Happy Tax Day!

[juju]

Originally posted by Juju
Tell me something: when's the last time you were wrong about something?

Originally posted by Radar
I drove an hour and a half to one of the many freedom meetings I attend each month and after I got there I realized I had the wrong day of the month when nobody else was there.

<b>But I've never been wrong about any part of the constitution and I'm still not.</b>

Well, this is a real, physical event you're referring to. I was referring to your <i>views</i>, your opinions. Have you ever been in a debate and realized that the other person was right? Has anyone ever shown you that you were wrong about a particular political or philosophical ideal? Political conviction is an admirable trait, but realizing that you may be wrong is of equal importance. And I was just wondering if you possessed this ability. It doesn't have to be on the topics we've discussed. It could be any other political or philosophical ideal. Has anyone ever made you realize you'd been wrong about something?

I'm asking you if you possess the ability to admit you're wrong, and to cite an example.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Gee Radar, does the constitution say Big Bubba can't make you his bitch when the IRS and the crooked courts put you away? Don't forget to explain it to him.

[Radar]

In other words, you're aiming to scam yourself out of court.

No, I don't SCAM myself or anyone else out of anything. There are 3 ways to win in court. The first is by arguing the law and this is impossible since the courts don't abide by the laws or their limited judicial powers. The second is courtroom procedure, and the third is evidence. It's not a scam to win in court based on any of these. Since we can't use the first because the courts won't hear arguments about the validity of the laws (see judicial conspiracy to protect the unconstitutional income tax) we've got to win using the other two methods. That's not a "scam" by any means.

Have you ever been in a debate and realized that the other person was right?

I think the real question you're asking is whether I have the intellectual honesty to change my opinion on a topic when presented with a decent enough argument and enough irrefutable facts to back it up. The answer is absolutely yes. It doesn't happen as often as it did when I was younger because my education and experience are much more vast. In fact there are very few people on earth with a more complete knowledge of the constitution than myself including most supreme court justices as is evident from their violations of the Constitution as it is written.

When I was younger I'd have been arguing along with you, but then I grew up. In fact as a kid I was very conservative and thought people who saw the government as an out of control, draconian monster were nutjobs. I had too many of these arguments to mention or single out at this time; mostly because there were so many they tend to blend together in my memory. I realized I was wrong when I had been presented with actual irrefutable proof of many governmental violations of the constitution, abuses of power, and cover-ups. It really hit home when Peter McWilliams was murdered by the governement for trying to save his own life. That's when I became a vocal activist and I swore to fight any violations of the constitution (especially the drug war) until my dying breath even if it meant taking back the government by force.

Because of the judicial conspiracy! Jesus, haven't you been paying attention?

Absolutely right and absolutely true.

Gee Radar, does the constitution say Big Bubba can't make you his bitch when the IRS and the crooked courts put you away? Don't forget to explain it to him.

Actually yes, the law does say that but luckily for me and for Bubba I won't ever have to explain anything to him because I'm in no danger what-so-ever of going to jail. George W. Bush is in far more danger of going to jail than I will ever be.

[Whit]

Radar: Sorry if it bothers you, but the 16th amendment IS NOT NOW, NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN PART OF THE CONSTITION! ... I'm saying it was never legally ratified and no court decisions to the contrary matter. And the 16th amendment goes directly against the body of the constitution and is therefore null and void according to the supreme court. So yes, I'm saying it's not in effect and that all attempts to force people to pay income taxes are voluntary... The truthful and factual information I've given about the Constitutionality 16th amendment and the legality of income taxation will never save someone in court because the courts will never rule against income taxes.

Me: If it's not in effect, and has never been part of the Constitution then how can it be used in court?

Juju (being a smartass):Because of the judicial conspiracy! Jesus, haven't you been paying attention?

