con), 21:55:07 07/01/03 Tue
....are these the pithy subjects discussed at meetings of the Libertarian Futurists Society? (insert laughs here) The purpose of pointing out Powers' lunatic assertion is that the government can't be thought of as a service oriented business designed to serve your individual wants and needs. It's to serve the broader needs of the nation's huge industial complex and provide for a strong military presence. As long as the government (by the guiding influence of Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Bill Kristol, along with Cheyney, Rove and Bush) promotes a strong military force to go over to the Middle East and kick as much towel headed ass as possible so we can control the oil, I'm happy with what that. Bullets cost bucks, sparky. So does national security. Your whining about taxes is way way down on the this government's priority scale. So sit back and enjoy the ride. No one that can do anything about it is paying attention to you.
If you don't like it, I'm sure some third world countries with relatively low taxes would accept you for citizenship. Perhaps a few years of gnawing on on boiled grapefruit rinds for dinner would temper your whining somewhat.
The concept of true "freedom" in America does not mean freedom to do what you what when you want. Some of you need to learn that the Constitution shouldn't be taken so literally. It is interpreted as certain groups see fit to interpret it. It's up to the group with the most power that gets to interpret it the way they want. So far, the neo-cons are in control and hopefully will be for years to come.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Are You For Real? -- billstoddard, 01:06:07 07/03/03 Thu
So far LATP (Neo-Con), you've completely ignored the issues I've validly put before the readers of this message board, specifically, WHAT LAW REQUIRES THE PAYMENT OF "INCOME TAXES", AND WHAT LAW HAS IRWIN SCHIFF BROKEN THAT ALLOWS THE GOVERNMENT TO TRASH THE CONSTITUTION AND SUBVERT HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS?
Instead, you're professing your love of big oppressive government that commits any illegal acts against US citizens it wants to in the name of "national security". Howzabout "NATIONAL FREEDOM"? Does "freedom" mean anything to you?
The same "strong military force" that we sent to Iraq can be used against YOU if the government decides that it either doesn't like what you say, or decides that it wants to extract more money from you!
You are a truly sorry character, LATP! You have absolutely no understanding of the principles that this country was founded on. The Colonists who founded this country went to war to be free from England because England was taxing them at only a SMALL FRACTION (I think 7% or so) of what Americans pay today!
I believe the reason that you're not bothered by the fact that American taxpayers currently have to work until the middle of JUNE every year to pay all of the "Income Taxes" supposedly "owed" to the government is because you yourself are probably on some sort of public assistance and do not contribute anything to society!
The third world countries that you claim I would be more happy residing in don't take THEIR Constitutions "so literally", as you put it, either. Oh, I forgot: these other countries don't HAVE Constitutions, or any sets of laws that protect their citizens from their oppressive governments. In all the communist countries, the laws are whatever their dictators SAY the laws are, at any given time. Our Constitution, along with the Bill Of Rights are what protect us from being enslaved by LIMITING the power government can exercise over us! That's why we became a world power in the first place: FREEDOM!
You call yourself a "neo-con", but in reality you are truly clueless as to what ANY form of conservatism really entails! You value "security" more than you do FREEDOM, so eventually you will lose BOTH!
You speak glowingly of "national security". HOW MUCH "NATIONAL SECURITY" IS THERE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CAN ARBITRARILY DECIDE THAT SOMEONE IS NOT ALLOWED TO PUBLISH HIS WELL DOCUMENTED BELIEFS, AND THEY DON'T EVEN BOTHER TO GIVE VALID (OR ANY) REASONS WHY? HOW MUCH "NAIONAL SECURITY" IS THERE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT CAN CLAIM YOU OWE THEM 50% OF WHAT YOU EARN, NOT POINT TO A LAW TO BACK UP THEIR CLAIM, AND THEN SEND ARMED JACKBOOTED THUGS TO YOUR PROPERTY TO CONFISCATE WHAT YOU OWN, AND WITHOUT A COURT ORDER?
That someone like you has the same vote as I do is not only pathetic, it's scary!
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Cheerleading again, oh how wonderful! -- Mike Powers, 23:55:15 07/01/03 Tue
If you could see me laughing now? You're funny. You completely vaulted over "The Federal Crop Insurance Case" Supreme Court decision is probably too technical for you, so I made a simple comparison for a man of the law like yourself. Law abiding means you know the law, well thank you.
Well "Mr. Man O'Law" what does the case cited above say that would allow or confirm my right to know if the IRS agent attempting to enforce something has the authority to do so and/or and my right to know the law he believes applies to me. Wow that sounds like common sense, just the same as if I question a charge on a bill I don't understand. If I wave the flag will it make more sense to you?
Oh, by the way, I'm forwarding your email to the IRS, Department of Treasury. I'll suggest to them that any bill or penalty you receive will willingly (and will not be questioned) to be paid by you and double if you wave the flag and sing God Bless America.
I thought it was "government for the people and by the people"? How does the obvious escape you so badly? I suggest to you Mr. Man O'Law you re-read "A Declaration" a.k.a.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as well as the case cited.
Further Mr. Man O'Law I need this question answered. I'm sure you understand terms like 'direct', indirect, apportionment, uniformity, The Pollock, Brushaber, Eisner, Merchants, and Burnett US Supreme Court decisions and will happily put me in my place when you answer it. Here goes.
Can you or someone explain to me what is the classification of tax that appears to be neither uniform or apportioned that requires someone to complete a 1040 that is not in-between the two great classifications taxes called for in the Brushaber decision and the other decisions that support the Pollock decision (still holding) through the Brushaber decision?
I'm sure that is not a tuffy for you Mr., Man O'Law. Have you considered cheerleading, as a career I believe it doesn’t require much thought either you just go along with everything your told I think?
Mike Powers
PS. Why don't you read the post at the very end titled "Is the IRS the final word? Then read this." Then let's see you cheerlead your way out of that one too. Yes, Santa Claus is traditional fiction too.
Forum timezone: GMT-5 VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB: Before posting please read our privacy policy. VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems. Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved. |