Slavery is still slavery
XCobraJock
"Adam H." < this...@realaddress.com> wrote in message
news:mnc3hvomr5vvf68q5...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 14:20:40 -0500, Bye-Bye <goa...@goaway.com> wrote:
>
> >Just because someone thinks the so-called "income" tax is wrong, does
> >not make them a freeloader. How many taxes does the average American pay
> >less the "income" tax? You pay sales tax, excise taxes on just about all
> >consumable goods - gasoline - 45% of the cost is tax,how many gallons a
> >day are sold?? If you read the IRC you'll see many of the taxes. If the
> >government cannot run on the taxes it is currently taking in - then we
> >need to have people in office WHO can do the job........
> >Sovereign
>
> The idea that paying income taxes is somehow akin to slavery is
> fatally flawed in one very important respect:
>
> Nobody is forced to live in the US. You can leave. A slave does not
> have that option.
The problem with THAT "logic" is that it assumes someone "owns"
America and can charge everyone rent for being born here. Oops.
The income tax is strongarm robbery. "Give us your money or we
won't protect you from us" is ILLEGITIMATE whether the threat
comes from the Mafia or the IRS. The 16th amendment contradicts
the 13th amendment. It says, in effect, "Congress claims it owns you,
your life, and your labor," and it places NO restriction on the upper
limit of such thievery. Potentially, you're a 100% slave if congress
decides to tax 100% of your income. To the extent that it taxes you
less than that, how much less a slave are you?
--XCobraJock
Paul
"XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net> wrote
> > The idea that paying income taxes is somehow akin to slavery is
> > fatally flawed in one very important respect:
> >
> > Nobody is forced to live in the US. You can leave. A slave does not
> > have that option.
>
> The problem with THAT "logic" is that it assumes someone "owns"
> America and can charge everyone rent for being born here. Oops.
If you had a brain, you'd know that folks aren't taxed upon their birth, but
on the earning of income.
> The income tax is strongarm robbery.
Says you.
> "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us"
> is ILLEGITIMATE whether the threat comes from the
> Mafia or the IRS.
You're being taxed because you earn income.
Don't earn any income (or earn income below the limitss, and you won't owe
any tax. In fact, you'll get money back (EIC).
> The 16th amendment contradicts the 13th amendment.
No it doesn't.
Hey jockstrap breath, how desperate are you gonna get?
--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA, PC
Athens, Georgia
tax...@negia.net
XCobraJock
news:10581355...@alpha.negia.net...
>
>> The problem with THAT "logic" is that it assumes someone "owns"
>> America and can charge everyone rent for being born here. Oops.
>
>If you had a brain, you'd know that folks aren't taxed upon their birth,
but
>on the earning of income.
The statement was that you're not a slave if you can leave. ["Nobody is
forced to live in the US. You can leave. A slave does not have that
option."]
The problem with that "logic" is it implies someone (congress?) owns
America, and has the right to demand tribute from people just because
we live here.
No such scenario exists. There is no difference between "Give us
your money or we won't protect you from us," whether the IRS says
it or the Mafia says it. There is no one group that "owns" America.
There is no superhuman right to tax on the part of some elite group
just because they conned a minority of jackasses into voting for them.
The income tax is theft.
--XCobraJock
Bob G.
>
> >> The problem with THAT "logic" is that it assumes someone "owns"
> >> America and can charge everyone rent for being born here. Oops.
> >
> >If you had a brain, you'd know that folks aren't taxed upon their birth,
> but
> >on the earning of income.
>
> The statement was that you're not a slave if you can leave. ["Nobody is
> forced to live in the US. You can leave. A slave does not have that
> option."]
> The problem with that "logic" is it implies someone (congress?) owns
> America, and has the right to demand tribute from people just because
> we live here.
>
> No such scenario exists. There is no difference between "Give us
> your money or we won't protect you from us," whether the IRS says
> it or the Mafia says it. There is no one group that "owns" America.
> There is no superhuman right to tax on the part of some elite group
> just because they conned a minority of jackasses into voting for them.
>
> The income tax is theft.
>
> --XCobraJock
no thievery ---- , you just "lost" your brains (or maybe never had any)
Paul
"XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net> wrote
> The statement was that you're not a slave if you can leave.
> ["Nobody is forced to live in the US. You can leave. A
> slave does not have that option."]
> The problem with that "logic" is it implies someone
> (congress?) owns America, and has the right to
> demand tribute from people just because we live here.
