Serious, moderate discussion about Wesley Snipes.
Personable Tiger
he is, than for what he did. It's okay to believe some kooky stuff.
It's okay to be outwardly a rebel. Did he hurl invective and
obscenity at the judge in the courtroom? I don't think so. And even
if he had, that would be more appropriate for like a 7 day contempt
sentence.
And yet the judge found, Wesley “history of contempt over a period of
time” for U.S. tax law.
http://www.newsmax.com/hirsen/wesley_snipes_tax_evasion/2008/04/28/91569.html
And that's a crime?
What it is, is the primate trait to perceive arrogant wrongdoing and
the desire to squelch it down, hard. Very normal, but it's also
normal for us to choose better ways.
-Tiger
Paul Thomas
"Personable Tiger" wrote
It seems as though he was more punished for what
> he believes and who he is, than for what he did.
Not really. Take a look at other cases where the defendant lost - Ed and
Elaine Brown for example, each got over 5 years. Kent Hovind received 10
years. Richard Simkanin is enjoying a seven year vacation on the feds.
Clarkston did almost 5 years. Larken Rose got 15 months (missus Larken did
time too). Irwin Schiff spent (and is spending) more years in jail than the
ages of all my kids combined.
> It's okay to believe some kooky stuff.
It's not "ok" to act on those beliefs.
nat
Personable Tiger wrote:
> It seems as though he was more punished for what he believes and who
> he is, than for what he did. It's okay to believe some kooky stuff.
> It's okay to be outwardly a rebel.
Why do you believe Snipes was a rebel?
> Did he hurl invective and
> obscenity at the judge in the courtroom? I don't think so. And even
> if he had, that would be more appropriate for like a 7 day contempt
> sentence.
>
> And yet the judge found, Wesley “history of contempt over a period of
> time” for U.S. tax law.
> http://www.newsmax.com/hirsen/wesley_snipes_tax_evasion/2008/04/28/91569.html
> And that's a crime?
Not paying taxes when you owe them is a crime.
Govt ain't free, yaknow.
>
> What it is, is the primate trait to perceive arrogant wrongdoing and
> the desire to squelch it down, hard. Very normal, but it's also
> normal for us to choose better ways.
>
> -Tiger
It might help to at least have a worthy cause by which to rebel, eh?
If Snipes wanted to test his legal theories lawfully, he could have paid
the tax and filed for a refund.
If Snipes simply doesn't like the tax laws, then civil disobedience may
be a noble cause.
If Snipes truly believes the govt is applying the tax laws outside the
rule of law then revolution is his only recourse.
No, Snipes has proven that he is just another deluded moron who doesn't
know what he believes and has rebeled against nothing.
Dave Johnson
<PersonableTigerontheWestCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It seems as though he was more punished for what he believes and who
> he is, than for what he did. It's okay to believe some kooky stuff.
> It's okay to be outwardly a rebel. Did he hurl invective and
> obscenity at the judge in the courtroom? I don't think so. And even
> if he had, that would be more appropriate for like a 7 day contempt
> sentence.
>
> And yet the judge found, Wesley “history of contempt over a period of
> time” for U.S. tax law.
>
> What it is, is the primate trait to perceive arrogant wrongdoing and
> the desire to squelch it down, hard. Very normal, but it's also
> normal for us to choose better ways.
>
> -Tiger
"Choose better ways" ? Wesley Snipes physically threatened
government prosecutors, employees, forged tax documents, forced his
employees (with physical threats) to go along with his tax scams,
evaded currency laws, etc. what didn't he do to deserve more jail
time?
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
www.quatloos.com internet tax scams
R R
proving he doesn't have a brain. Maybe he's gay because he sure went out
of his way to get locked up with a bunch of other dudes in spite of his
millions..
He drove a motor bike like an idiot here in Fla among other things. He's
insistant on screwing up his life ..suicide by statute..?
Personable Tiger
likelihood, not its severity.
> "Choose better ways" ? Wesley Snipes physically threatened
> government prosecutors, employees,
If he did that, yeah, maybe something like a six month sentence (we
often don't take violence, or threats, seriously, but we should).
Tax evasion itself, I think should be a civil matter, not a criminal
matter.
-Tiger
Archmedes
"Personable Tiger" wrote:
You think like the Swiss, but not at all like the Chinese:
"Tax evasion is a crime in almost all countries and subjects the guilty
party to fines and/or imprisonment - in China the punishment can be as
severe as the death penalty. In Switzerland, many acts that would amount
to criminal tax evasion in other countries are treated as civil
matters."
Personable Tiger
The most we as citizens acting together through our government should
do is to garnish wages and/or attach assets, which is still a lot.
The mere existence of the threat of prison hanging over your head,
even if rarely imposed, erodes trust between citizen and government
(for this, for filing out the form wrong, for wrongly handling gray
areas?). "Increase the punishment!"-- that is the lazy way.
The more streamlined, productive, constructive way is to speed up the
feedback cycle. Wesley was sentenced for not filing taxes in 1999,
2000, and 2001, and we were only now getting around to
it ? ? ?
There has to be a better way!
-Tiger
Dave Johnson
Wesley Snipes could have been prosecuted sooner but there is a thing
called "due process". He didn't "fill out the wrong forms" or
ecountered in a "gray area" in taxes, he threatened his employees,
made physical threats to government employees, transferred assets to
Switzerland and other countries to evade taxes, etc. His tax scam
cohorts went to jail, he is going to jail. Just because he is rich
and famous does not preclude him from prosecution.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Personable Tiger" <PersonableTige...@yahoo.com> wrote
> The most we as citizens acting together through our government should
> do is to garnish wages and/or attach assets, which is still a lot.
> The mere existence of the threat of prison hanging over your head,
> even if rarely imposed, erodes trust between citizen and government
I don't see it that way at all. That some people are punished more than
just financially is some assurance that the system works to make it "fair"
to all.
What erodes confidence and trust is knowing that you follow the rules and
others flaunt it openly without consequences.
That some of the consequences are harsher than others (prison, loss of
assets, wage garnishments, etc) is appropriate so that the punishment fits
the crime.
> (for this, for filing out the form wrong,
Then you pay the correct amount of tax, interest on the difference, and
maybe a penalty.
Prison comes if / when they prove that you did so knowing that the way you
filled out the form was wrong.
> for wrongly handling gray areas?).
Then you pay the correct amount of tax, interest on the difference, and
maybe a penalty.
Prison comes if / when they prove that you did so knowing that the way you
"handled" the gray area was wrong.
> The more streamlined, productive, constructive way is to
> speed up the feedback cycle. Wesley was sentenced
> for not filing taxes in 1999, 2000, and 2001, and we were
> only now getting around to it ? ? ?
Yup. There are processes in place to give you - the taxpayer - as much of
an opportunity to prepare and file the returns on your own. Then there are
all the due processes in place to give you - the taxpayer - even more time
to make amends and to correct the error (and in some cases to prove that the
IRS is wrong itself).
--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
Personable Tiger
wrote:
>
> What erodes confidence and trust is knowing that you follow the rules and
> others flaunt it openly without consequences.
>
I agree in large part, but I still think it's both.
The situation reminds me of junior high. The "adults" are
disengaged. They're not really interested in jumping in there finding
out what it's really like from the kids' perspective, finding out what
the kids are really doing, and helping and coaching in a constructive
manner. Something is common practice, and they punish one kid, almost
as if by random, a pretty harsh punishment, as if it's going to have
some kind of abstract, metaphysical benefit. And afterwards, it's
just business as normal, the adults are still not engaging themselves,
they're still not getting involved in any kind of regular way.
And yes, I'd like to have due process. But I'd rather have a little
less due process with garnishment and attachment than a little more
due process with prison!
-Tiger
John Kulp
<PersonableTige...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 1, 5:44=A0am, "Paul Thomas, CPA" <paulthomascp...@bellsouth.net>
>wrote:
>>
>> What erodes confidence and trust is knowing that you follow the rules and
>> others flaunt it openly without consequences.
>>
>
>I agree in large part, but I still think it's both.
>
>The situation reminds me of junior high. The "adults" are
>disengaged. They're not really interested in jumping in there finding
>out what it's really like from the kids' perspective, finding out what
>the kids are really doing, and helping and coaching in a constructive
>manner. Something is common practice, and they punish one kid, almost
>as if by random, a pretty harsh punishment, as if it's going to have
>some kind of abstract, metaphysical benefit. And afterwards, it's
>just business as normal, the adults are still not engaging themselves,
>they're still not getting involved in any kind of regular way.
This is a silly analogy. Just what do school kids have to do with
crooks breaking the law? Nothing, of course.
>
>And yes, I'd like to have due process. But I'd rather have a little
>less due process with garnishment and attachment than a little more
>due process with prison!
You weren't appointed to make the laws were you? Those who are
decided that it deserved prison which is exactly what he got and
deserved.
Dave Johnson
I agree, what does the grade school analogy have to do with Wesley
Snipes? Snipes (and his tax scamming cohorts) got what they deserved
because the government tried for years with "garnishment and
attachment" without success, Wesley Snipes forced his employees to go
along with his tax schemes, he threatened government employees, etc.
he didn't want to pay taxes on his millions and thought violence was
the way to go.
Paul Thomas
"Personable Tiger" wrote
> And yes, I'd like to have due process.
It exists, so you do have it.
It exists from the very first notice. You have teh ability to fix whatever
problem there is from that very first letter from the IRS (or state). You
can; prove that you are right with valid facts and other documentation that
supports the position and amounts taken on the return; or; you can agree
with the determination of the IRS (or state) and pay the tax, interest
and/or penalty; or; you can partially agree and partially refute the
determination of the IRS (or sstate) and supply the information necessary to
sustain part of your return and pay the remaining tax.
You have that ability with each sucessive notice about any subject and any
year.
> But I'd rather have a little less due process with garnishment
> and attachment than a little more due process with prison!
Excuse me if you actually understand all this, but due process applies to
garnishments and attachments as well.
When you take and make efforts to hamper the garnishments and attachments
that they bump it up - after another round of due process - to a criminal
case.
FYI, the jury decides if there is sufficient evidence of guilt.
In Wesley's case they decided there was.
Personable Tiger
Paul Thomas wrote:
>
> When you take and make efforts to hamper the garnishments and attachments
> that they bump it up - after another round of due process - to a criminal
> case.
>
That is a form of authoritarianism. You exercise your rights and they
up the ante. Not so cool.
Here's what I think is reasonable, on the third notice, or six months
have gone by, or something like that, and you haven't yet provided
evidence or documentation for your side of the case, they go ahead and
garnish and/or attach.
You can later get your money back if you belatedly prove your case
(largely prove it, substantiate it), but the delay and the
inconvenience acts as deterrence (not to mention having the money
outside your hands for a considerable period of time!).
And I think school is an excellent analogy. It is perhaps the
institution we are most familiar with, and we have a pretty good idea
of when it works well and when it works poorly.
