what year will liberals stop being afraid of conservatives???

fuck · July 2008

Byrnzie wrote:

Fair enough, but punching a card once every four years won't change anything. I think clued-up people like yourself can better effect change through other means.

Have you heard of the Una-bomber? :joke:

hahaha

slightofjeff · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

McCain closer to your set of beliefs? Care to elaborate?

McCain is probably too liberal for me in certain areas. I would prefer a candidate with more bona fide conservative credentials.

Next to Barry "Most Liberal member of Senate" Obama, however, McCain looks like Rush freakin' Limbaugh.

DriftingByTheStorm · July 2008

slightofjeff wrote:

I worry about what they are teaching your son in civics class. Must have stopped before the 16th Amendment:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

The term "income" was never meant to apply to personal wages.
Wages are NOT Income (at least, not in the sense of the 16th ammendment).

Wages are an EVEN EXCHANGE of LABOR for COMPENSATION.

The supreme court established LONG ago that man has a RIGHT to work.

The government can NOT tax a right, only a privelage.

Man has the PRIVELAGE to work
a. for government
b. in an INCORPORATED form

These two forms of work CAN, and were intended to be, taxed.
Meaning, the Government was granting itself the right to tax itself, and the
right to tax CORPORATE INCOME.

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' Right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed." Corn v. Fort, 95 S.W.2d 620 (1936) -originalintent.org

The 16th amendment was meant to make clear that the government did not need to APPORTION said tax.

It was not intended to define some broad new power of government.
it was meant to CLARIFY an EXISTING power.

Read the Congressional Record of Taft's Speech to Congress, while introducing the proposed amendment. READ IT!
WHAT DOES HE SAY?
TAX GOVERNMENT
TAX CORPORATIONS
[and then, DEVIOUSLY, he implies that hopefuly in the future courts will MISINTERPRET the RULING to allow "NEW SOURCES OF INCOME" ... pfft. motherfucker.]

Furthermore, and more deviously still further,
the bastards that crafted the tax code in the Uniform Code did NOT hold the individual US citizen LIABLE for such a tax, since to do so would be unconstitutional. SHOW ME THE LAW !! !! !!

Theft By Deception: Deciphering The Federal Income Tax

The Truth Behind The Income Tax

I believe those two videos to be on the whole, almost entirely accurate.

slightofjeff · July 2008

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

The term "income" was never meant to apply to personal wages.
Wages are NOT Income (at least, not in the sense of the 16th ammendment).

Wages are an EVEN EXCHANGE of LABOR for COMPENSATION.

The supreme court established LONG ago that man has a RIGHT to work.

The government can NOT tax a right, only a privelage.

Man has the PRIVELAGE to work
a. for government
b. in an INCORPORATED form

These two forms of work CAN, and were intended to be, taxed.
Meaning, the Government was granting itself the right to tax itself, and the
right to tax CORPORATE INCOME.

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' Right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed." Corn v. Fort, 95 S.W.2d 620 (1936) -originalintent.org

The 16th amendment was meant to make clear that the government did not need to APPORTION said tax.

It was not intended to define some broad new power of government.
it was meant to CLARIFY an EXISTING power.

Furthermore, and more deviously still further,
the bastards that crafted the tax code in the Uniform Code did NOT hold the individual US citizen LIABLE for such a tax, since to do so would be unconstitutional. SHOW ME THE LAW !! !! !!

Theft By Deception: Deciphering The Federal Income Tax

The Truth Behind The Income Tax

I believe those two videos to be on the whole, almost entirely accurate.

We should all stop paying our income taxes, see where that gets us.

*cough* prison *cough*

Best we can hope for, it's not one of those pound-me-up-the-ass prisons ... you know, unless you're into that.

DriftingByTheStorm · July 2008

slightofjeff wrote:

We should all stop paying our income taxes, see where that gets us.

*cough* prison *cough*

Best we can hope for, it's not one of those pound-me-up-the-ass prisons ... you know, unless you're into that.

i didn't say ANYTHING about illegal enforcement.
all i said was that there is NO LAW holding you liable.
That doesn't mean they WON'T hold you liable anyhow,
just that the only thing behind that enforcement is FORCE.

To state that there IS NO LAW holding you liable to pay personal income tax as a US citizen, working for a private enterprise within the 50 states is 100% accurate.

And NO ONE has been able to successfuly challenge that assertion.
NO ONE.

El_Kabong · July 2008

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

Hmm busted economy, warmongering, elitism, powermad, liars and murderers...

what's to be scared of?

????? our entire fucking system is busted! and helping keep the 2 party dictatorship in power isn't going to change any of those things. obama lies repeatedly about laws and bills he passed, ties to lobbyists, ties to other questionable ppl, gives more hawkish answers about iraq on conservative radio shows (like saying part of the reason he was against the war was b/c we didn't finish the war in afghanistan yet tells more liberally minded ppl it was a 'stupid war')....

