Exposing the Income Tax Fraud
I know it will blow most people's minds, but the truth is that there is no federal law on the books requiring ordinary wage earners to pay any tax on their "income." The income tax is actually a tax on "business profits" and "interest income," not ordinary wages. Of course the IRS uses lies and intimidation to make people think they owe taxes on their paychecks, but, when they are painted into a corner, they are unable to point to a clearcut LAW which requires tax payment on wages. In fact, just the other day Tom Cryer, a Lousiana lawyer who refused to pay taxes without being shown a law requiring them, won a case that had been brought against him by the IRS.
I'll bet you never hear about this story in the mainstream, liberal newsmedia. And it's very likely you've never heard about the following documentary, which exposes the fact that the IRS is nothing but a collection of liars, theives, and extortionists:
But be careful if you decide to stop paying taxes! Sure, nonpayment is the legal thing to do, considering the fact that the IRS cannot (even in a court of law!) point to a valid law authorizing their tyranny and thieving. And yes, nonpayment is certainly the morally right thing to do, considering how your tax dollars are generally spent on quite immoral projects....
But, the bottom line is, if you don't pay, you're likely to get in a whole lot of trouble. Neither the law, nor the Constitution, really matters these days... not with most judges being corrupt rationalizers for tyranny. Nonpayment of taxes is therefore a risky business. And if you don't believe me, why don't you ask tax protester Gordon Kahl? Oops... too late to do that! Kahl was already murdered by the federal jackboots, as you will see by watching this documentary:
UPDATE (8-02-2007) It looks like Google Video purged the aforementioned documentary, "Death and Taxes" from their servers. (I wonder if the kindly federal government leaned on them?) Like the anti-IRS comedy "Harry's War," this movie seems to be impossible to find. So, I'm replacing the link to "Death and Taxes" with one about the "Ed Brown IRS Standoff."
Ed Brown is a tax-resister in the "Live Free or Die" state, New Hampshire. In order to make an example for the rest of us, federal snipers will soon be giving Ed and his wife the "Gordon Kahl treatment." How do I know this? Because the mainstream news media insists on calling their concrete home a "compound." That's a sure sign that the Browns are about to get snuffed! Watch the video, and get to know these utterly doomed people... then ask yourself if they really deserve to die, simply to collect a tax which the government, in its own courts, cannot even prove is legal?
I'll bet you never hear about this story in the mainstream, liberal newsmedia. And it's very likely you've never heard about the following documentary, which exposes the fact that the IRS is nothing but a collection of liars, theives, and extortionists:
But be careful if you decide to stop paying taxes! Sure, nonpayment is the legal thing to do, considering the fact that the IRS cannot (even in a court of law!) point to a valid law authorizing their tyranny and thieving. And yes, nonpayment is certainly the morally right thing to do, considering how your tax dollars are generally spent on quite immoral projects....
But, the bottom line is, if you don't pay, you're likely to get in a whole lot of trouble. Neither the law, nor the Constitution, really matters these days... not with most judges being corrupt rationalizers for tyranny. Nonpayment of taxes is therefore a risky business. And if you don't believe me, why don't you ask tax protester Gordon Kahl? Oops... too late to do that! Kahl was already murdered by the federal jackboots, as you will see by watching this documentary:
UPDATE (8-02-2007) It looks like Google Video purged the aforementioned documentary, "Death and Taxes" from their servers. (I wonder if the kindly federal government leaned on them?) Like the anti-IRS comedy "Harry's War," this movie seems to be impossible to find. So, I'm replacing the link to "Death and Taxes" with one about the "Ed Brown IRS Standoff."
Ed Brown is a tax-resister in the "Live Free or Die" state, New Hampshire. In order to make an example for the rest of us, federal snipers will soon be giving Ed and his wife the "Gordon Kahl treatment." How do I know this? Because the mainstream news media insists on calling their concrete home a "compound." That's a sure sign that the Browns are about to get snuffed! Watch the video, and get to know these utterly doomed people... then ask yourself if they really deserve to die, simply to collect a tax which the government, in its own courts, cannot even prove is legal?
posted by J. Kendrick McPeters | 2:55 AM
20 Comments:
J. Kendrick McPeters, you can come up with some of the stupidest stuff to whine, complain, and moan about! Where the hell did you find that documentary? I wasted almost 45 seconds of my life trying to make sense of those inbred rednecks in that video...