Please try and work with me, all you guys, I'm not a simpleton or some
kind of real negative individual, I'm just someone who believes that
harsh punishment is not the way to go. Or let's say, heavy
punishment. Yes, the jury found him guilty but the judge imposed
punishment, which was heavy for the crimes of which he was convicted.
And consecutive sentences, Wow! That's the kind of thing that should
be reserved for someone who has committed a series of violent actions.
And absolutely, if Wesley threatened people with violence, that in
itself is serious and should be so regarded. Perhaps on another
occasion we could ask why the legal system is so clunky and inexact
that that wasn't done.
-Tiger
PS What really leads to enforcement of tax laws is employers sending
in W-2s, brokerages sending 1099-Bs (if they would only include the
basis!), and the TRA86 requiring social security numbers for children
(at first just children 5 and older, later lowered in steps to any
child).
nat
Personable Tiger wrote:
>
>
> PS What really leads to enforcement of tax laws is employers sending
> in W-2s, brokerages sending 1099-Bs (if they would only include the
> basis!), and the TRA86 requiring social security numbers for children
> (at first just children 5 and older, later lowered in steps to any
> child).
>
All these various information returns do is keep the honest taxpayer
honest. Given the opportunity to cheat with at least the idea of
impunity, most taxpayers would cheat.
No, what really works is the swift resolution of tax disputes, the
threat of jail and/or the loss of wealth and stature, and the idea that
if I pay my taxes, I know that everyone else is in the same boat and
paying their fair share, too.
Wesley Snipes was duped and is too dumb to know it. He had no cause and
has no idea what he is doing.
John Kulp
<PersonableTige...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Paul Thomas wrote:
>>
>> When you take and make efforts to hamper the garnishments and attachments
>> that they bump it up - after another round of due process - to a criminal
>> case.
>>
>
>
>That is a form of authoritarianism. You exercise your rights and they
>up the ante. Not so cool.
Baloney. You have no right whatsoever to break the law.
>
>Here's what I think is reasonable, on the third notice, or six months
>have gone by, or something like that, and you haven't yet provided
>evidence or documentation for your side of the case, they go ahead and
>garnish and/or attach.
I'm sure the legislators will be fascinated.
>
>You can later get your money back if you belatedly prove your case
>(largely prove it, substantiate it), but the delay and the
>inconvenience acts as deterrence (not to mention having the money
>outside your hands for a considerable period of time!).
Get what money back? Snipes never paid it in the first place.
>
>And I think school is an excellent analogy. It is perhaps the
>institution we are most familiar with, and we have a pretty good idea
>of when it works well and when it works poorly.
You would since you came up with it and everyone else thinks it's
stupid and having no applicability to Snipes case at all.
>
>Please try and work with me, all you guys, I'm not a simpleton or some
>kind of real negative individual, I'm just someone who believes that
>harsh punishment is not the way to go. Or let's say, heavy
>punishment. Yes, the jury found him guilty but the judge imposed
>punishment, which was heavy for the crimes of which he was convicted.
>And consecutive sentences, Wow! That's the kind of thing that should
>be reserved for someone who has committed a series of violent actions.
You're way on the light side. 20 to life is the punishment for a
series of violent crimes.
>
>And absolutely, if Wesley threatened people with violence, that in
>itself is serious and should be so regarded. Perhaps on another
>occasion we could ask why the legal system is so clunky and inexact
>that that wasn't done.
It was. He got 3 years.
John Kulp
Gee. He evaded tax on something like $38 million and had no idea he
was doing that? What planet do you live on?
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Personable Tiger" wrote
> That is a form of authoritarianism.
I bet you don't spank your kids.
> You exercise your rights and they up the ante.
You don't have a right to obstruct justice.
--
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For
those who do not, none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger
nat
Apparently you have never met a dupe from Moronica, eh?
I live on planet Earth and real dupes are all around us. It is unknown
when the dupes arrived. Some say the dupes are some form of genetic
mutation. Whatever they are, dupes fall for anything without any
defense of discernment unlike reasonable people.
Tax evasion is an act of commission. What act did Snipes perform? He
failed to make returns which is an act of ommission.
I challenge anyone to explain why Snipes did what he did other than he
fell for a scam and was to prideful to admit it.
John Kulp
Hogwash.
>
>Tax evasion is an act of commission. What act did Snipes perform? He
>failed to make returns which is an act of ommission.
Tax evasion is failing to pay your taxes on your income. That's an
act of omission which is the only you got right. It's against the
law, which is why he was found guilty and is going to jail. Got that
yet? If not, watch him go to jail and then you will.
>
>I challenge anyone to explain why Snipes did what he did other than he
>fell for a scam and was to prideful to admit it.
See above and watch him go to jail.
Jackne...@gmail.com
<PersonableTigerontheWestCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Paul Thomas wrote:
>
> > When you take and make efforts to hamper the garnishments and attachments
> > that they bump it up - after another round of due process - to a criminal
> > case.
>
> That is a form of authoritarianism.
Tiger: To say it is a form of authoritarianism is an understatement.
You are in a discussion with a handful of hard core authoritarians
here.
These people would have sided with the British in the American
Revolution.
They would have dutifully shoved Jews into ovens in Nazi Germany.
They would rat out fugitive slaves if they had been around pre-Civil
War.
They worship the "law." They worship those who make the law.
You won't talk any sense into them by mincing words and proffering
platitudes. They are liars, cheats, and scoundrels masquerading as
patriots. You need to treat them as such.
--Jackney Sneeb
Dave Johnson
wrote:
The "nogov4me" anarchist is back! Did your tax scamming friend
Larken Rose wind up going back to jail? Those big bad government
agents are always going after Larken's latest internet scam so keep
your helmet on for those goony flights!. (but they can't touch your
(taxable) military pension!
Paul Thomas, CPA
<Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote
> They are liars, cheats, and scoundrels masquerading as patriots.
Talking about yourself I see.
--
"Under certain circumstances profanity
provides a relief denied by prayer"
Mark Twain
---------------------------------------------
nat
John Kulp wrote:
>
>>Tax evasion is an act of commission. What act did Snipes perform? He
>>failed to make returns which is an act of ommission.
>
>
> Tax evasion is failing to pay your taxes on your income.
Nope. Tax evasion requires an ACTION. Filing a return and lying on it
is such an action. That is a felony.
> That's an
> act of omission which is the only you got right.
Nope. That's an act of COMMISSION.
Filing no return at all or not paying is an omision. It is a misdemeanor.
> It's against the
> law, which is why he was found guilty and is going to jail. Got that
> yet? If not, watch him go to jail and then you will.
>
Both are against the law. See 7201 and 7203- they vary by the degree of
intent. Tis better to do nothing at all than to cheat.
Snipes was convicted of "failure to file"- misdemeanors. The jury
aquitted him of the fraud and conspiracy charges. It is reasonable to
conclude the jury found Snipes to be a dupe since his trial buddies were
convicted of the more serious charges.
>
>>I challenge anyone to explain why Snipes did what he did other than he
>>fell for a scam and was too prideful to admit it.
>
>
> See above and watch him go to jail.
No doubt he is going to jail. But the topic in this thread is whether
or not Snipes deserves it.
I say his stupid pride sent him to jail.
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On May 4, 11:43 am, Personable Tiger
> <PersonableTigerontheWestCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul Thomas wrote:
>>
>>
>>>When you take and make efforts to hamper the garnishments and attachments
>>>that they bump it up - after another round of due process - to a criminal
>>>case.
>>
>>That is a form of authoritarianism.
>
>
> Tiger: To say it is a form of authoritarianism is an understatement.
> You are in a discussion with a handful of hard core authoritarians
> here.
> These people would have sided with the British in the American
> Revolution.
> They would have dutifully shoved Jews into ovens in Nazi Germany.
> They would rat out fugitive slaves if they had been around pre-Civil
> War.
>
> They worship the "law." They worship those who make the law.
Nonsense. You can't get anything correct, malloy.
Honoring the law is the same as honoring a contract. Bad laws can be
challenged and/or changed just as bad contracts.
> You won't talk any sense into them by mincing words and proffering
> platitudes.
Yet all malloy can offer is minced words and platitudes which are
totally contrary to any sense.
> They are liars, cheats, and scoundrels masquerading as
> patriots. You need to treat them as such.
> --Jackney Sneeb
The only authority in malloy's make-believe world is himself.
The problem with that is he has no viable way to function within a society.
John Kulp
>
>
>John Kulp wrote:
>>
>>>Tax evasion is an act of commission. What act did Snipes perform? He
>>>failed to make returns which is an act of ommission.
>>
>>
>> Tax evasion is failing to pay your taxes on your income.
>
>Nope. Tax evasion requires an ACTION. Filing a return and lying on it
>is such an action. That is a felony.
You can say nope all you want but you are just dead wrong. Want to
bet whether this gets overturned on appeal. You have no idea what
you're talking about. In the old days, try not showing up for your
draft induction and see what happens.
>
>
>> That's an
>> act of omission which is the only you got right.
>
>Nope. That's an act of COMMISSION.
>
>Filing no return at all or not paying is an omision. It is a misdemeanor.
Which is what he was convicted of wasn't it? 3 years worth.
>
>
>> It's against the
>> law, which is why he was found guilty and is going to jail. Got that
>> yet? If not, watch him go to jail and then you will.
>>
>
>Both are against the law. See 7201 and 7203- they vary by the degree of
>intent. Tis better to do nothing at all than to cheat.
>
>Snipes was convicted of "failure to file"- misdemeanors. The jury
>aquitted him of the fraud and conspiracy charges. It is reasonable to
>conclude the jury found Snipes to be a dupe since his trial buddies were
>convicted of the more serious charges.
If you're a stupid jury sure. He did nothing more than choose who he
wanted to listen to and then claim he was duped, which they fell for.
You can be sure that he talked to others as well who told him this was
a load of crap, so I wouldn't have believed this defense for one
minute. His wife didn't. She filed and paid separately from what I
heard. Are you saying he and his wife never talked?
>
>
>>
>>>I challenge anyone to explain why Snipes did what he did other than he
>>>fell for a scam and was too prideful to admit it.
>>
>>
>> See above and watch him go to jail.
>
>No doubt he is going to jail. But the topic in this thread is whether
>or not Snipes deserves it.
Richly, except to the terminally stupid.
>
>I say his stupid pride sent him to jail.
It should have been for much longer. Stupid pride is not a legal
defense. Neither is stupid greed which was the real reason.
nat
John Kulp wrote:
>
>>I say his stupid pride sent him to jail.
>
>
> It should have been for much longer. Stupid pride is not a legal
> defense. Neither is stupid greed which was the real reason.
I didn't say pride was a defense. Pride put him in jail.
Greed wouldn't motivate Snipes to quit paying taxes. He is an actor!
If he earned $38 million and ended up with say $26 million after taxes,
he is still rich. What does he care? The only thing he would care
about is if he got paid commenserate with his fellow actors.