Radar: Absolutely right and absolutely true.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;No, I mean how can it come up in court at all? Radar says it never was in the Constitution so how can it be mentioned if it has never been in effect? Using it in court would be like using that atomaic death penalty for jay-walkers that was never brought up. It doesn't exist.

[wolf]

It really hit home when Peter McWilliams was murdered by the governement for trying to save his own life.

He choked on his own vomit in his own bathroom. To say that he was "murdered by the government" stretches the boundaries of the concept of "conspiracy" to the breaking point.

I'm way willing to accept the conspiracy explanation, usually.

Your movement needs better martyrs. This is just silly.

[slang]

Originally posted by Radar
The first is by arguing the law and this is impossible since the courts don't abide by the laws or their limited judicial powers.

The tax court is the perfect example of this. How can someone be imprisoned for violating a law that is only law in the minds of the population, but *is* in fact enforced to perpetuate the myth.

If the police were arresting people for wearing blue shirts, eventually people would think that wearing them was illegal. The fact that there *could not* be a law preventing them from being worn is irrelevant. If the courts then upheld the convictions people would stop wearing blue shirts even though they know the (non)law is bullshit.

So in the case of the tax system, it's not law, it's the *WILL* of the gov't. It's the foundation of the power that they have hijacked and any court that ruled against it would be cutting it's own throat, regardless of the validity of the argument against the (non) law. The dominoes would start falling.

[Undertoad]

The masses are content with the current level of taxation, which means that if the country felt that it had to reinforce the semantics of the law, it could do so at will.

Such is the nature of power.

To really fight taxation in a country where the government is basically representative, you have to get the voters to desire actual change -- and not just loopholes. If the people WANTED to pay less tax, they would indicate it and the government would respond. The only way to get real change is to work it from the bottom up: get the people to desire it.

[slang]

Originally posted by Undertoad
The masses are content with the current level of taxation,

Just for the record, I am not really at odds with the amount of the taxation. The Nazi styled system really aggrevates me though. If the system were simpler, people might take more notice of the level they are being taxed. At the same time, the people collectively arent concerned because they *take* so much from the gov't. That trend is not likely to change.

[Radar]

He choked on his own vomit in his own bathroom. To say that he was "murdered by the government" stretches the boundaries of the concept of "conspiracy" to the breaking point.

He was kept from the only medicine that could prevent the horrible nausea that he died from. Without his medicine he also couldn't keep his AIDS and cancer medication down even though he was legally allowed to grow and use it. If you have a diabetes and I keep you from your insuline and you die, I have committed murder.

He was also prevented from even mentioning the law, his condition, or the benefits of using the only medicine that could save his life. In short he was murdered by the government. This isn't an exaggeration or even a stretch. It's a cold, hard, indisputable fact.

Your movement needs better martyrs. This is just silly.

No, it's not silly when the U.S. government murders citizens who fight against their abuses of power and attacks on civil rights. Irv Rueben was also murdered by the government. I knew him personally.

Need more examples of the U.S. government eliminating people? How about Ruby Ridge or Waco? It happens all the time. Peter McWilliams was a great man, the author of the best book I've ever read, and a thorn in the side of the federal government so they silenced him.

If the police were arresting people for wearing blue shirts, eventually people would think that wearing them was illegal. The fact that there *could not* be a law preventing them from being worn is irrelevant. If the courts then upheld the convictions people would stop wearing blue shirts even though they know the (non)law is bullshit.

So in the case of the tax system, it's not law, it's the *WILL* of the gov't. It's the foundation of the power that they have hijacked and any court that ruled against it would be cutting it's own throat, regardless of the validity of the argument against the (non) law. The dominoes would start falling.

Very well said.

The masses are content with the current level of taxation

What color is the sky in your world? Here on earth it's blue and nobody is "content" with the current level of taxation.

If the people WANTED to pay less tax, they would indicate it and the government would respond.

The people DO want to pay less tax but our representatives don't care about what their constituents want, they care about what wealthy contributers to their campaign want.