What a shame that the "mainstream, liberal newsmedia" hasn't reported on this absolutely ridiculous "story". Dude, you're just weird.
Anonymous, July 30, 2007 11:53:00 AM, said:
J. Kendrick McPeters, you can come up with some of the stupidest stuff to whine, complain, and moan about!
Yes... it's pretty stupid of me to "whine" about government thugs killing an innocent man, simply because he refused to pay taxes, and encouraged others to join his tax revolt.
The FBI started open shooting, and saturated the house with bullets; but the earth shelter house was made with concrete walls and Gordon Kahl survived through it all without a scratch. The 36 year old local Sheriff, Gene Matthews, was killed incidental to the FBI siege on the Gordon Kahl hideout.
After a while, as the firing stopped, the FBI cordoned off the house for themselves while the Delta Force animals converged on the house like starved panthers going for a piece of meat. They found Gordon Kahl alive and well inside the home, hiding behind the refrigerator. He was taken to the living room, thrown on the floor, and was worked over with the butt end of their rifles. While numerous bones were being fractured and his teeth were being smashed in, other members of Delta Force went on a rampage in the house, smashing pictures and the television set, over-turning furniture, a copier, and taking a fireman's axe and chopping up a bookshelf.
While Gordon Kahl was pinned to the floor by the 6 to 8 Delta Force panthers, still under attack from the gun butts, the FBI agent with the fireman's axe turned to Gordon Kahl himself and chopped off his hand. Then he went around and chopped off Gordon Kahl's other hand, and then both of his feet were severed. While screaming with pain and with blood gushing out profusely over the floor where his hands and feet used to be, Gordon Kahl was shot in the head at close range, killing him.
Nothing to "complain" about in that sort of jackbooted thuggery, is there?
Where the hell did you find that documentary?
I used some amazing new technology that you've probably never heard of: I googled "Gordon Kahl," and the movie "Death and Taxes" popped up at the top of the hit list.
I wasted almost 45 seconds of my life trying to make sense of those inbred rednecks in that video...
Those "inbred rednecks" attended school before WWII -- that is, before the schools were so thoroughly dumbed down in this country -- and probably are much better educated (and smarter) than you, as a result. It is almost a certainty that they have, at the least, a much greater attention span than you exhibit. I mean, if I only bothered to watch 7/10 of a percent of a documentary, I think I'd keep my trap shut, before I offered criticism that made myself look like an idiot... as you now have.
Anonymous, July 30, 2007 11:27:00 PM, said:
What a shame that the "mainstream, liberal newsmedia" hasn't reported on this absolutely ridiculous "story".
Apparently, you were too busy to follow the link I provided, and read about Tom Cryer's stunning victory over the IRS. If you had bothered to read it, you'd have seen that the IRS was challenged to SHOW THE LAW that required payment of taxes on wage income, and was unable to do so. Thus, the jury found Mr. Cryer "not guilty" of his alleged crimes.
That, my friend, is a BIG STORY, even though no-one in the plutocrat owned news media will ever report on it. You see, if the IRS cannot demonstrate that they are LEGALLY collecting the income tax, that means that 100 million people are robbed every year of upwards of a trillion dollars. If the IRS has no law behind it, and is simply using lies and intimidation to fleece the public, then that means that it (along with the US federal government in general) is the biggest criminal enterprise in all of recorded history.
This, I submit, is very likely the biggest news story of modern history, and yet, it will NOT be covered by the liberal mainstream news media. They are, after all owned by the same plutocrats who own almost all of the DC politicians, and, with a symbiotic relationship like that, it would be contrary to their vested interests to bother exposing the truth.
So... now do you understand?
Dude, you're just weird.
I grant that my desire to live in a free country with honest laws, justly enforced, seems a little odd to most modern Americans, who worship at the altar of Almighty Government, rather than Almighty God. But I don't think it makes me weird. IMHO, it's people like you, who lick the boots of your oppressors, who are weird. My desire to live in freedom makes me normal, since that was how virtually every American felt, from 1776 to around 1932.
You want to talk about weird? Try this on for size:
Our rulers in Washington DC swear an oath before God to obey a set of simple, plain English, rules (the Constitution) that is only 12 pages in length. Nobody puts a gun to their head to make them swear this oath. Anyone who doesn't want to take the constitutional oath, is free to remain a private citizen, if they so desire.