Something else motivated him. Maybe a personality disorder caused him
to fall for Kahn's scam and he was too prideful to admit he was wrong.
Greed ain't it.
All tax denying morons have that personality disorder.
John Kulp
>
>
>John Kulp wrote:
>>
>>>I say his stupid pride sent him to jail.
>>
>>
>> It should have been for much longer. Stupid pride is not a legal
>> defense. Neither is stupid greed which was the real reason.
>
>I didn't say pride was a defense. Pride put him in jail.
>
>Greed wouldn't motivate Snipes to quit paying taxes. He is an actor!
>If he earned $38 million and ended up with say $26 million after taxes,
>he is still rich. What does he care? The only thing he would care
>about is if he got paid commenserate with his fellow actors.
Vesco got a lot more than that and it didn't even slow him down. And
you have no idea what he does or doesn't care about except not paying
his fair share of taxes like everyone else he cheated.
>
>Something else motivated him. Maybe a personality disorder caused him
>to fall for Kahn's scam and he was too prideful to admit he was wrong.
>Greed ain't it.
So you're a mind reader as well huh? Complete bullshit. You have no
idea what you're talking about.
>
>All tax denying morons have that personality disorder.
>
>
Whatever you say Sigmund.
nat
John Kulp wrote:
> On Tue, 06 May 2008 14:02:44 -0500, nat <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>John Kulp wrote:
>>
>>>>I say his stupid pride sent him to jail.
>>>
>>>
>>>It should have been for much longer. Stupid pride is not a legal
>>>defense. Neither is stupid greed which was the real reason.
>>
>>I didn't say pride was a defense. Pride put him in jail.
>>
>>Greed wouldn't motivate Snipes to quit paying taxes. He is an actor!
>>If he earned $38 million and ended up with say $26 million after taxes,
>>he is still rich. What does he care? The only thing he would care
>>about is if he got paid commenserate with his fellow actors.
>
>
> Vesco got a lot more than that and it didn't even slow him down. And
> you have no idea what he does or doesn't care about except not paying
> his fair share of taxes like everyone else he cheated.
>
How do you know Snipes cheated?
And is Vesco an actor?
>
>>Something else motivated him. Maybe a personality disorder caused him
>>to fall for Kahn's scam and he was too prideful to admit he was wrong.
>>Greed ain't it.
>
>
> So you're a mind reader as well huh? Complete bullshit. You have no
> idea what you're talking about.
>
There is no evidence that greed motivated Snipes, hypocrite.
>
>>All tax denying morons have that personality disorder.
>>
>>
>
>
> Whatever you say Sigmund.
Whatever motivates tax denying morons, greed is at the bottom of the
list. That's the facts, jack.
John Kulp
>
>
>John Kulp wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 May 2008 14:02:44 -0500, nat <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>John Kulp wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I say his stupid pride sent him to jail.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It should have been for much longer. Stupid pride is not a legal
>>>>defense. Neither is stupid greed which was the real reason.
>>>
>>>I didn't say pride was a defense. Pride put him in jail.
>>>
>>>Greed wouldn't motivate Snipes to quit paying taxes. He is an actor!
>>>If he earned $38 million and ended up with say $26 million after taxes,
>>>he is still rich. What does he care? The only thing he would care
>>>about is if he got paid commenserate with his fellow actors.
>>
>>
>> Vesco got a lot more than that and it didn't even slow him down. And
>> you have no idea what he does or doesn't care about except not paying
>> his fair share of taxes like everyone else he cheated.
>>
>
>How do you know Snipes cheated?
Uhh, misdemeanor convictions and a 3 year sentence? Not paying taxes
on $38 million?
>And is Vesco an actor?
Did a pretty act on a lot of people stealing a lot of money didn't he?
Including Castro and company.
>
>
>>
>>>Something else motivated him. Maybe a personality disorder caused him
>>>to fall for Kahn's scam and he was too prideful to admit he was wrong.
>>>Greed ain't it.
>>
>>
>> So you're a mind reader as well huh? Complete bullshit. You have no
>> idea what you're talking about.
>>
>
>There is no evidence that greed motivated Snipes, hypocrite.
Right. Every idiot cheating on his taxes is doing it for altruistic
reasons genius.
>
>
>>
>>>All tax denying morons have that personality disorder.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Whatever you say Sigmund.
>
>Whatever motivates tax denying morons, greed is at the bottom of the
>list. That's the facts, jack.
That's no fact at all ace. Just some bullshit you decided to make up
and throw up.
P. Maffia
news:48208B42...@tx.rr.com...
>
>
> John Kulp wrote:
>>
>>>Tax evasion is an act of commission. What act did Snipes perform? He
>>>failed to make returns which is an act of ommission.
>>
>>
>> Tax evasion is failing to pay your taxes on your income.
>
> Nope. Tax evasion requires an ACTION. Filing a return and lying on it is
> such an action. That is a felony.
If you had not noticed, failing to pay the taxes due on your income IS AN
ACTION whethered you filed a false return or none at all, with the intent to
not pay your just taxes.
>> That's an
>> act of omission which is the only you got right.
>
> Nope. That's an act of COMMISSION.
> Filing no return at all or not paying is an omision. It is a misdemeanor.
Not necessarily. It can be a felony.
>> It's against the
>> law, which is why he was found guilty and is going to jail. Got that
>> yet? If not, watch him go to jail and then you will.
>>
>
> Both are against the law. See 7201 and 7203- they vary by the degree of
> intent. Tis better to do nothing at all than to cheat.
Doing nothing, if your intent is to evade the payment of the taxes due, is
just as criminal. When you cheat, as opposed to doing nothing, just makes
it easier for Uncle to prove felonious intent.
> Snipes was convicted of "failure to file"- misdemeanors. The jury
> aquitted him of the fraud and conspiracy charges. It is reasonable to
> conclude the jury found Snipes to be a dupe since his trial buddies were
> convicted of the more serious charges.
If you actually read the papers filed by the Goverrnment, you would see that
it is a stretch to say he was a mere dupe. That the government failed to
effectively demonstrate his criminal intent to the jury's satisfaction is
the reason they found him solely guilty of three misdeamenr charges.
>>>I challenge anyone to explain why Snipes did what he did other than he
>>>fell for a scam and was too prideful to admit it.
>>
>>
>> See above and watch him go to jail.
>
> No doubt he is going to jail. But the topic in this thread is whether or
> not Snipes deserves it.
>
> I say his stupid pride sent him to jail.
Idiot pride is always a component in any criminal behavior.
nat
John Kulp wrote:
> On Tue, 06 May 2008 15:31:09 -0500, nat <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>John Kulp wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 06 May 2008 14:02:44 -0500, nat <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>John Kulp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I say his stupid pride sent him to jail.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It should have been for much longer. Stupid pride is not a legal
>>>>>defense. Neither is stupid greed which was the real reason.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't say pride was a defense. Pride put him in jail.
>>>>
>>>>Greed wouldn't motivate Snipes to quit paying taxes. He is an actor!
>>>>If he earned $38 million and ended up with say $26 million after taxes,
>>>>he is still rich. What does he care? The only thing he would care
>>>>about is if he got paid commenserate with his fellow actors.
>>>
>>>
>>>Vesco got a lot more than that and it didn't even slow him down. And
>>>you have no idea what he does or doesn't care about except not paying
>>>his fair share of taxes like everyone else he cheated.
>>>
>>
>>How do you know Snipes cheated?
>
>
> Uhh, misdemeanor convictions and a 3 year sentence? Not paying taxes
> on $38 million?
>
Not paying taxes does not prove Snipes intent was to cheat. "He
cheated" was YOUR conclusion based on nothing.
>
>>And is Vesco an actor?
>
>
> Did a pretty act on a lot of people stealing a lot of money didn't he?
> Including Castro and company.
>
Vesco's motivation may have been greed, so what's the connection to
Snipes? Vesco was greedy, therefore Snipes was greedy? There is no
logical connection.
>
>>
>>>>Something else motivated him. Maybe a personality disorder caused him
>>>>to fall for Kahn's scam and he was too prideful to admit he was wrong.
>>>>Greed ain't it.
>>>
>>>
>>>So you're a mind reader as well huh? Complete bullshit. You have no
>>>idea what you're talking about.
>>>
>>
>>There is no evidence that greed motivated Snipes, hypocrite.
>
>
> Right. Every idiot cheating on his taxes is doing it for altruistic
> reasons genius.
>
Now all you offer is sarcasm- Snipes was greedy because he couldn't have
been altruistic?
>
>>
>>>>All tax denying morons have that personality disorder.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Whatever you say Sigmund.
>>
>>Whatever motivates tax denying morons, greed is at the bottom of the
>>list. That's the facts, jack.
>
>
> That's no fact at all ace. Just some bullshit you decided to make up
> and throw up.
I have encountered hundreds if not thousands of tax deniers and greed
was never their motivation. Most are as broke as a church mouse. They
are honest and forthright in everything but their intellect.
nat
P. Maffia wrote:
> "nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:48208B42...@tx.rr.com...
>
>>
>>
>> John Kulp wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> Tax evasion is an act of commission. What act did Snipes perform?
>>>> He failed to make returns which is an act of ommission.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tax evasion is failing to pay your taxes on your income.
>>
>>
>> Nope. Tax evasion requires an ACTION. Filing a return and lying on
>> it is such an action. That is a felony.
>
>
> If you had not noticed, failing to pay the taxes due on your income IS
> AN ACTION whethered you filed a false return or none at all, with the
> intent to not pay your just taxes.
>
Sorry, but not doing something is a NON action.
>>> That's an
>>> act of omission which is the only you got right.
>>
>>
>> Nope. That's an act of COMMISSION.
>
>
>
>> Filing no return at all or not paying is an omision. It is a
>> misdemeanor.
>
>
> Not necessarily. It can be a felony.
>
It is only a felony if some other action was performed to defeat or
evade the payment of the tax. That is the difference between 7201 and 7203.
>>> It's against the
>>> law, which is why he was found guilty and is going to jail. Got that
>>> yet? If not, watch him go to jail and then you will.
>>>
>>
>> Both are against the law. See 7201 and 7203- they vary by the degree
>> of intent. Tis better to do nothing at all than to cheat.
>
>
> Doing nothing, if your intent is to evade the payment of the taxes due,
> is just as criminal. When you cheat, as opposed to doing nothing, just
> makes it easier for Uncle to prove felonious intent.
>
Sorry, but evasion requires some action.
>> Snipes was convicted of "failure to file"- misdemeanors. The jury
>> aquitted him of the fraud and conspiracy charges. It is reasonable to
>> conclude the jury found Snipes to be a dupe since his trial buddies
>> were convicted of the more serious charges.
>
>
> If you actually read the papers filed by the Goverrnment, you would see
> that it is a stretch to say he was a mere dupe. That the government
> failed to effectively demonstrate his criminal intent to the jury's
> satisfaction is the reason they found him solely guilty of three
> misdeamenr charges.
>
What the govt tried to prove is one thing. What the jury found is what
counts.
