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 ] |
Wannabe fake -- Mike Powers, 19:15:12 06/28/03 Sat What a clown -- Mike Powers, 01:01:44 06/30/03 Mon
[ 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. |