In short, "We The People" ask VERY LITTLE of those who wish to rule us. All they are expected to do, is to faithfully follow those 12 pages of easy to understand rules.
Question: How many of them actually keep this allegedly solemn oath which they freely take? Answer: almost none of them!
For example, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make NO LAW abridging freedom of speech." Simple, huh? Yet, a majority of both houses of Congress passed an "incumbent protection" law (known as McCain-Feingold) which makes it ILLEGAL to criticize a politician in a TV ad, in the 45 days prior to an election. This was OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional, and yet it was passed by Congress anyway...
The President's oath to the Constitution requires him to veto any bill which he believes is contrary to the Constitution. So, when George the Lesser had this bill land on his desk, what did he do? Why, he announced to the world that he thought it was unconstitutional... and then he signed it into law anyway!
Well, eventually McCain-Feingold was reviewed by the Supremes, and surely, one would think, these highly educated lawyers would be able to comprehend the obvious meaning of "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW"... and thus, strike it down. But nope, they just broke their solemnly sworn oath of office, and allowed it to stand. Ergo, a person who runs the "wrong" sort of campaign ad -- in an allegedly "free" country -- can go to jail for doing so.
The Constitution, solemnly sworn oaths notwithstanding, is nothing more than toilet paper to the evil men in the federal government, who rule over us. And "We, the People" can do pretty much nothing about it! No politician or judge has ever been prosecuted, much less put in jail, for violating their oath of office. In theory, oath breaking politicians could be voted out by angry constituents. But that almost never happens, in large part because the incumbents have rigged the system to almost guarantee their re-election.
And there's no way to get rid of an oath breaking federal judge. Once they get in, they're in for life, whether they keep their oath, or not.
So, to sum up: there are 12 pages of rules for our masters, which they swear an oath to keep, but do not keep, and they pay no price for violating their oath.
Now, here comes the weird part...
The same people who swear an oath to 12 pages of rules, and then break it, paying no price for their dishonesty and treason.... expect the rest of us to OBEY their every command, and use the guns that we pay for, to enforce their will!
You've no doubt heard that "ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it." That's a legal maxim that makes plenty of sense if all you have to obey, like politicians and judges, is 12 pages of comprehensible rules. But is that what the American public is expected to obey? Hardly!
I don't know what the total volume of federal law is, but I can give you a rough idea. For starters, there are 50 "titles" in the United States Code. Title 26 is the "Internal Revenue Code," and (despite it not including anything authorizing taxation of wage income) it runs 16,845 pages long! Even worse, it is written in "Legalese," and not the "plain English" of the Constitution.
Even though only a few highly trained tax lawyers can even begin to comprehend the tax code... YOU are expected to fully comply with all 16,845 pages, or ELSE you will be placed in a steel cage where other "inmates" will, as the "guards" watch on, overpower you, and use you as their sex toy. If you refuse to submit to such humiliation, federal goons will shoot you DEAD, as in the case of Gordon Kahl.
But all of this is completely morally justified, since "ignorance of the law is no excuse!" Right?
Well, wait! There's more! In addition to God-only-knows how many pages there are in the other 49 Titles in USC, there is also the not so small matter of federal regulation, which nowadays carries the "force of law"-- meaning that you can get the "prison plus anal rape" treatment if you break it.
So, how many pages of fine spaced legalese -- which you'd better be familiar with, and jump to obey -- are there in the "Federal Register?" Why, a mere 76,000 when last I checked!
Are you beginning to get the picture, dude?
Politicians refuse to comply with 12 pages of simple rules which they SWEAR to obey, and we can't do "jack" about it! Meanwhile, these same diabolical oath breakers expect US to obey probably 100,000 pages of indecipherable boilerplate -- WHICH NO-ONE HAS EVER SWORN AN OATH TO OBEY -- and, to add insult to injury, they throw US in prison if we don't obey their codified flights of fancy!
The word "hypocrisy" does not even come CLOSE to describing this despicable state of affairs. Having one (incredibly loose) standard for the power mad bastards who rule us, and another (damned restrictive) standard for ordinary innocent American citizens makes no sense whatsoever.
In a word, it is WEIRD. And the only thing weirder than the fact we allow politicians to get away, year after year after year, with this despicable double standard, is that people (like myself) who condemn it, are often villified as "whiners" and "complainers" by those who apparently either like the status quo, or are completely oblivious to it.