Based on the jury's findings, it is reasonable to conclude Snipes was a
dupe who failed to admit his mistakes.
>>>> I challenge anyone to explain why Snipes did what he did other than
>>>> he fell for a scam and was too prideful to admit it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> See above and watch him go to jail.
>>
>>
>> No doubt he is going to jail. But the topic in this thread is whether
>> or not Snipes deserves it.
>>
>> I say his stupid pride sent him to jail.
>
>
> Idiot pride is always a component in any criminal behavior.
Pride is what causes people to refuse to admit to a mistake. Snipes was
a dupe. He just couldn't bring himself to admit it. I think that is
why the jury found him guilty of the misdemeanors.
John Kulp
>>>How do you know Snipes cheated?
>>
>>
>> Uhh, misdemeanor convictions and a 3 year sentence? Not paying taxes
>> on $38 million?
>>
>
>Not paying taxes does not prove Snipes intent was to cheat. "He
>cheated" was YOUR conclusion based on nothing.
Right. It meant he intended to pay them. Don't you ever run out of
this bullshit? Better yet, try what he did and see what happens to
you and your crackpot theories.
>
>
>>
>>>And is Vesco an actor?
>>
>>
>> Did a pretty act on a lot of people stealing a lot of money didn't he?
>> Including Castro and company.
>>
>
>Vesco's motivation may have been greed, so what's the connection to
>Snipes? Vesco was greedy, therefore Snipes was greedy? There is no
>logical connection.
No you idiot. Refusing to pay his taxes is pure greed. What? Did he
donate what he should have paid to some children's fund? Ridiculous
as usual.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>Something else motivated him. Maybe a personality disorder caused him
>>>>>to fall for Kahn's scam and he was too prideful to admit he was wrong.
>>>>>Greed ain't it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>So you're a mind reader as well huh? Complete bullshit. You have no
>>>>idea what you're talking about.
>>>>
>>>
>>>There is no evidence that greed motivated Snipes, hypocrite.
>>
>>
>> Right. Every idiot cheating on his taxes is doing it for altruistic
>> reasons genius.
>>
>
>Now all you offer is sarcasm- Snipes was greedy because he couldn't have
>been altruistic?
Yes, and your idiotic positions merit nothing more than sarcasm.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>All tax denying morons have that personality disorder.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Whatever you say Sigmund.
>>>
>>>Whatever motivates tax denying morons, greed is at the bottom of the
>>>list. That's the facts, jack.
>>
>>
>> That's no fact at all ace. Just some bullshit you decided to make up
>> and throw up.
>
>I have encountered hundreds if not thousands of tax deniers and greed
>was never their motivation. Most are as broke as a church mouse. They
>are honest and forthright in everything but their intellect.
>
Nice crowd you associate with. Of course, they're all broke after all
the interest and penalties the greedy morons pay.
John Kulp
>
>
>P. Maffia wrote:
>> "nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:48208B42...@tx.rr.com...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John Kulp wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Tax evasion is an act of commission. What act did Snipes perform?
>>>>> He failed to make returns which is an act of ommission.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tax evasion is failing to pay your taxes on your income.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. Tax evasion requires an ACTION. Filing a return and lying on
>>> it is such an action. That is a felony.
>>
>>
>> If you had not noticed, failing to pay the taxes due on your income IS
>> AN ACTION whethered you filed a false return or none at all, with the
>> intent to not pay your just taxes.
>>
>
>Sorry, but not doing something is a NON action.
So go try it yourself hero and see what happens. You can argue this
bullshit with the IRS. I'm sure they and whatever judge you get will
be sympathetic. Just like Snipes'.
>
>
>>>> That's an
>>>> act of omission which is the only you got right.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. That's an act of COMMISSION.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Filing no return at all or not paying is an omision. It is a
>>> misdemeanor.
>>
>>
>> Not necessarily. It can be a felony.
>>
>
>It is only a felony if some other action was performed to defeat or
>evade the payment of the tax. That is the difference between 7201 and 7203.
>
>
>>>> It's against the
>>>> law, which is why he was found guilty and is going to jail. Got that
>>>> yet? If not, watch him go to jail and then you will.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Both are against the law. See 7201 and 7203- they vary by the degree
>>> of intent. Tis better to do nothing at all than to cheat.
Yeah, it will only get you 3 years in the slammer plus interest and
penalties. Such a deal.
>>
>>
>> Doing nothing, if your intent is to evade the payment of the taxes due,
>> is just as criminal. When you cheat, as opposed to doing nothing, just
>> makes it easier for Uncle to prove felonious intent.
>>
>
>Sorry, but evasion requires some action.
>
>
>>> Snipes was convicted of "failure to file"- misdemeanors. The jury
>>> aquitted him of the fraud and conspiracy charges. It is reasonable to
>>> conclude the jury found Snipes to be a dupe since his trial buddies
>>> were convicted of the more serious charges.
They were as dumb as you. The judge wasn't which is why he gave him 3
years.
>>
>>
>> If you actually read the papers filed by the Goverrnment, you would see
>> that it is a stretch to say he was a mere dupe. That the government
>> failed to effectively demonstrate his criminal intent to the jury's
>> satisfaction is the reason they found him solely guilty of three
>> misdeamenr charges.
>>
>
>What the govt tried to prove is one thing. What the jury found is what
>counts.
>Based on the jury's findings, it is reasonable to conclude Snipes was a
>dupe who failed to admit his mistakes.
Take X number of idiots like you and this is what you get. Reasonable
conclusion only for idiots. I'll bet Snipes will laugh for 3 straight
years.
>
>
>
>>>>> I challenge anyone to explain why Snipes did what he did other than
>>>>> he fell for a scam and was too prideful to admit it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See above and watch him go to jail.
>>>
>>>
>>> No doubt he is going to jail. But the topic in this thread is whether
>>> or not Snipes deserves it.
No doubt. Ask the judge. He should have gotten more if it weren't
for an idiot jury.
>>>
>>> I say his stupid pride sent him to jail.
>>
>>
>> Idiot pride is always a component in any criminal behavior.
>
>Pride is what causes people to refuse to admit to a mistake. Snipes was
>a dupe. He just couldn't bring himself to admit it. I think that is
>why the jury found him guilty of the misdemeanors.
>
>
And I think it was because he had a jury of idiots. See OJ.
NameNotImportant
> I have encountered hundreds if not thousands of tax deniers
You wanna explain that?
P. Maffia
in fact, read the summary OF HIS ACTIONS which the Government presented to
the judge as background for his sentencing, (which was posted here by
Archimedes on the day of his sentencing) a rational mind would conclude that
he performed many actions (your stated requirement -although not filing is
an action whether you agree with the RATIONAL definition or not) to avoid
paying taxes.
Whether any of that documentation was presented to the Jury is a question
that can only be a be answered by reading a transcript of the trial.
If it had not been presented at trial then the Government's prosecutor
should be fired immediately for incompetence. If the same info had been
presented at trial and the Jury chose to ignore it and find him only guilty
of 3 misdemeanors, then the Jury was composed of a bunch of lunk heads. Like
you!
"nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message news:482215...@tx.rr.com...
John Kulp
<pma...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>Sorry, Nat, you can arrive at whatever conclusion you want. But if you had,
>in fact, read the summary OF HIS ACTIONS which the Government presented to
>the judge as background for his sentencing, (which was posted here by
>Archimedes on the day of his sentencing) a rational mind would conclude that
>he performed many actions (your stated requirement -although not filing is
>an action whether you agree with the RATIONAL definition or not) to avoid
>paying taxes.
>
>Whether any of that documentation was presented to the Jury is a question
>that can only be a be answered by reading a transcript of the trial.
>
>If it had not been presented at trial then the Government's prosecutor
>should be fired immediately for incompetence. If the same info had been
>presented at trial and the Jury chose to ignore it and find him only guilty
>of 3 misdemeanors, then the Jury was composed of a bunch of lunk heads. Like
>you!
Amen.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 07 May 2008 15:28:17 -0500, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> No you idiot. Refusing to pay his taxes is pure greed.
"Resisting armed robbery is pure greed." Yeah, right.
--Jackney Sneeb
Dave Johnson
wrote:
no armed robbery of William Malloy's "nogov" government pension !
Paul Thomas, CPA
"nat" <ese...@tx.rr.com> wrote
> Not paying taxes does not prove Snipes intent was to cheat.
Maybe so. But he just didn't "not pay taxes". He also went out of his way
to slow down the collection process, maybe to the point of obstruction. And
none of it was legitimate issues or problems, and he provided no proof that
the amounts of his income were at issue.
"I didn't make that much" is not evasion, and seemingly a legitimate issue
to raise.
"What I received wasn't income" is evasionary in it's nature.
nat
Ok.
Before the popularity of the internet, I use to go to seminars where
hundreds of dupes were in attendance. A couple of them drew thousands.
There was a circuit of cities where the major tax cult gurus regularly
peddled their wares and theories. I debated them all and debunked them all.
Since I got on the internet 10 years ago, I have wasted my time debating
the tax cult idiots. What a life.
Kirby M. Wilson
OK, stop wasting your life. Let the tax idiot dupes pass go and
directly to jail. End of story.
nat
Frivolous claims and beliefs are not evasionary.
Whatever reason a person has to not pay taxes or fail to make a return
is not evasionary.
Evasion requires some act in addition to mere failure to perform a
function. A belief is not an act.
Congress made evasion a felony-a greater offense.
Congress made the failure to pay a tax or make a return a misdemeanor.
Personable Tiger
and especially how we treat each other. People did not have the
patience to try to draw me out in an open-minded way.
Instead, at times, three people were jumping on me. And apparently it
did not occur to the second and third person, Do I really need to go
after the guy? Including cheap shoots, and various criticism
seemingly just for the hec of it, so forget about it.
You lose a polite person who has different views.
-Tiger
PS There's a few things I wish to say about H&R Block, almost in
terms of making them part of the public record, and then, that is
probably it.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> "Personable Tiger" wrote
> It seems as though he was more punished for what
>
> > he believes and who he is, than for what he did.
>
> Not really. Take a look at other cases where the defendant lost - Ed and
> Elaine Brown for example, each got over 5 years. Kent Hovind received 10
> years. Richard Simkanin is enjoying a seven year vacation on the feds.
> Clarkston did almost 5 years. Larken Rose got 15 months (missus Larken did
> time too). Irwin Schiff spent (and is spending) more years in jail than the
> ages of all my kids combined.
>
> > It's okay to believe some kooky stuff.
>
> It's not "ok" to act on those beliefs.
With this post Paul Thomas reveals once again that he believes (along
with ed senter) in "Might-Makes-Right." He thinks that being thrown
in jail by the US "justice" system is the test of whether someone did
something wrong. Using his logic, Nathan Hale was wrong to resist
British rule, and deserved to be hanged - BECAUSE he was hanged. If
Paul had been around in colonial times, guess which side he would have
taken in the American Revolution.