Untrue. Taxes are imposed on INCOME. You can live here all you want to.
XCobraJock
upon TAXABLE INCOME (26 CFR 1.1-1).
And 26 USC Section 861 and the regulations thereunder
determine the taxpayer's taxable income from sources within
the United States.
"Determination of taxable income. The taxpayer's taxable income
from sources within or without the United States will be determined
under the rules of Secs. 1.861-8 through 1.861-14T for determining
taxable income from sources within the United States."
[26 CFR § 1.863-1(c)]
--XCobraJock
"Paul" <tax...@negia.net> wrote in message
news:10581459...@alpha.negia.net...
Criswell The Psychic Weatherman
> "XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net> wrote
> > > The idea that paying income taxes is somehow akin to slavery is
> > > fatally flawed in one very important respect:
> > >
> > > Nobody is forced to live in the US. You can leave. A slave does not
> > > have that option.
> >
> > The problem with THAT "logic" is that it assumes someone "owns"
> > America and can charge everyone rent for being born here. Oops.
From Billy Roy Malloy, who one everyone knows is Larken Rose's slave boy.
> If you had a brain, you'd know that folks aren't taxed upon their birth, but
> on the earning of income.
>
> > The income tax is strongarm robbery.
>
> Says you.
>
> > "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us"
> > is ILLEGITIMATE whether the threat comes from the
> > Mafia or the IRS.
>
> You're being taxed because you earn income.
> Don't earn any income (or earn income below the limitss, and you won't owe
> any tax. In fact, you'll get money back (EIC).
>
> > The 16th amendment contradicts the 13th amendment.
>
> No it doesn't.
>
> Hey jockstrap breath, how desperate are you gonna get?
>
> --
> Paul A. Thomas, CPA, PC
> Athens, Georgia
> tax...@negia.net
--
"A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses;
it is an idea that possesses the mind." Robert Bolton
Criswell The Psychic Weatherman
sse...@mindless.com
Paul
"XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net> wrote
> Taxes are imposed upon TAXABLE INCOME (26 CFR 1.1-1).
Which one of you is speaking right now? Because the other one of you
clearly stated that "The problem with THAT "logic" is that it assumes
someone "owns" America and can charge everyone rent for being born here."
Clearly you can be born and not have income.
Your first statement is horribly flawed.
Please tell the other one of you that they are wrong. Then get into a fight
with your other half and duke it out to the death.
Maybe then the rest of us will get some peace.
Paul
"Criswell The Psychic Weatherman" <sse...@mindless.com> wrote
> From Billy Roy Malloy, who one everyone knows is Larken Rose's slave boy.
You gotta have a certain type of respect <snicker> for Billy, it's not every
man who is willing to wear a collar and leash.
Toto
wrote:
Not to mention the fact that we are all BORN with an absolute Right to
live in the land of our birth so long as we harm no one ELSE'S life,
health or property. The ONLY exception to this Right is that this
birthright only accrues if your birth mother was a lawful citizen at
the time of your birth. If anyone wants to discuss WHY this is true,
then fine.
The income tax may or may not be justly called "slavery" but it most
certainly IS morally equal to share-cropping -- the brand of slavery
that replaced overt slavery after the Civil War.
Ted M.
welfare wackos like "cobrajock" do not recognize any logical arguments
XCobraJock
>
> Maybe then the rest of us will get some peace.
Gee, Paul. If you simply cannot resist opening certain posts, I
suggest that you ask Criswell to share with you his various tools
for killfiling, and otherwise preventing himself from viewing those
of us posters who upset you IRS collaborators so much.
--XCobraJock
Paul A. Thomas
"Toto" <agen...@justicemail.com> wrote
> Not to mention the fact that we are all BORN with an absolute Right to
> live in the land of our birth so long as we harm no one ELSE'S life,
> health or property.
Again, no one is taxed because of their birth.
> The income tax may or may not be justly called "slavery" but it most
> certainly IS morally equal to share-cropping
"Share-cropping"? Not even close my boy. For you can grow all the fruit
and veggies you like and never have to pay the tax man one dime. It's when
you sell the fruit and veggies that a tax is imposed.
--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
tax...@negia.net
Dale Eastman
Paul wrote:
> Untrue. Taxes are imposed on INCOME. You can live here all you want to.
Your statement of "Untrue" is itself *untrue* Sir.
The tax is imposed upon the "TAXABLE INCOME".
I have actually read portions of the code.
I am lurking this group for a specific topic. You sir, are alleged to be
a tax professional by your tagline and some of your comments.