So, anonymous, if being an uncompromising defender of freedom makes me, in your eyes, a weirdo, I really could not care less. And if you truly want to spend the rest of your life, baaaaing in unison with the crowd of mindless sheeple, then be my guest. One of the few freedoms left (even encouraged!) in the USofA, is the right to be an ignorant slave. If you aspire to nothing higher in life, then, at the very least, you will never lack company! But, as the great Samuel Adams once said, "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
McPeters, you have been living with your mama too long...it seems that someone (probably her) has convinced you that you are right about everything. You seem really self important, did she do that to you also?
What happens when an anonymous coward finds himself without any ammo in a battle of wits? Quite often, the coward will ignore whatever arguments and facts that he cannot refute, and attack the person who presented them. In my last go-round of posting, I put up 26K of factually based, logically reasoned argumentation. As I'm a slow, hunt-n-punch typist, this was an effort that took me three hours or longer to accomplish.
In response to my hours of effort, an anonymous coward took probably no more than thirty seconds to "reply" with a feeble attack on me, ignoring what I said altogether. When the ad-hominem argument is the only arrow in your quiver of logic, you really should just hang it up, and quietly resign from the debate. But, Mr. Anonymous Coward didn't have the good sense to do that; instead he spewed the following inanity, which I will herewith rebut:
McPeters, you have been living with your mama too long...
I live with my mother because she is a helpless invalid. She can't walk anymore; she's catheterized, on oxygen, and requires frequent "breathing treatments." Anonymous, I suppose if you were in my shoes, you'd put your mother in a nursing home. But I won't do that, because (a) I love and honor her, and (b) I promised my father, on his deathbed, that I would take care of her after he was gone. Admittedly, my life as an unpaid caretaker is no bowl of cherries, and there are no doubt, many other "more productive" ways I could spend my time and talents. But on balance, I am happy pursuing my present course, and I sleep well at night. And that -- rather than the opinion of an anonymous coward -- is all that matters to me. Comprende?
it seems that someone (probably her) has convinced you that you are right about everything.
That's really a laugh. First of all, my mother thinks I'm wrong about plenty of things, generally involving religion and politics.
Second, I have enough self awareness and humility to realize my own limitations. I not only don't think I have all the answers, but I'm very much aware that I've been completely wrong about major issues in the past. (For instance, I spent 25 years as a religion ridiculing evangelical atheist. I even believed wholeheartedly in the federal government's favorite pseudoscientific hokum, darwinian evolution.)
Third, I got a really lousy education in the local schools, and, as a result, I am shockingly deficient, at least in terms of the potential I could have reached. For instance, while I can do arithmetic quite rapidly in my head, I know pretty much nothing of higher math. I never learned a foreign language, and, while I have a good layman's knowledge of science, unfortunately there's no science which I know with very much depth.
Given all these blind spots in my knowledge, I'd be the last person to believe I'm "right about everything." The truth is, one of my best qualities is that my mind is always open to new evidence, even in matters that I have a very firmly settled opinion. For instance, I became an atheist when I was twelve -- thank you, anti-God public schools! -- but, over time, I listened to arguments made by believers, and, eventually was persuaded that there WAS a God, that He created the universe, etc.
So, while I only offer my opinion when I have facts that I believe can back it up, and thus, have a high degree of confidence that what I'm saying is true... it is NOT the case that I think I am right about everything. On a great many subjects, I know so little that I am unwilling to even venture an opinion. (Too bad other folks, such as Giles County's tiny contingent of pro-zoners, don't follow the same policy!)
You seem really self important, did she do that to you also?
You are probably mistaking my commitment to "moral rightness" for arrogance. You see, although I don't think I'm right about everything, I do believe that I'm right about certain moral issues. For instance, I'm confident that stealing is ALWAYS wrong, and I believe governments MUST be held to the same moral standards as individuals.
As a result, I strongly oppose the coerced collection of the federal income tax, without even the pretense of a law authorizing it, and I condemn, as absolute evil, the murder, by federal jackboots, of innocent Americans who refuse to pay their taxes. (For instance, Gordon Kahl and the Branch Davidians.)
Perhaps you think that theft and murder is just dandy, so long as the government is doing the robbing and killing. If so, I believe that you have some serious blind spots in your personal morality, and suggest that you consult a copy of "the Ten Commandments" for a bit of values clarification.