--Jackney Sneeb
Jackne...@gmail.com
> If Snipes wanted to test his legal theories lawfully, he could have paid
> the tax and filed for a refund.
This is the propaganda the feds use in cases like this. What ed
senter omits is that when someone does pay the tax and files for a
refund, the feds then turn that act against him, and say "By paying
the tax, you admitted that you owe it." They then slap him with a so-
called "frivolous return" penalty based on the assumption that if he
didn't believe he owed the tax, he would not have paid it.
Propagandists for tyranny love these little double whammies - they
enjoy offering The People a "choice" of damned if you do, damned if
you don't.
State-worshippers like ed senter will defend almost to the death the
right of the state to make the rules as they go, change wrong into
right with euphemisms like "taxes" (for extortion), and "defense" (for
mass murder), and violently suppress any and all dissent. He would
have been on the side of the Tories, along with traitor Paul Thomas,
during our revolution.
--Jackney Sneeb
Jackne...@gmail.com
<PersonableTigerontheWestCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Paul Thomas wrote:
>
> > When you take and make efforts to hamper the garnishments and attachments
> > that they bump it up - after another round of due process - to a criminal
> > case.
>
> That is a form of authoritarianism.
It IS authoritarianism. Paul Thomas IS an authoritarian.
--Jackney Sneeb
Jackne...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "Personable Tiger" wrote
>
> > That is a form of authoritarianism.
>
I bet you do torture yours.
--Jackney Sneeb
Jackne...@gmail.com
<PersonableTigerontheWestCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No one really did the sustained work to create the middle, including
> and especially how we treat each other. People did not have the
> patience to try to draw me out in an open-minded way.
>
> Instead, at times, three people were jumping on me. And apparently it
> did not occur to the second and third person, Do I really need to go
> after the guy? Including cheap shoots, and various criticism
> seemingly just for the hec of it, so forget about it.
>
> You lose a polite person who has different views.
>
> -Tiger
You're dealing with authoritarian bullies. Would you really expect
them to play nice?
--Jackney Sneeb
Paul Thomas, CPA
<Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote
> With this post Paul Thomas reveals once
> again that he believes (along with
> ed senter) in "Might-Makes-Right."
That's what you keep claiming. In fact, right makes might.
It just so happens that all the tax protest arguments being used are not
right.
--
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
----------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Watkinsville, Georgia
Paul Thomas, CPA
<Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote
> This is the propaganda the feds use in cases like this.
> What ed senter omits is that when someone does
> pay the tax and files for a refund, the feds then turn
> that act against him, and say "By paying
> the tax, you admitted that you owe it."
And you are basing your beliefs on what personal experience?
People routinely pay the tax and file a refund suit in court to obtain a
jury trial.
To not pay the tax means your only course is through tax court, where an
educated judge makes the call.
--
Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
----------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
nat
hey ornery malloy,
When you are honest enough to know the difference between DISAGREEING
WITH A LAW vs. BELIEVING IN A FANTASY INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW, get
back to us.
nat
In the American system, the LAW is the authority.
Hence, no individual is entitled to his own private interpretation of
the law.
You get it backwards, again, ornery malloy. It is YOU who is the
believer in authoritarianism.
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 28, 7:54 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If Snipes wanted to test his legal theories lawfully, he could have paid
>>the tax and filed for a refund.
>
>
> This is the propaganda the feds use in cases like this.
Snipes only defense was the Cheek "please forgive me, I'm too stupid to
know the law" Good-Faith Defense. But the jury heard and the truth was
Snipes tried the "please believe my interpretation of the law" Defense
which in not really a defense. It is a defiance.
> What ed
> senter omits is that when someone does pay the tax and files for a
> refund, the feds then turn that act against him, and say "By paying
> the tax, you admitted that you owe it."
Nope, paying the tax has nothing to do with it. When someone files for
a refund, the issue becomes whether or not the filer's claim is
fraudulent or it is a legitimate refund claim.
> They then slap him with a so-
> called "frivolous return" penalty based on the assumption that if he
> didn't believe he owed the tax, he would not have paid it.
What the filer "believes" is not at issue in a refund claim.
> Propagandists for tyranny love these little double whammies - they
> enjoy offering The People a "choice" of damned if you do, damned if
> you don't.
The "willfull" element of tax crimes truly protects any taxpayer who
misunderstands the law. Snipes, however, truly was testing his
interpretation of the law. He would have had no risk of criminal
penalties if he would have paid the tax and filed for a refund.
>
> State-worshippers like ed senter will defend almost to the death the
> right of the state to make the rules as they go, change wrong into
> right with euphemisms like "taxes" (for extortion), and "defense" (for
> mass murder), and violently suppress any and all dissent. He would
> have been on the side of the Tories, along with traitor Paul Thomas,
> during our revolution.
> --Jackney Sneeb
I believe in the Rule of Law which includes civil disobedience. That is
the opposite of "state-worshipping". But ornery malloy ain't honest
enough to know that.
John Kulp
>
>
>Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On May 4, 11:43 am, Personable Tiger
>> <PersonableTigerontheWestCo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Paul Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>When you take and make efforts to hamper the garnishments and attachments
>>>>that they bump it up - after another round of due process - to a criminal
>>>>case.
>>>
>>>That is a form of authoritarianism.
>>
>>
>> It IS authoritarianism. Paul Thomas IS an authoritarian.
>> --Jackney Sneeb
>
>In the American system, the LAW is the authority.
>Hence, no individual is entitled to his own private interpretation of
>the law.
Sure they are. They just go to the slammer when they're wrong.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> Sure they are. They just go to the slammer when they're wrong.
Another might-makes-right aficionado . . .
--Jackney Sneeb
Jackne...@gmail.com
> I believe in the Rule of Law which includes civil disobedience.
Where does "the Law" include civil disobedience? And what's the
difference between "civil disobedience" and plain old ordinary
disobedience?
It's refreshing to see at least one of you state-worshippers admitting
your violent philosophy is based on a mere belief.
(For your fellow authoritarians' information, the rule of law is a
myth. See John Hasnas, The Myth of the Rule of Law, here:
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm)
--Jackney Sneeb
John Kulp
If you don't think that' accurate, just try it and see.
John Kulp
>On Jun 19, 9:27 am, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> I believe in the Rule of Law which includes civil disobedience.
>Where does "the Law" include civil disobedience? And what's the
>difference between "civil disobedience" and plain old ordinary
>disobedience?
>It's refreshing to see at least one of you state-worshippers admitting
>your violent philosophy is based on a mere belief.
As opposed to you tax cheating criminals stealing from your fellow
citizens?
>
>(For your fellow authoritarians' information, the rule of law is a
>myth. See John Hasnas, The Myth of the Rule of Law, here:
>http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm)
>--Jackney Sneeb
Another wacko reference from the tax criminals to back their screwball
illegal theories.
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 19, 9:27 am, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I believe in the Rule of Law which includes civil disobedience.
>
> Where does "the Law" include civil disobedience?
Well, the law is inherently political.
> And what's the
> difference between "civil disobedience" and plain old ordinary
> disobedience?
The goal of civil disobedience is persuasion. Ordinary disobedience is
anarchy.
> It's refreshing to see at least one of you state-worshippers admitting
> your violent philosophy is based on a mere belief.
>
What would be really refreshing is an honest statement from ornery malloy.
> (For your fellow authoritarians' information, the rule of law is a
> myth. See John Hasnas, The Myth of the Rule of Law, here:
> http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm)
> --Jackney Sneeb
This is another example why anarchists are liars. No one ever said that
the Rule of Law was objective. The Law rules is a hell of a lot better
than some king ruling the roost.
What anarchists refuse to admit is that if there were any such thing as
"objective reality", there wouldn't be a need for any law at all.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> What anarchists refuse to admit is that if there were any such thing as
> "objective reality", there wouldn't be a need for any law at all.
So what makes your subjective pipe dreams more valid than anyone
else's.
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
It is based on reality and it works.
There is over 232 years of empirical data to prove it.
Jackne...@gmail.com
nat
He says as he continues to collect his fat govt check and continues to
take for granted the riches bestowed upon him.
Name one positive thing any anarchist has contributed to mankind. You
can't even contribute a original thought.
Jackne...@gmail.com
>
> Name one positive thing any anarchist has contributed to mankind.
The Declaration of Independence.
--Jackney Sneeb
cpt banjo
wrote:
The fact that those who wrote the Declaration represented state
governments and intended to form a new government independent from
Britain is apparently too subtle for Malloy.
Richard Macdonald
news:ff600206-0649-49ba...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
And would you know, the first thing those alleged anarchists
did was to form their own Government.
Ole Jackey Sneeb must confuse revolutionaries with anarchists.
Hint, not all revolutionaries are anarchists, in fact damn few are.
Jackne...@gmail.com
banjo once again can't resist reacting to my spanking of
authoritarians despite promises he made to himself and others.
--Jackney Sneeb
Jackne...@gmail.com
wrote:
> And would you know, the first thing those alleged anarchists
> did was to form their own Government.
This is the irony of the state-worshippers' delusion They revere
those who revolted against their lawful "government" as heroes, but
what did those people do? They committed treason, disobeyed the law,
became cop killers and fought dirty. Then, after telling old King
George and Parliament, "Phooey on your laws! We spit on them! To hell
with your taxes!" they set up a brand new version of what they
rebelled against (with themselves in charge, of course). As George
Carlin said, "They were just ordinary slave owners who wanted to be
free!" Yet anyone who questions the "authority" of the gang of
violent thugs they put in place of British rule, well you're just
scofflaws!
Were they right to want to overthrow the state? Yes. Were they
justified in doing the same thing to Americans that the King and
Parliament had done to them? Only if hypocrisy is justified.
> Ole Jackey Sneeb must confuse revolutionaries with anarchists.
> Hint, not all revolutionaries are anarchists, in fact damn few are.
And not all anarchists are cop killers, either. Not all accountants
are IRS collaborators, for that matter. All tax collectors are
thieves, though.
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Anarchists don't set up new govts, dumbass.
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 21, 5:03 am, "Richard Macdonald" <rmacdon...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>And would you know, the first thing those alleged anarchists
>>did was to form their own Government.
>
>
> This is the irony of the state-worshippers' delusion
Define "state-worshipper".
> They revere
> those who revolted against their lawful "government" as heroes, but
> what did those people do? They committed treason, disobeyed the law,
> became cop killers and fought dirty. Then, after telling old King
> George and Parliament, "Phooey on your laws! We spit on them! To hell
> with your taxes!" they set up a brand new version of what they
> rebelled against (with themselves in charge, of course).
So they set up a monarchy?
Why is the truth so difficult to accept by an anarchist?
> As George
> Carlin said, "They were just ordinary slave owners who wanted to be
> free!"
Here ornery malloy throws in nonsense with no rhyme or reason.
> Yet anyone who questions the "authority" of the gang of
> violent thugs they put in place of British rule, well you're just
> scofflaws!
You got a question, ornery malloy? You have yet to say anything
intelligent.