[Whit]

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If the police started arresting people for wearing blues shirts then those police would be penalized, the arrested individual woud be released, as well as begged not to sue and the case would never make it to court. Why? Because the law doesn't exist. Never has. Thus it can't come up in court. The 16th has come up, because it does exist, it is in effect. Again, if it should be in effect is another issue.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Again I request we not confuse these two issues. If it should be does not determine if it is.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So, I ask again without the connected quotes, how can it come up in court at all? Radar says it never was in the Constitution so how can it be mentioned if it has never been in effect? Using it in court would be like using the no blue shirt law. If it doesn't exist it can't come up.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Radar
What color is the sky in your world? Here on earth it's blue and nobody is "content" with the current level of taxation.

I am.

Seriously.

[Undertoad]

The people "want" to pay less tax but they also "want" greater number and quality of government services, and guess which one they demand in a louder voice.

[juju]

Originally posted by Radar
I think the real question you're asking is whether I have the intellectual honesty to change my opinion on a topic when presented with a decent enough argument and enough irrefutable facts to back it up. The answer is absolutely yes. It doesn't happen as often as it did when I was younger because my education and experience are much more vast. In fact there are very few people on earth with a more complete knowledge of the constitution than myself including most supreme court justices as is evident from their violations of the Constitution as it is written.

That's exactly what I'm asking, and your answer is really very interesting.

Perhaps this shift in your error ratio has more to do with the fact(*) that you've stopped actively questioning your beliefs because of the confidence your education has given you. Maybe it's not so much that you stopped being wrong, but that you stopped asking yourself if you were wrong. Could this be the case?

It certainly seems logical that complete knowledge would bring about 100% accuracy on a given topic, but I ask you, how can you be 100% sure of your beliefs? How can anyone be 100% sure?

Also, there's a word we've been bandying about quite a bit lately, and none of us seem to agree on what objects match up to this word. That word is 'fact'. Usually, it's described as a 'cold, hard fact'. This gives it that extra push into 110% certainty. It's not a very useful concept, though, when one party is 110% sure of it's certainty, and the other party is 0-20% sure. I'd go so far as to say that it makes the concept basically useless.

What is a fact? What methods are you using to determine it? How do you know when something's a fact, and how do you know when it's only an opinion? What's the difference between the two? What are your standards of proof?


* - this is just an expression

[wolf]

He was kept from the only medicine that could prevent the horrible nausea that he died from.

No matter how you slice it, marjuana is not medicine. Also, even in the highly agitated and slanted accounts that i've read ... he didn't die of nausea. He died of an airway obstruction.

If he chose not to take compazine, cannibanol, or some other actual medicine, that was his choice.

... thorn in the side of the federal government so they silenced him.

I'm still not seeing HOW the federal government silenced someone in this instance. You might want to look up the definition of accident.

Unless you are alleging that the guys in the black helicopter forced him in some mysterious way to vomit and then choke on it, it was still an accident. Not a murder.

[slang]

Originally posted by Whit
Using it in court would be like using the no blue shirt law. If it doesn't exist it can't come up.

The no blue shirt law only threatens the Blue Shirt Manufacturers and it's union, the 16th threatens the powerbase from your local manicipality to the White House.

I think it's clear that no one will fuck with that wide and powerful of a machine by ruling in favor of a tax protestor on the grounds that the non law is unconstitutional. If they did, they would be in jail or dead for some insider corruption or a slip in the shower.

Originally posted by wolf
black helicopter forced him in some mysterious way to vomit and then choke on it,

If anyone has more detailed info on this, e-mail me. I love a good conspiracy.

Originally posted by Undertoad
The people "want" to pay less tax but they also "want" greater number and quality of government services, and guess which one they demand in a louder voice.

This is sad but true. It seems that the world has either become so complicated that we cannot do more for ourselves, or we have lost our ambition and we want more from the gov't. In either case we lose political strength for the reduction of taxes.