Based on your content free attack on me, I'd be willing to bet that you work for the government, or receive a check from the government for doing nothing. Either way, I can understand why you don't like what I say, and are unable to muster any valid argument against my position. And I also understand why you embrace "moral relativism," and consider me "self important" for insisting that there are some moral absolutes in life.
But, maybe I'm wrong about you! Here's a quick way to find out... can you bring yourself to condemn the murder of Gordon Kahl, and the illegal collection, every year, of a trillion dollar's worth of income tax from ordinary wage earners?
Yes or no?
Mr. McPeters,
Mao ZeDong is famous for the following insight: "All political power grows from the barrel of a gun." Law is fiction. Bullets are the reality. Law is simply a way of telling people what they must do (or refrain from doing) so that the government's men won't kill them with bullets.
When governments get out of control, as they have a conspicuous habit of doing, they begin to cheat on their own laws. Their agents start breaking laws, using flimsy excuses to justify themselves, and getting their excuses confirmed and upheld by the government's courts, which became corrupt at about the same time. At some point, it becomes clear that the law only applies to "the little people."
Lon Horiuchi, an FBI sniper, murdered a woman named Vicki Weaver. He shot her through the open front doorway of her home as she was holding her baby. The father caught the baby as its mother fell down and died. Lon Horiuchi has never been brought to trial for murder, and, in fact, a federal judge ruled that Idaho may not try federal agents for the murder of their fellow citizens. (Idaho had sought only to try Horiuchi for involuntary manslaughter, even though murder is obviously the crime he committed.)
Now, to the point. What I know about US federal laws gives me the impression that the USC (subsequent to the Constitution) has the general character of concealed pits, baited traps, and poisoned meat - obscured in a jungle of very technical legal language. Your federal laws are meant to be hard to understand and easy to break unintentionally. And that implies that your government wants at all times to have some excuse to arrest anyone... anyone at all.
There's a federal law, 26 U.S.C. 6011, which requires US citizens to file income tax returns. But there's a problem with it: it violates the separation of powers principle in the US Constitution by giving legislative powers to an official in the Executive Branch of government. It is one thing for a Treasury Secretary to make regulations governing the conduct of Treasury Department employees. It is something else, namely legislation, when his "regulations" affect the whole of American society.
An employer's operational policies aren't laws because they apply only to his employees and because an employee who does not like them can escape their effect by quitting his job. However, 26 USC 6011 says that the policies created by the Secretary of the Treasury apply to all US citizens, most of whom do NOT work for the US Treasury Department. In other words, the Secretary's regulations ARE laws because they have the scope and the compulsory character of laws.
The Executive Branch of the US Government is not supposed to legislate. The only exception is an emergency mechanism known as the Executive Order, which was intended to give US Presidents the power to lead troops in war, but which US Presidents have been abusing politically since the Administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Other than that, only Congress may legislate. That's what the first paragraph of Article 1 means: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives." 26 USC 6011 is in conflict with that paragraph, and the matter becomes a question of which has the higher priority in US law.
But remember what Mao ZeDong said. The problem for Americans is that none of them dares to act alone. The US government punishes those who attempt to make citizens aware that some of the government's behavior with respect to taxation is illegal. When a North Dakota farmer, Gordon Kahl, did that, the IRS sent a team of US marshals to assassinate him, but they shot his son instead. Whereupon Gordon Kahl, all by himself, defeated the Marshals with his hunting rifle, killing two and driving the others away. Gordon took his son to a doctor, took his wife home, and disappeared.
Gordon Kahl had done the only thing he could possibly do in that situation. If the US Marshals had won the gunfight, not only would Gordon have been dead, it's likely that his wife and son would have been eliminated, too, as witnesses. Whatever he did, Gordon Kahl's doom was sealed when that IRS bureaucrat decided he was making too much trouble for the tax collectors and should therefore die.
After that first failed ambush, Gordon left North Dakota and took refuge in the home of an Arkansas family. Try as it might, the US government just could not find him... until the daughter of the man who had offered sanctuary went to the FBI and gave information in exchange for a cash reward. Did she do it for the money? Did she do it because she "felt" it was right? Did she do it because she was afraid of being punished if she did not do it? Nobody except that young traitoress really knows. But as the result of her choice, her father was imprisoned, her home was destroyed, and Gordon Kahl - really, an innocent man - was tortured to death by armed thugs who broke his bones with their rifle stocks, chopped away his hands and feet with an axe, and then killed him with a shot to the head.