>
> Were they right to want to overthrow the state? Yes. Were they
> justified in doing the same thing to Americans that the King and
> Parliament had done to them? Only if hypocrisy is justified.
>
Newsflash!
Throwing off a monarch and setting up a republic ain't hypocritical,
anarchyboy.
(Anarchists can't handle the truth.)
>
>>Ole Jackey Sneeb must confuse revolutionaries with anarchists.
>>Hint, not all revolutionaries are anarchists, in fact damn few are.
>
>
> And not all anarchists are cop killers, either. Not all accountants
> are IRS collaborators, for that matter. All tax collectors are
> thieves, though.
> --Jackney Sneeb
>
A hypocrite would be someone who cashes his govt check while bitchin'
about the taxes that provide for his govt check.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> Define "state-worshipper".
State-worshipper: 1: One who believes in the inherent righteousness
of politicians; 2: One who believes he can have a "government"
powerful enough to protect him from all enemies, while at the same
time too weak to kick his OWN ass; 3: one who believes voting changes
things; 4: One who insists everyone must obey the laws, yet has never
actually read the laws himself; 5: One who believes a piece of paper
can alter right and wrong; 6: One who believes might makes right; 7:
One who would never want communism/fascism/totalitarianism for
himself, and at the same time thinks it's just the thing for other
people; 8: One who says things like, "when you come right down to it,
almost everything that governments do would be crimes if committed by
individuals." [~Attorney Dan Evans] 9: One who becomes highly
indignant when people in the opposition party do the same kinds of
naughty things his OWN party does;
10: Any combination of two or more of the above nails it.
Or, you could take this self-assessment: http://nogov4me.net/quiz.htm
- and find out how severe your case of state-worship really is.
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
So ornery malloy defines a "state-worshipper' as anyone who is not an
anarchist and is smarter than a 7 year old.
Jackne...@gmail.com
So ed senter demonstrates his complete lack of reading comprehension.
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
To the extent ornery malloy's screed is comprehendable,
name one person other than an anarchist or smarter than a 7 year old
who is NOT a "state-worshipper" according to your definition.
Jackne...@gmail.com
There isn't one. An anarchist is the opposite of a state-worshipper.
By definition, anyone who is not one is necessarily the other. Your
question is like asking "Name one person who is not an atheist or
agnostic that doesn't believe in a god." The question answers
itself. Do you funk being a state-worshipper? If so, give it up. If
not, enjoy yourself. [Just try to resist shoving Jews into ovens,
okay?]
--Jackney Sneeb
Paul Thomas
<Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote
>> name one person other than an anarchist or smarter than a 7 year old
> There isn't one.
Yup. We know.
nat
Your entire philosophy is based on nothing but exaggeration,
hyperbole, esoteric anecdotes,
and outright lies which leaves you incapable of having intelligent
discourse.
Jackne...@gmail.com
Yours is based on violence.
--Jackney Sneeb
Paul Thomas, CPA
<Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote
> Yours is based on violence.
From the mouths of people who are more than willing to shoot first, then
stroll down to see if there's a warrant in the officer's dead hand.
Law enforcement officers use the amount of force necessary to equal or
exceed the amount of resistance.
Not at all different from the military Malloy.
--
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
Isaac Asimov (1920 - 1992), Salvor Hardin in "Foundation"
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
nat
There you go again, liar.
Funny how all of your words assume negativity
That is why you are intellectually bankrupt.
There is nothing in my philosophy that advocates the misuse or abuse
of force.
Jackne...@gmail.com
"I am saying that might makes right." ~ed senter, 09-15-2001
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Another example why ornery malloy is intellectually bankrupt.
"Might makes right" is not the same as "might is right".
The former addresses the question 'what is right?' -and the latter
addresses the question
'is the force justified or abused?'
'Govt is force' is a true statement.
'Govt is violent' is a lie spoken by a lying anarchist.
Jackne...@gmail.com
Pretending violence and force are different is the province of an
Orwellian state-worshipper, not an anarchist. It is the same bizarre
doublethink thought process that a state-worshipper relies on to
believe taxes aren't theft, and war isn't murder.
--JackneySneeb
nat
You are too easy, ornery malloy.
Doublethink would be believing that taxation is theft while at the
same time believing it is ok to
collect a govt check.
Doublethink would be believing that all force is wrong while at the
same time believing it is ok to
enforce one's own rules.
Doublethink would be believing that all killing is wrong while at the
same time believing it is ok
to own a gun.
And a hypocrite is one who attempts to point out the faults of others
while at the same time being
guilty of those same faults.
Haha. You are just too intellectually bankrupt, ornery malloy, or do
you even care?
Do you believe all force is violence?- because the truth is violence
is the abuse of force.
Do you believe in theft of service?- because the truth is taxes pay
for govt services.
Do you believe all killings are murder?- because murder is unjustified
killing.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> Do you believe all force is violence?
All armed force that backs up the state's threats is violence.
> Do you believe in theft of service?
No. Taxes are theft of service, labor, and property. I don't believe
in that. You do. You're trying to justify robbing someone and then
(based on you "giving" him a few crumbs back) accuse HIM of "theft" if
he objects to YOUR robbery.
> Do you believe all killings are murder?
No.
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2:08 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Do you believe all force is violence?
>
> All armed force that backs up the state's threats is violence.
>
It is difficult to imagine any force that isn't armed. So you are a
complete passivist, ornery malloy? No armed force means no force at
all.
The reality is that passivism just means the bad guys always win.
> > Do you believe in theft of service?
>
> No. Taxes are theft of service, labor, and property. I don't believe
> in that. You do. You're trying to justify robbing someone and then
> (based on you "giving" him a few crumbs back) accuse HIM of "theft" if
> he objects to YOUR robbery.
>
Yes, yes, we all know you believe "taxation is theft" but that is only
based on your presupposition that govt is bad. You have never
provided an proof.
If you believe that you can drive the public roads and also hold that
"taxation is theft" then you are a liar, or stupid or both.
> > Do you believe all killings are murder?
>
> No.
Are you lying now or were you lying when you said war is murder?
Paul Thomas, CPA
<Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote
> On Jun 28, 2:08 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Do you believe all force is violence?
>
> All armed force that backs up the state's threats is violence.
>
>> Do you believe in theft of service?
>
> No.
Yet you steal government provided services by not paying your taxes, as
taxes are how services, like fire protection, police protection, roads,
schools, etc get paid for.
Face it Malloy, you're a theif.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> > > Do you believe all force is violence?
> > All armed force that backs up the state's threats is violence.
> It is difficult to imagine any force that isn't armed.
Well, then it's violence, isn't it.
> So you are a
> complete passivist, ornery malloy? No armed force means no force at
> all.
"Pacifist"? No. Force in self defense is not only justified, it's an
obligation.
> The reality is that passivism just means the bad guys always win.
The bad guys DO win sometimes. (That's the state in most cases.) The
guys who believe in might-makes-right - as you do - sometimes win
even when they are doing wrong.
> > > Do you believe in theft of service?
> > No. Taxes are theft of service, labor, and property. I don't believe
> > in that. You do. You're trying to justify robbing someone and then
> > (based on you "giving" him a few crumbs back) accuse HIM of "theft" if
> > he objects to YOUR robbery.
>
> Yes, yes, we all know you believe "taxation is theft" but that is only
> based on your presupposition that govt is bad.
No, it's based on the idea "Give us your money or we won't protect you
from us" is immoral.
>You have never
> provided an proof.
Proof of what?
> If you believe that you can drive the public roads and also hold that
> "taxation is theft" then you are a liar, or stupid or both.
Non sequitur. Roads are not necessarily dependent on theft. People
build roads. (D-uh) They can and will build roads to get from point a
to point b whether they are robbed to pay for them or not. Roads
existed before the idea of "government." Who builds beaver dams in
your opinion - beaver "governments"?
Secondly, corporations (like the oil companies that finance roads
through the sale of gasoline) agreed to pay taxes in return for
special protection the state offers them in the market. So,
corporations can legitimately be required to fund roads without the
state robbing you and me.
> > > Do you believe all killings are murder?
>
> > No.
>
> Are you lying now or were you lying when you said war is murder?
War is murder isn't the same thing as all killing is murder. Killing
in self defense is not murder. Waging war is initiating killing on a
massive scale that has nothing to do with self defense.
--JackneySneeb
Jackne...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <JackneySn...@gmail.com> wrote
1) I don't have any taxes.
2) You're a moron.
--Jackney Sneeb
Paul Thomas, CPA
<Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote
> 1) I don't have any taxes.
Why of course. Whatever you just dreampt up must be true.
Jackne...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <JackneySn...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > 1) I don't have any taxes.
>
> Why of course. Whatever you just dreampt up must be true.
1) What taxes do you think I have that you claim I don't pay (that
makes me a "theif" [sic])?
2) You're still a moron.
--Jackney Sneeb
Paul Thomas
<Jackne...@gmail.com> wrote
> 1) What taxes do you think I have that you claim I don't pay
You're the one claiming to not pay taxes.
And you may not have any current federal income tax liability, being on
disability and all.
But you did pay taxes on your military pay, which pay was sourced directly
from taxes paid by others.
What a crook you are Malloy.
--
"Under certain circumstances profanity
provides a relief denied by prayer"
Mark Twain
---------------------------------------------
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 29, 12:04 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Do you believe all force is violence?
> > > All armed force that backs up the state's threats is violence.
> > It is difficult to imagine any force that isn't armed.
>
> Well, then it's violence, isn't it.
>
ornery malloy says 'armed force is violence'.
He also agrees all force is armed.
Therefore, all force is violence.
Words have meanings and semantics is the study of meanings. It is
evident that ornery malloy's argument never rises above the level of
semantics.
Most people (sans ornery malloy) agree, and the dictionary confirms,
that "violence" is the abuse of force.
> > So you are a
> > complete passivist, ornery malloy? No armed force means no force at
> > all.
>
> "Pacifist"? No.
"Pacifist" is a cute term for anti-war or anti-gun. "Passivist" is a
person who gives no resistance.
No, I meant what I said. By your words above, you are a passivist.
But we all know you are a liar, so you never mean what you say.
> Force in self defense is not only justified, it's an
> obligation.
>
See, now you are contradicting yourself. You now admit that you
believe in "justified force". You admitted earlier that all force is
armed.
It follows then that you believe armed force is justified if it is
used in "self-defense".
So that bullshit about "violence" was just a lie.
> > The reality is that passivism just means the bad guys always win.
>
> The bad guys DO win sometimes.
They ALWAYS win if you offer no resistance, duh.
> (That's the state in most cases.) The
> guys who believe in might-makes-right - as you do - sometimes win
> even when they are doing wrong.
>
There you go lying again. As I said before, "might makes right" does
not mean might IS right.
> > > > Do you believe in theft of service?
> > > No. Taxes are theft of service, labor, and property. I don't believe
> > > in that. You do. You're trying to justify robbing someone and then
> > > (based on you "giving" him a few crumbs back) accuse HIM of "theft" if
> > > he objects to YOUR robbery.