Words have meanings. There is a difference between taxing *income* (all
inclusive) and taxing *taxable income* (not quite as all inclusive).
-CITE-
26 USC Sec. 1 01/02/01
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle A - Income Taxes
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
Subchapter A - Determination of Tax Liability
PART I - TAX ON INDIVIDUALS
-HEAD-
Sec. 1. Tax imposed
-STATUTE-
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
http://uscode.house.gov/DOWNLOAD/Title_26.DOC (22 MB)
--
Why is the word "hormel" here?
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/misc/spamnot.htm to find out.
Waylon
> Paul wrote:
>
> > Untrue. Taxes are imposed on INCOME. You can live here all you want
to.
>
> Your statement of "Untrue" is itself *untrue* Sir.
> The tax is imposed upon the "TAXABLE INCOME".
>
> I have actually read portions of the code.
>
> I am lurking this group for a specific topic. You sir, are alleged to be
> a tax professional by your tagline and some of your comments.
>
> Words have meanings. There is a difference between taxing *income* (all
> inclusive) and taxing *taxable income* (not quite as all inclusive).
all income is taxable unless specified in code
Paul A. Thomas
"Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote
> The tax is imposed upon the "TAXABLE INCOME".
Yet nothing you posted supports the taxation based on birth, as someone else
claimed.
I'm still batting 1000.
Dan Evans
> Paul wrote:
>
> > Untrue. Taxes are imposed on INCOME. You can live here all you want to.
>
> Your statement of "Untrue" is itself *untrue* Sir.
> The tax is imposed upon the "TAXABLE INCOME".
>
> I have actually read portions of the code.
>
> I am lurking this group for a specific topic. You sir, are alleged to be
> a tax professional by your tagline and some of your comments.
>
> Words have meanings. There is a difference between taxing *income* (all
> inclusive) and taxing *taxable income* (not quite as all inclusive).
So what?
Paul didn't say "Taxes are imposed on ALL INCOME." He said "Taxes are
imposed on INCOME," which is correct.
You're splitting hairs to claim that the statement is incorrect
because not ALL income is taxed, but that's silly. No statement is
100.0000% accurate all of the time, and all statements have to be
taken in context. Paul's statement was comparing income taxes to
other kinds of taxes and, in that context, was correct.
So, did you have a specific point to make, or where you just being
anal?
OnryAnRkst
>all income is taxable unless specified in code
Even Dan Evans knows that's not true.
--OnryAnRkst
OnryAnRkst
>Yet nothing you posted supports the taxation based on birth, as someone else
>claimed.
No one claimed that.
--OnryAnRkst
Paul
"XCobraJock" <X-C...@pacbell.net> wrote
> Gee, Paul. If you simply cannot resist opening certain posts, I
> suggest that you ask Criswell to share with you his various tools
> for killfiling, and otherwise preventing himself from viewing those
> of us posters who upset you IRS collaborators so much.
It's not your posts that "upset" me, it's the reverberations from the void
in your head when you clean out your ears with a Q-tip.
Dale Eastman
Mr. Evans, You must be an excellent lawyer. You didn't ask a question
that you didn't already know the answer to.
My turn to ask a question. Is this anal enough???
Daniel B. Evans, Attorney at Law
age:51
7963 Eastern Avenue
Wyndmoor, PA 19038
(215) 233-0906
(215) 233-0988
This is the satellite photo of your address.
<http://terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?t=1&s=10&x=2418&y=22182&z=18&w=2>
This is the map to your address.
<http://maps.yahoo.com/py/maps.py?Pyt=&ed=6jer3.p_0TpZk2fyjSrWkicxcuMp4EPSAfY2aq9G94t0YSoqbCXTJ25MmYxq&csz=Glenside,+PA+19038-8501&country=us>
Your ISP host is
MGT Consulting
PO Box 1447
Blue Bell, PA 19422-0438
Besides, Sir, Isn't splitting hairs what lawyers do best?
If my reaction seems thin skinned to any, go see the chaplin and get
your T.S. card punched. I'm lurking to gain knowledge, and I see alleged
professionals doing name calling at a level of maturety that is lower
than my 7 year old niece. Splitting hairs will give more knowledge to
the lurkers than any name calling.
Intellitroll (tm)
Dan Evans
> Dan Evans wrote:
> > Dale Eastman <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message news:<3F12C21E...@sprintmail.com>...
> >
> >>Paul wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Untrue. Taxes are imposed on INCOME. You can live here all you want to.