So that's one way the US government keeps its "right" to violate the constitutional form of government. Terror. Though it rails night and day against Islamic terrorists, the US government is a worse terrorist than they are. It tortures men to death for trying to organize a tax rebellion, even though the tax-rebels are as much in the right today as they were in 1770. But it's called "terrorism" only when YOU attack THEM. The laws against terrorism, as against murder, only apply to "the little people." When the government doesn't hunt its victim down to give him the Gordon Kahl Treatment, they arrest him and put him in a prison cell with a group of men who have been unofficially employed by the government to torture him by homosexual rape. Federal agents occasionally threaten people with prison gang-rape (often referring to it as if it were some sort of joke) as a means of intimidating them into compliance.
US domestic policy is largely a matter of inflicting Stockholm syndrome on the American people. The success of that policy can be seen in the numbers of Americans who, knowing the corruption of their federal government and the evil and illegality of some of its practices, nevertheless declare their allegiance to it. The simple fact is that no American dares to act alone, and Americans have no organization whereby they may all act together to defy their government's illegal conduct en masse. Preventing such an organization from coalescing from Americans' inborn desire for freedom is one of the biggest jobs of the United States federal police agencies and their supporting propaganda arms.
Gordon Kahl and Mao ZeDong were both right. And so was Jesus, when he said that the love of money was the root of all evil. It is at least the root of much evil. The despicable actions of the US government's officers, agents, and stooges is mostly motivated by their love of the money paid them. They don't question the morals of their employer because it would jeopardize their income. Yet many of them, if they lost their federal jobs, would begin doing so before a season could change.
The Realist said:
Law is fiction. Bullets are the reality. Law is simply a way of telling people what they must do (or refrain from doing) so that the government's men won't kill them with bullets.
I'm impressed! You've made a point that I've tried making before, but with an economy of words that I've never approached. Boy, what a different world we'd live in, if "Mr. and Mrs. Average American" understood this particular truth about government! Alas, the government, by setting up youth indoctrination camps (aka "schools") makes sure that this truth is never encountered, and that the "party line" of "government is your buddy and can no wrong" is drummed in, instead.
BTW, do you live in Giles County? Until I read your post, I was pretty sure that no-one here was more "extreme" than me... but you seem to hold Govco in even lower regard, than do I. Take care, and please keep posting!
Why don't you two go and get a room?
Anonymous, August 01, 2007 6:07:00 PM, said:
Why don't you two go and get a room?
My, such a witty rebuttal of the points that have been made in this thread! And to think that it came from an anonymous coward who lacks the cojones to post under his own name! I am sooooo impressed!
But seriously.... get lost, punk. Adults are having a serious discussion here, and you apparently have nothing of value to contribute.
Why don't you crack a few books to gain some knowledge, take a few testosterone shots so you can maybe grow a pair, and then get back to us later.... mmm'kay?
Serious adults who sound like they are licking all over each other are having this conversation. Your name calling impresses me. Your knowledge absolutely does not!
If you do not like or want anyone to post under the name of anonymous, then stop it! Otherwise you can go get your room now.
Ken-Prick...have you ever had a female piece of ass in your lifetime, not counting your mother's of course?
and here u are again posting stupid comments about Kendrick.
u must not have a female either or else u wouldn't bring it up so much. and of course we all know about those who think of the mother figure first. you sure do spend a lot of your time thinking about him & his ...did yours not love you enough? huh? poor thing!
btw get off the mother stuff (oh yeah) (that's what your father said)...(to you)..
BAM! BROKE UR FACE again!!!
oh yeah this ain't Kendrick either
you nasty mouthed & minded little prick!
Anonymous,August 03, 2007 11:50:00 PM, said:
Ken-Prick...have you ever had a female piece of ass in your lifetime, not counting your mother's of course?
Anonymous, under most circumstances, I'd say that my private life was no business of yours whatsoever, and furthermore, had no bearing on the issue at hand -- ie, the legality, or lack thereof, of the federal income tax.
But, my heart is heavy with shame, and I'm afraid that, just this once, I must make an exception to my general rule. For you see, my sex life -- or at least one incident in my distant past -- really is your business. And, since you've brought the matter up, I guess I might as well go ahead and fess to the truth...