> >
> > Yes, yes, we all know you believe "taxation is theft" but that is only
> > based on your presupposition that govt is bad.
>
> No, it's based on the idea "Give us your money or we won't protect you
> from us" is immoral.
>
Which is error.
> >You have never
> > provided an proof.
>
> Proof of what?
-That TAXATION IS THEFT.
You keep claiming that and I prove over and over again that you are a
liar.
>
> > If you believe that you can drive the public roads and also hold that
> > "taxation is theft" then you are a liar, or stupid or both.
>
> Non sequitur. Roads are not necessarily dependent on theft.
Because they are dependent on TAXES, liar.
> People
> build roads. (D-uh) They can and will build roads to get from point a
> to point b whether they are robbed to pay for them or not. Roads
> existed before the idea of "government."
But PUBLIC roads and property rights can not exist without govt.
> Who builds beaver dams in
> your opinion - beaver "governments"?
>
But if you want a reliable water supply for multitudes of people you
need govt to provide the infrastructure supporting the building and
maintenance of the reservoir.
> Secondly, corporations (like the oil companies that finance roads
> through the sale of gasoline) agreed to pay taxes in return for
> special protection the state offers them in the market. So,
> corporations can legitimately be required to fund roads without the
> state robbing you and me.
>
So you lied when you said "taxation is theft". It is ok to "rob"
corporations, but leave ornery malloy alone!
You prove once again how intellectually bankrupt you are.
> > > > Do you believe all killings are murder?
> >
> > > No.
> >
> > Are you lying now or were you lying when you said war is murder?
>
> War is murder isn't the same thing as all killing is murder. Killing
> in self defense is not murder.
So you were lying when you called me an orwellian double-thinker.
You are too much, ornery malloy.
> Waging war is initiating killing on a
> massive scale that has nothing to do with self defense.
> --JackneySneeb
I am glad you agree.
War in self-defense is ok.
So far you have given us nothing intelligent to support your anarchy
beliefs, ornery malloy.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> <JackneySn...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > 1) What taxes do you think I have that you claim I don't pay
>
> You're the one claiming to not pay taxes.
Where?
> But you did pay taxes on your military pay, which pay was sourced directly
> from taxes paid by others.
Uh - so you knew you were lying when you said I didn't pay taxes: "Yet
you steal government provided services by not paying your taxes" ~Paul
Thomas, Jun 30, 5:27 am
<shrug>
--Jackney Sneeb
Jackne...@gmail.com
> Therefore, all force is violence.
Including state force. Where do you disagree?
> > "Pacifist"? No.
>
> "Pacifist" is a cute term for anti-war or anti-gun. "Passivist" is a
> person who gives no resistance.
If you believe might-makes-right, what justification would YOU have
for resisting? (And "passivist" is just a mispronunciation of
"pacifist" despite your attempt to tap dance your way out of
displaying your own ignorance.)
> > Force in self defense is not only justified, it's an
> > obligation.
>
> See, now you are contradicting yourself.
No. I have consistently advocated force in self defense - which you
absent-mindedly explain here:
> You now admit that you
> believe in "justified force". You admitted earlier that all force is
> armed.
> It follows then that you believe armed force is justified if it is
> used in "self-defense".
Absolutely. Don't you?
> > > The reality is that passivism just means the bad guys always win.
> > The bad guys DO win sometimes.
> They ALWAYS win if you offer no resistance, duh.
Are you advocating armed overthrow of the United States here?
> > (That's the state in most cases.) The
> > guys who believe in might-makes-right - as you do - sometimes win
> > even when they are doing wrong.
>
> There you go lying again. As I said before, "might makes right" does
> not mean might IS right.
It means the same thing. Otherwise, it means nothing.
> > > Yes, yes, we all know you believe "taxation is theft" but that is only
> > > based on your presupposition that govt is bad.
>
> > No, it's based on the idea "Give us your money or we won't protect you
> > from us" is immoral.
>
> Which is error.
Impotent response noted.
> > >You have never
> > > provided an proof.
> > Proof of what?
> -That TAXATION IS THEFT.
> You keep claiming that and I prove over and over again that you are a
> liar.
What is the difference between, a) "Give us your money, or we won't
protect you from us," and b) "Give us your money, or we won't protect
you from us," where 'a' is the Mafia and 'b' is the state?
> > > If you believe that you can drive the public roads and also hold that
> > > "taxation is theft" then you are a liar, or stupid or both.
> > Non sequitur. Roads are not necessarily dependent on theft.
> Because they are dependent on TAXES, liar.
No, they are not. People build roads with private fund. People can
build and maintain roads without taxes. Just because you cannot
imagine a world where people build things without armed robbery
doesn't mean armed robbery is necessary for people to build stuff.
> > People
> > build roads. (D-uh) They can and will build roads to get from point a
> > to point b whether they are robbed to pay for them or not. Roads
> > existed before the idea of "government."
>
> But PUBLIC roads and property rights can not exist without govt.
How can property rights exist WITH a government if government requires
armed force to steal people's stuff?
> > Who builds beaver dams in
> > your opinion - beaver "governments"?
>
> But if you want a reliable water supply for multitudes of people you
> need govt to provide the infrastructure supporting the building and
> maintenance of the reservoir.
Who builds beaver dams in your opinion - beaver "governments"?
> > Secondly, corporations (like the oil companies that finance roads
> > through the sale of gasoline) agreed to pay taxes in return for
> > special protection the state offers them in the market. So,
> > corporations can legitimately be required to fund roads without the
> > state robbing you and me.
>
> So you lied when you said "taxation is theft". It is ok to "rob"
> corporations,
Corporations are creations of the state, and as such have agreed to
the terms of the corporation's charter. It's not robbery when both
sides have made an agreement that each will perform his part of the
bargain.
> but leave ornery malloy alone!
> You prove once again how intellectually bankrupt you are.
Only in your pea-brain.
> > > > > Do you believe all killings are murder?
> > > > No.
> > > Are you lying now or were you lying when you said war is murder?
> > War is murder isn't the same thing as all killing is murder. Killing
> > in self defense is not murder.
>
> So you were lying when you called me an orwellian double-thinker.
> You are too much, ornery malloy.
Despite your thrashing, squirming, and gnashing of teeth, I haven't
fibbed once in our little fandango here. You believe might makes
right. I don't. You're wrong. I'm right.
> > Waging war is initiating killing on a
> > massive scale that has nothing to do with self defense.
> > --JackneySneeb
>
> I am glad you agree.
> War in self-defense is ok.
War isn't defense. War is aggression. The US called its department
of aggression the Department of War for decades, and then changed it
to the Department of Defense form propaganda purposes, probably
because they think it looks better to invade other countries the way
Nazi Germany did if you use a defense department instead of a war
department.
> So far you have given us nothing intelligent to support your anarchy
> beliefs, ornery malloy.
I wasn't talking about anarchy.
<shrug>
--Jackney Sneeb
nat
Jackne...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 30, 7:58 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Therefore, all force is violence.
>
> Including state force. Where do you disagree?
>
Violence is the ABUSE of force.
Therefore, all violence is force, not all force is violence.
But you knew that, liar.
> > > "Pacifist"? No.
> >
> > "Pacifist" is a cute term for anti-war or anti-gun. "Passivist" is a
> > person who gives no resistance.
>
> If you believe might-makes-right, what justification would YOU have
> for resisting?
I resist that which ain't right.
> (And "passivist" is just a mispronunciation of
> "pacifist" despite your attempt to tap dance your way out of
> displaying your own ignorance.)
>
Two terms- two meanings, dumbass. Look it up.
Pacifist is the noun form of to pacify. Its root meanings is similar
as peace.
Passivist is the noun form of passive. A passivist would not resist
external influence.
> > > Force in self defense is not only justified, it's an
> > > obligation.
> >
> > See, now you are contradicting yourself.
>
> No. I have consistently advocated force in self defense - which you
> absent-mindedly explain here:
>
To be consistent, you would call "force in self defense" violence,
which is ignorant.
> > You now admit that you
> > believe in "justified force". You admitted earlier that all force is
> > armed.
> > It follows then that you believe armed force is justified if it is
> > used in "self-defense".
>
> Absolutely. Don't you?
>
I wouldn't call it VIOLENCE like you do, liar.
> > > > The reality is that passivism just means the bad guys always win.
> > > The bad guys DO win sometimes.
> > They ALWAYS win if you offer no resistance, duh.
>
> Are you advocating armed overthrow of the United States here?
>
Why would I do that?
I have all the freedoms I can imagine living within a society
including not having my speech abridged. So do you. And I have the
freedom to point out how intellectually bankrupt you are.
> > > (That's the state in most cases.) The
> > > guys who believe in might-makes-right - as you do - sometimes win
> > > even when they are doing wrong.
> >
> > There you go lying again. As I said before, "might makes right" does
> > not mean might IS right.
>
> It means the same thing. Otherwise, it means nothing.
>
One is a moral issue, the other is reality. You are just too ornery
to admit it.
> > > > Yes, yes, we all know you believe "taxation is theft" but that is only
> > > > based on your presupposition that govt is bad.
> >
> > > No, it's based on the idea "Give us your money or we won't protect you
> > > from us" is immoral.
> >
> > Which is error.
>
> Impotent response noted.
>
It doesn't take much to rebut a stupid statement.
> > > >You have never
> > > > provided an proof.
> > > Proof of what?
> > -That TAXATION IS THEFT.
> > You keep claiming that and I prove over and over again that you are a
> > liar.
>
> What is the difference between, a) "Give us your money, or we won't
> protect you from us," and b) "Give us your money, or we won't protect
> you from us," where 'a' is the Mafia and 'b' is the state?
>
Not all govts operate like the Mafia, liar.
> > > > If you believe that you can drive the public roads and also hold that
> > > > "taxation is theft" then you are a liar, or stupid or both.
> > > Non sequitur. Roads are not necessarily dependent on theft.
> > Because they are dependent on TAXES, liar.
>
> No, they are not. People build roads with private fund. People can
> build and maintain roads without taxes.
Key word there is "people". When individuals pool their funds and
talents under a set of guidelines, that is called GOVT, duh.
> Just because you cannot
> imagine a world where people build things without armed robbery
> doesn't mean armed robbery is necessary for people to build stuff.
>
I don't have to "imagine" it. It is all around me. Govts collecting
taxes for the benefit of the public.
> > > People
> > > build roads. (D-uh) They can and will build roads to get from point a
> > > to point b whether they are robbed to pay for them or not. Roads
> > > existed before the idea of "government."
> >
> > But PUBLIC roads and property rights can not exist without govt.
>
> How can property rights exist WITH a government if government requires
> armed force to steal people's stuff?
>
Govt doesn't "steal people's stuff", but govt does use force to
control scofflaws and free-loaders.
> > > Who builds beaver dams in
> > > your opinion - beaver "governments"?