> >>
> >>Your statement of "Untrue" is itself *untrue* Sir.
> >>The tax is imposed upon the "TAXABLE INCOME".
> >>
> >>I have actually read portions of the code.
> >>
> >>I am lurking this group for a specific topic. You sir, are alleged to be
> >>a tax professional by your tagline and some of your comments.
> >>
> >>Words have meanings. There is a difference between taxing *income* (all
> >>inclusive) and taxing *taxable income* (not quite as all inclusive).
> >
> >
> > So what?
> >
> > Paul didn't say "Taxes are imposed on ALL INCOME." He said "Taxes are
> > imposed on INCOME," which is correct.
> >
> > You're splitting hairs to claim that the statement is incorrect
> > because not ALL income is taxed, but that's silly. No statement is
> > 100.0000% accurate all of the time, and all statements have to be
> > taken in context. Paul's statement was comparing income taxes to
> > other kinds of taxes and, in that context, was correct.
> >
> > So, did you have a specific point to make, or where you just being
> > anal?
>
> Mr. Evans, You must be an excellent lawyer. You didn't ask a question
> that you didn't already know the answer to.
>
> My turn to ask a question. Is this anal enough???
[snip personal and identifying information dug up on me]
Well, that's quite a tantrum.
But thanks for confirming my point, which is that you are obviously
more interested in annoying people that contributing anything
constructive.
Rusty Nail
> If my reaction seems thin skinned to any, go see the chaplin and get
> your T.S. card punched. I'm lurking to gain knowledge, and I see alleged
> professionals doing name calling at a level of maturety that is lower
> than my 7 year old niece. Splitting hairs will give more knowledge to
> the lurkers than any name calling.
Give em hell, dude. Although I never "actually read portions of the code" like
you, I think us teamsters got to stick together. I agree that they got a lotta
good tax guys here trying to keep people out of trouble, but then they get
shouted down and called a bunch of names by the professional tax protester
idiots who don't give a shit if you or me go to jail.
Some of these tax protester idiots say stupid things like the money you earn in
this great country of ours is not taxable. What bullshit. Our ass-kickin
president has the best legal and tax help money can buy, so why does he pay
taxes on the money he earns in this great country of ours if it ain't taxable?
Bet I know, he is in on the great conspiracy too.
Good luck, and see you at some dimly lit truck stop.
Rusty
Video pick of the week:
http://www.all-reviews.com/videos-3/joy-ride.htm
Dale Eastman
Dan Evans wrote:
>>>So, did you have a specific point to make, or where you just being
>>>anal?
>>
>>Mr. Evans, You must be an excellent lawyer. You didn't ask a question
>>that you didn't already know the answer to.
>>
>>My turn to ask a question. Is this anal enough???
>
>
> [snip personal and identifying information dug up on me]
>
Not much digging in the public domain.
> Well, that's quite a tantrum.
>
LOL, see below. <smirk>
> But thanks for confirming my point, which is that you are obviously
> more interested in annoying people that contributing anything
> constructive.
Sir, you miss the point. I don't wish to contribute, I wish to lurk. I
wish to learn what the various side have to say about what appears to be
a very contentious issue.
Does the following look like contribution?
-----------
But it's all shit, and it's all lies.
then you're illiterate as well as stupid.
You're either stupid, lying, or delusional, take your pick
You really are a stupid piece of shit.
A new moron is heard from
You don't know shit.
You must be very, very, very, very stupid if you think you can pretend....
You're either a goddamn liar or a fucking moron (take your pick) or
both (my choice).
Exactly my point, moron.
Read the next paragraph, you fucking moron.
See, if you could read English, and weren't such a fucking moron,
Nice try, AssHole,
So, what kind of a lying asshole are you?
Please provide a name and a
telephone number, you lying piece of shit.
.....you drooling, illiterate, ignorant, microcephalic, shit-eating moron.
You're just the kind of moron who likes to quote...
Do I need to point out that you really are an arrogant, ignorant moron
who doesn't know jack about anything worth knowing?
That's why I used the phrase "dumb as cow shit" to describe you.
you're more than optimistic, you're stupid.
Then you are really pretty stupid.
You are an indescribably ignorant twit.
Fucking moron.
You goddamn fucking shit-for-brains morons.
can go fuck themselves as far as I am concerned.
This fucking moron doesn't understand the difference between...
Better than having your head up your ass.
Sections 101 through 138, you fucking moron.