I'm far from proud to admit it, but I once had sex with a woman you happen to know quite well. In fact, it was group sex, of a sort. I was having anal intercourse with this chick on one end, while, on the other, she was performing fellatio on a German Shepard. We all had quite a time, let me tell you!
Unfortunately, I failed to use any "protection," and -- can you believe it? -- she actually got pregnant, and, nine months later, delivered a baby via her rectum!
And that, my son, is how you came into the world! I'm sorry I was never there for you all those years you were growing up, but, quite frankly, your momma was a skank, and I just couldn't see myself being in a long term relationship with her. And, well, after the doctors X-rayed your head, and couldn't find any brains, I just assumed you'd never achieve sentience, and therefore would never need or appreciate my company.
I guess I should apologize for all those years I was absent, but then, you never sent me any Father's Day cards, either. So I guess we're pretty much even!
Anonymous, August 02, 2007 8:45:00 PM, said:
Serious adults who sound like they are licking all over each other are having this conversation.
Well, I went back over the thread, and I fail to see what you're talking about. "The Realist" posted an excellent essay, which was addressed to me, but otherwise made no mention of me. In response, I paid him a compliment. I also asked him whether he lived in Giles County, or not. And "The Realist" was never heard from again.
Now, if after reading that very brief exchange, you mistake intellectual camaraderie for homoeroticism, then it says rather a lot more about you, than it does me. If you honestly picked up any gay "overtones" from that, then you most likely are, at the least, a latent homosexual, or, more probably, a not-so-latent homosexual.
Yes, I asked "The Realist" if he lived in Giles County, but not because I wanted to engage in sodomy with him-- a practice which I find repellant and believe to be sinful. No, I just wondered if there was a chance I could make a new (local) friend. Over the years, I've had three friends who were big intellectual influences on me, and, with them I spent many, many hours talking about politics, philosophy, and religion. But they were all older than me, and they're all dead now. I haven't had an intellectually stimulating, face to face, discussion with anyone in over three years. (I have an intelligent sister, but she is a bit naive when it comes to politics -- she still has faith in Bush Jr -- and she basically won't discuss politics with me, preferring to live her life in the rose colored "Matrix" of Fox News and Limbaugh talk radio. Alas.)
Anyway, I prefer "real life" friendships to the online simulation of a friendship, and, while there are many people (in the anti-zoning movement, for instance) who I genuinely like and am on good terms with, there's no-one in Giles County who I've ever spent hours with, just discussing politics and philosophy.
Of course, my standards are pretty high. You know how it goes when someone with a normal IQ of 100 attempts to carry on a meaningful conversation with a retard with an IQ of 60? Not very satisfying or stimulating, is it?
Well, people with IQs of 140 or higher have the same problem, and get the same level of satisfaction, when they're talking to normal 100 IQ folks. The sad fact is, the smarter you are, the harder it is to find an equal to be your friend.
Your name calling impresses me.
I never engage in namecalling, except in retaliation against those who first call me names, or otherwise attempt to ridicule me. And, no, calling Roger Reedy a liar is not namecalling. Not when I can so effortlessly prove that he really is a liar.
Your knowledge absolutely does not!
Facts don't "go away" simply because you don't want to believe in them. Surveying this thread, I see that I've made a few claims of fact. Such as: (1) the IRS recently lost its case against Tom Cryer, when they were unable to show the jury any law which required payment of taxes on wage income, (2) the IRS Code -- which we are expected to obey, or else! -- is 16,845 pages long, (3) the regulations in the Federal Register -- which we are expected to obey, or else! -- take up 76,000 pages to enumerate, (4) the US Constitution -- which the politicians swear to uphold, but don't -- is 12 pages in length. Most of the rest of what I said was my opinion and interpretation of those four facts.
Do you care to dispute the facts I've listed above? I don't care whether you are "impressed" by them, or not. Only that you either admit that they are true, attempt to contradict them, or failing both options, shut the hell up.
This thread is for debating the legality and morality of the federal income tax. If you aren't interested in discussing such "grown up" issues, I suggest you find yourself another blog more to your liking. Perhaps you can find a blog devoted to "Sesame Street" or "Thomas the Tank Engine." If you don't want to discuss serious issues like an adult, then please just go away.
If you do not like or want anyone to post under the name of anonymous, then stop it!