> >
> > But if you want a reliable water supply for multitudes of people you
> > need govt to provide the infrastructure supporting the building and
> > maintenance of the reservoir.
>
> Who builds beaver dams in your opinion - beaver "governments"?
>
A beaver builds a home. The dam is incidental.
> > > Secondly, corporations (like the oil companies that finance roads
> > > through the sale of gasoline) agreed to pay taxes in return for
> > > special protection the state offers them in the market. So,
> > > corporations can legitimately be required to fund roads without the
> > > state robbing you and me.
> >
> > So you lied when you said "taxation is theft". It is ok to "rob"
> > corporations,
>
> Corporations are creations of the state,
Wow, I didn't know Arkansas created Walmart. I thought Sam Walton
did.
> and as such have agreed to
> the terms of the corporation's charter.
Show me one corporate charter that stipulates the hows and wherefores
for the payment of taxes.
You have been reading too many tax protester comic books.
> It's not robbery when both
> sides have made an agreement that each will perform his part of the
> bargain.
>
Well, We the People firmly planted taxes in the charter of govt for
the USA. It is right there in the Constitution.
> > but leave ornery malloy alone!
> > You prove once again how intellectually bankrupt you are.
>
> Only in your pea-brain.
>
My "pea" is larger than yours. It is self-evident.
> > > > > > Do you believe all killings are murder?
> > > > > No.
> > > > Are you lying now or were you lying when you said war is murder?
> > > War is murder isn't the same thing as all killing is murder. Killing
> > > in self defense is not murder.
> >
> > So you were lying when you called me an orwellian double-thinker.
> > You are too much, ornery malloy.
>
> Despite your thrashing, squirming, and gnashing of teeth, I haven't
> fibbed once in our little fandango here. You believe might makes
> right. I don't. You're wrong. I'm right.
>
You believe in might makes right, too. You are just too much of an
intellectual liar to admit it. You represent a small lunatic
fringe. Your power of persuasion in miniscual.
> > > Waging war is initiating killing on a
> > > massive scale that has nothing to do with self defense.
> > > --JackneySneeb
> >
> > I am glad you agree.
> > War in self-defense is ok.
>
> War isn't defense. War is aggression. The US called its department
> of aggression the Department of War for decades, and then changed it
> to the Department of Defense form propaganda purposes, probably
> because they think it looks better to invade other countries the way
> Nazi Germany did if you use a defense department instead of a war
> department.
>
The Constitution calls it Defence; your spin notwithstanding.
> > So far you have given us nothing intelligent to support your anarchy
> > beliefs, ornery malloy.
>
> I wasn't talking about anarchy.
Whatever, you have said nothing intelligent.
Jackne...@gmail.com
> Violence is the ABUSE of force.
Wrong.
> > If you believe might-makes-right, what justification would YOU have
> > for resisting?
> I resist that which ain't right.
No you don't - you promote it.
> > (And "passivist" is just a mispronunciation of
> > "pacifist" despite your attempt to tap dance your way out of
> > displaying your own ignorance.)
> Two terms- two meanings, dumbass. Look it up.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
> Pacifist is the noun form of to pacify. Its root meanings is similar
> as peace.
> Passivist is the noun form of passive. A passivist would not resist
> external influence.
Neither one apply to me in any general sense.
> To be consistent, you would call "force in self defense" violence,
> which is ignorant.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
> > > You now admit that you
> > > believe in "justified force". You admitted earlier that all force is
> > > armed.
> > > It follows then that you believe armed force is justified if it is
> > > used in "self-defense".
> > Absolutely. Don't you?
> I wouldn't call it VIOLENCE like you do, liar.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
> > > > > The reality is that passivism just means the bad guys always win.
> > > > The bad guys DO win sometimes.
> > > They ALWAYS win if you offer no resistance, duh.
> > Are you advocating armed overthrow of the United States here?
> Why would I do that?
Beats me, so why do you bitch about "passivism" then?
> I have all the freedoms I can imagine living within a society
> including not having my speech abridged. So do you. And I have the
> freedom to point out how intellectually bankrupt you are.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
> > > > (That's the state in most cases.) The
> > > > guys who believe in might-makes-right - as you do - sometimes win
> > > > even when they are doing wrong.
> > > As I said before, "might makes right" does
> > > not mean might IS right.
> > It means the same thing. Otherwise, it means nothing.
> One is a moral issue, the other is reality. You are just too ornery
> to admit it.
So morality in ed senter's view has nothing to do with reality?
> > > > > Yes, yes, we all know you believe "taxation is theft" but that is only
> > > > > based on your presupposition that govt is bad.
> > > > No, it's based on the idea "Give us your money or we won't protect you
> > > > from us" is immoral.
> > > Which is error.
> > Impotent response noted.
> It doesn't take much to rebut a stupid statement.
Q.E.D.
> > > > >You have never
> > > > > provided an proof.
> > > > Proof of what?
> > > -That TAXATION IS THEFT.
> > > You keep claiming that and I prove over and over again that you are a
> > > liar.
> > What is the difference between, a) "Give us your money, or we won't
> > protect you from us," and b) "Give us your money, or we won't protect
> > you from us," where 'a' is the Mafia and 'b' is the state?
> Not all govts operate like the Mafia, liar.
The Mafia backs its threats with lethal violence. Name a "government"
that doesn't:
__________________________________
> > > > > If you believe that you can drive the public roads and also hold that
> > > > > "taxation is theft" then you are a liar, or stupid or both.
> > > > Non sequitur. Roads are not necessarily dependent on theft.
> > > Because they are dependent on TAXES, liar.
> > No, they are not. People build roads with private fund. People can
> > build and maintain roads without taxes.
> Key word there is "people". When individuals pool their funds and
> talents under a set of guidelines, that is called GOVT, duh.
No, it isn't - that's called "insurance." When a gang says "Give us
your money or we won't protect you from us," it's called "extortion."
"Government" isn't insurance: "Government is force." ~George
Washington
> > Just because you cannot
> > imagine a world where people build things without armed robbery
> > doesn't mean armed robbery is necessary for people to build stuff.
>
> I don't have to "imagine" it. It is all around me. Govts collecting
> taxes for the benefit of the public.
You cannot imagine how people could build stuff without a gang of
lawyers, armed thugs, and con artists running a protection racket,
just like a Born Again Christian has a hard time imagining how little
green apples can exist without Jesus to make them grow. In both
cases, you're deluded into thinking the imaginary authority behind
everything is the cause. A case of circular reasoning: "My god must
exist. Look at all the stuff He does for me." The fact that the
state funds churches with your tax money, in blatant violation of the
supposed separation of church and state, doesn't even entice you to
question the wisdom of believing in the supposed "authority" behind
either of them.
> > > > People
> > > > build roads. (D-uh) They can and will build roads to get from point a
> > > > to point b whether they are robbed to pay for them or not. Roads
> > > > existed before the idea of "government."
> > > But PUBLIC roads and property rights can not exist without govt.
> > How can property rights exist WITH a government if government requires
> > armed force to steal people's stuff?
> Govt doesn't "steal people's stuff", but govt does use force to
> control scofflaws and free-loaders.
I suppose that means you would have been on the side of the
"government" against those scofflaws in the American Revolution, then,
just like the other anti-American IRS Collaborators in here.
> > > But if you want a reliable water supply for multitudes of people you
> > > need govt to provide the infrastructure supporting the building and
> > > maintenance of the reservoir.
> > Who builds beaver dams in your opinion - beaver "governments"?
> A beaver builds a home. The dam is incidental.
How is that related to the question? Who builds the dams, beaver
"governments"?
> > > > Secondly, corporations (like the oil companies that finance roads
> > > > through the sale of gasoline) agreed to pay taxes in return for
> > > > special protection the state offers them in the market. So,
> > > > corporations can legitimately be required to fund roads without the
> > > > state robbing you and me.
> > > So you lied when you said "taxation is theft". It is ok to "rob"
> > > corporations,
> > Corporations are creations of the state,
> Wow, I didn't know Arkansas created Walmart. I thought Sam Walton
> did.
All corporations enter an agreement with the state to collect taxes
from employees and customers and in return the state offers them
special market protection like "limited liability" that ordinary
businessmen don't get. The state is a protection racket, after all.
> > and as such have agreed to
> > the terms of the corporation's charter.
> Show me one corporate charter that stipulates the hows and wherefores
> for the payment of taxes.
You're saying corporations are above the law?
> You have been reading too many tax protester comic books.
I've written more books than you've ever read.
> > It's not robbery when both
> > sides have made an agreement that each will perform his part of the
> > bargain.
> Well, We the People firmly planted taxes in the charter of govt for
> the USA. It is right there in the Constitution.
"The People" is a fallacy called ambiguous collective. There really
is no such entity as "the people" that can be identified as operating
as one mind and singleness of purpose. You didn't write or even sign
the constitution. No one alive did. It's just a piece of paper, and
like the bible is open to interpretation, which makes it inevitable
that everyone has his own interpretation of what it says. Like the
bible, it has no real power to make people behave, especially
politicians. This "we the people" nonsense is pure propaganda -
poppycock. "The people" mentioned in the constitution were the rich,
powerful slave owners; not the real people living their lives
uninvited to participate in the political chicanery that was being
foisted upon them.
> My "pea" is larger than yours. It is self-evident.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
> > > > > > > Do you believe all killings are murder?
> > > > > > No.
> > > > > Are you lying now or were you lying when you said war is murder?
> > > > War is murder isn't the same thing as all killing is murder. Killing
> > > > in self defense is not murder.
> > > So you were lying when you called me an orwellian double-thinker.
> > > You are too much, ornery malloy.
> > Despite your thrashing, squirming, and gnashing of teeth, I haven't
> > fibbed once in our little fandango here. You believe might makes
> > right. I don't. You're wrong. I'm right.
> You believe in might makes right, too.
No I do not. Show me anything I've ever said that means "might makes
right." Anything.
>You are just too much of an
> intellectual liar to admit it. You represent a small lunatic
> fringe. Your power of persuasion in miniscual.
LOL - "too much of an intellectual . . ." Well, excu-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-
u-use me-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e!
> > > > Waging war is initiating killing on a
> > > > massive scale that has nothing to do with self defense.
> > > > --JackneySneeb
> > > I am glad you agree.
> > > War in self-defense is ok.
> > War isn't defense. War is aggression. The US called its department
> > of aggression the Department of War for decades, and then changed it
> > to the Department of Defense form propaganda purposes, probably
> > because they think it looks better to invade other countries the way
> > Nazi Germany did if you use a defense department instead of a war
> > department.
> The Constitution calls it Defence; your spin notwithstanding.
Who cares what the constitution says? Your Grand High Exalted Mystic
Ruler, the president himself, called it "just a goddamned piece of
paper."
> > > So far you have given us nothing intelligent to support your anarchy
> > > beliefs, ornery malloy.
> > I wasn't talking about anarchy.
> Whatever, you have said nothing intelligent.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
--Jackney Sneeb