I mean, of all the shit-headed, pus-drooling, acerebral, genetically
deformed, psychopaths ever to have wasted electrons in this group, you
may be the worst. I mean, for sheer unbridled, unthinking,
empty-headed, eyes-shut, ears-covered, repeat-the-same-bullshit-over-
and-over-again-without-any-signs-of-conscious-thought, illiterate,
psychotic, stupidity, I don't think that anyone else has come close.
When are you going to realize what a moron you are?
He's not a "Canadian moron," he's just a stupid piece of shit.
Now you see, that's why I think you're an ignorant asshole.
you illiterate moron.
Yes, and if shit were brains, you would be a genius.
1. You're an idiot
3. You're an idiot.
5. You're an idiot.
7. You're an idiot.
That should be enough for any rational person to get the picture, but
you're an idiot,
And did I mention that you're an idiot?
Dan "Oh, and you were wrong from the beginning and please go fuck off"
Evans
---------------------------------
Does it look familiar Mr. Evans?
It should, these are some of your contributions going back to 1996.
Now what was that question about "quite a tantrum"?
Dale Eastman
the Black mick Jagger
> > If my reaction seems thin skinned to any, go see the chaplin and get
> > your T.S. card punched. I'm lurking to gain knowledge, and I see alleged
> > professionals doing name calling at a level of maturety that is lower
> > than my 7 year old niece. Splitting hairs will give more knowledge to
> > the lurkers than any name calling.
>
> Give em hell, dude. Although I never "actually read portions of the code"
like
> you, I think us teamsters got to stick together. I agree that they got a
lotta
> good tax guys here trying to keep people out of trouble, but then they get
> shouted down and called a bunch of names by the professional tax protester
> idiots who don't give a shit if you or me go to jail.
>
> Some of these tax protester idiots say stupid things like the money you
earn in
> this great country of ours is not taxable. What bullshit. Our ass-kickin
> president has the best legal and tax help money can buy, so why does he
pay
> taxes on the money he earns in this great country of ours if it ain't
taxable?
> Bet I know, he is in on the great conspiracy too.
>
> Good luck, and see you at some dimly lit truck stop.
>
> Rusty
rite on dude, Bush is a little ignorant of the tax code but cutting taxes
is something he knows.
Paul A. Thomas
"Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote
> Sir, you miss the point. I don't wish to contribute,
But you are..........
> I wish to lurk.
But you aren't.......
> I wish to learn what the various side have
> to say about what appears to be
> a very contentious issue.
There have been, at times, some very genuine and mature discussions about
the income tax (or other forms of taxation) that have (in the long run not
changed a thing) sparked a grand debate into how it should be. But that was
between two or more folks that were allowing some form of concessions and a
tad of understanding that it was all for "pretend". Neither party
determined to twist the wording of the law in a perverse manner or call upon
the Nazis (generally a last ditch effort) as support for their
determinations.
If you wish to lurk, then do so. If you wish to contribute to the fiber
(and God knows there is sufficient supply here), then by all
means............
Dale Eastman
Paul A. Thomas wrote:
> "Dale Eastman" <dalere...@sprintmail.com> wrote
>
>>Sir, you miss the point. I don't wish to contribute,
>
>
> But you are..........
>
>
>>I wish to lurk.
>
>
> But you aren't.......
>
>
>
>>I wish to learn what the various side have
>>to say about what appears to be
>>a very contentious issue.
wish (wąsh) n. 1. A desire, longing, or strong inclination for a
specific thing. 2. An expression of a desire, longing, or strong
inclination; a petition. 3. Something desired or longed for
Cite: American Heritage Dictionary, third edition, electronic version 3.6a.
Dale's hearsay definition of an argument:
When two individuals try to get the last word in first.
Dale Eastman
> Untrue. Taxes are imposed on INCOME.
Just a reminder of the blatant lie that got me posting.
-HEAD-
Sec. 1. Tax imposed
-STATUTE-
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of...
--
On May 6, 2003, The IRS pushed their way into the home of Larken Rose
and seized $3,000 worth of the video Theft-By-Deception. According to
Mr. Rose, the IRS has vowed to never give the tapes back.
As of August 15, 2003, the IRS has still not indicted or charged Larken
Rose for the commission of any crime.
This video explains the reasons behind why Larken Rose has not filed or
paid income tax since 1996
If you are within the Chicago, Milwaukee, Rockford triangle and are
interested in viewing this video, Contact me by clicking this link:
mailto:dalere...@sprintmail.com?subject=screenT-B-D