At the beginning of this year, and with much hoopla and fanfare, Steve Lake launched an online edition of the local "Citizen/Press" newspaper. When they rolled that paper out, they included a "forum" for people to express their opinions on, and they blathered on at great length about how important free speech was, and how much they wanted to hear the opinions of the public. But the Lakes, eager to see that "free speech" doesn't get, you know, out of hand, instituted a rigid policy of no anonymous posting.
The result? Despite endless publicity the Lakes poured into "GilesNews.us," they haven't gotten even a single, solitary post on their alleged free speech forum. Zip, zero, nada! Literally nobody is willing to participate on their (cough, ahem) forum, under the present rules.
Meanwhile, I'm running this obscure little blog, okay? And the Lakes not only won't honor the terms of the "Swap and Shop" contract which they have online -- ie, they won't give me any free publicity -- they won't even sell me an ad at the local newspaper! It's a complete media blackout for this blog, thanks to the news-twisting monopolists who apparently quake in fear at the prospect of any competition for their dead tree fishwrapper.
So, how many posts have been made on this blog since New Years Day? Over three thousand, nine hundred!
Let me repeat that, for emphasis: I allow free, anonymous speech, and my blog gets over 3,900 individual postings... and the Lakes don't allow free, anonymous postings, and they get literally nothing. Their "forum" is an online ghost town, and, I'd be more than willing to bet, will forever remain that way so long as they continue their control freak "no anonymous postings" policy.
So I would argue that anonymous posting is not only a good thing, but it is a necessity for getting any sort of discussion going, at least in a community such as ours.
However, I must make it clear that not all "anonymous" posts are created equal! Some are filled with useful, factual content, while others are nothing but mindless attempts to ridicule while diverting attention from the topic being discussed. (And we all know what category your posts deserve to be filed under, don't we?)
Also, please note that different people have different motives for desiring anonymity. Disrupters, such as yourself, are ashamed of their childish actions, and therefore only post when cloaked in anonymity. Whistleblowers, who often work in local government, or have close family members who do, require anonymity in order to avoid losing their jobs. And there are quite a few ordinary people who, while interested in engaging in truthful discussion, simply don't want to be bombarded with insults from disrupters, or face the many other ways they might get hassled for sharing their opinions, in such a small, closeknit community.
I very much value anonymous postings from whistleblowers. And I, probably more than anyone else here, sympathize with those who want to engage in serious debate, but don't want to be blasted and smeared by anonymous character assassins.
On the other hand, I see absolutely no value in postings of the sort you specialize in. You abuse the privilege of anonymity which I provide you, in order to engage, in the most cowardly manner possible, in baseless attacks on me. This is known as "biting the hand that feeds you," and, while I will continue to allow you to take shots at me, I am very unlikely to waste much more of my limited time in responding to you.
Why should I? Any intelligent person can see that you have nothing of value to add, and they will have contempt for your oh so obvious cowardice. As for the unintelligent people who might run across your drivel, I really don't care what they think. I frankly don't have much use for stupid people; make of that what you will.
You are a coward, and you have nothing of value to say. Even your insults are useless, having little humor value, and showing little in the way of witty, original thought. Why don't you just go away, and leave those of us who take ideas seriously, in peace? Please?
Otherwise you can go get your room now.
Again with the same unfunny comment, showing the same "mind in the gutter" with obvious latent homosexual inclinations. I don't think you are doing yourself or your cause (whatever that might be) any favors by repeating the same baseless canard. Why don't you ask Mommy for help finding the "Sesame Street" site, and go find a few debate partners on your own intellectual level, to discuss things with? Mmmmm'kay?
Why can't we find any positives to post. Why does this always have to be negative? It is a shame.
And the simplest thing whiners can't seem to grasp is that one does not change people by beating them over the head with superiority and ego.
if these whiners are bothering you so much why do you keep coming here to tell them how much they are
bothering you? simplest thing to do would be not to come here & read anything
anonymous..
I have been asked that very question by family members. They wonder why I even bother. I honestly don't know why either, because I've always heard that you cannot debate or argue with those who think themselves smarter than you are to begin with.
Maybe it's entertainment?
Did you see this week's newspaper? wab was again "exposing" something. I thought it amusing that his was so negative (calling people liars, etc.) while the one right beside it by Clara Crawford was upbeat and positive. Interesting.
to 5:27
Guess that's the difference in having a view from the trenches and one from the upper deck.
Post a Comment
<< Home