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

so go vote for nader, write in the fucking easter bunny for all I fucking care.

show us the definition of bravery!

well, i doubt the definition of bravery is voting for someone b/c they aren't the other guy of the 2 allowable parties to vote for. and i'm pretty sure it's not voting for things like the patriot act, FISA abuses, Terrorist Surveillance Act and other shit i don't agree w/

so go ahead, stupid corporate whore, vote based on fear of what the guy w/ an -R next to his name will do or will put on the supreme court, but plz don't act like it has fuckall to do w/ bravery, it is based out of nothing but fear. you don't say 'i'm voting for obama b/c i like.....' instead you say 'ah, gee, he will pick better supreme court justices than mccain'

"I'm not counting on real change. Perhaps we can repair our reputation in the world, rebalance the supreme court, and MAYBE restore a little bit of the constitution."

now, that's a ringing fucking endorsement! i don't expect real change but i will vote anyway! YOU might as well vote for the easter bunny, then!

you don't even believe that shit you said other than the supreme court justices. he sure as fuck won't repair the constitution being a supporter of the patriot act and the FISA abuses and terrorist surveillance act or whatever it was. and he definitely won't repair our reputation around the world following foreign policies like reagan and bush I like he said, supporting israel in it's occupation and murder of many innocents, keeping the occupation in iraq going thru his presidency....

laughable. and what's even more laughable is how you and others try to act so righteous just b/c i and others aren't so easily willing to cast aside our beliefs and ideals....but hey, whatever

my2hands wrote:

good one

now if this had been me or abook there'd be some comment about a tag team or something, but i guess integrity has never been a strong suit of some...

but hey, my2hands, if voting for someone just b/c they are "good looking, charasmatic, and a hell of a speaker that has admitted to smoking pot" is what does it for ya....

:rolleyes:

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?p=5635719#post5635719

Abookamongstthemany · July 2008

Byrnzie wrote:

Fair enough, but punching a card once every four years won't change anything. I think clued-up people like yourself can better effect change through other means.

Have you heard of the Una-bomber? :joke:

I never claimed that voting was the only thing one should do....however your vote should be consistent with what you believe in. What good are your ideals and principles if you vote for people who do the exact opposite of what you view as right? It makes absolutely NO sense and it's not getting us anywhere but deeper in this mess.

my2hands · July 2008

El_Kabong wrote:

now if this had been me or abook there'd be some comment about a tag team or something, but i guess integrity has never been a strong suit of some...

ok, that is the 3rd or 4th time you have called into question my character, integrity, or called me a hypocrite, so i am going to give you some advice good friend.

you dont know me, so chill with the assumptions and personal attacks. we have only spoken here yet you act as if you know me? also, would you tlak to me or anyone else like that in the street? probably not, i assume you were raised well, so act like it.

do i really have to go through the entire scenario as to why i am supporting Obama in this election? give you every detail of the process as it unfolded? give you every thought i have had along the way, pro and con? explain every detail of how i became more aware and interested in barack obama? explain the impact of Kucinch endorsing Obama only days before i voted before he bowed out? act as if everything in politic's or the MT has to pass the El Kabong/abook progressive litmus test?

you are acting like a friggin martyr because you're voting for nader and the former democrat gonzalez... whoopdeefuckingdoo

my2hands · July 2008

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I never claimed that voting was the only thing one should do....however your vote should be consistent with what you believe in. What good are your ideals and principles if you vote for people who do the exact opposite of what you view as right? It makes absolutely NO sense and it's not getting us anywhere but deeper in this mess.

and throwing your vote away on a candidate that has ZERO intention of winning changes the mess how?

Rhinocerous Surprise · July 2008

my2hands wrote:

and throwing your vote away on a candidate that has ZERO intention of winning changes the mess how?

Would you suggest she votes for someone she thinks will just carry on the mess?

Urban Hiker · July 2008

my2hands wrote:

and throwing your vote away on a candidate that has ZERO intention of winning changes the mess how?

Voting for a candidate who will continue the mess changes the mess how?

A lot of us are doing much more than checking a box this coming November - Working to change things from the bottom all the way to the top, all at once. We're multi-taskers!

fuck · July 2008

my2hands wrote:

and throwing your vote away on a candidate that has ZERO intention of winning changes the mess how?

the whole point is that you're not the only one doing it.
if all the people who actually like Nader more than Obama were to actually vote for him, then it would definitely 'change the mess'....... and I understand that's not a reality at this point, but you have to start somewhere.... what do we succeed by giving in to voting for the lesser of 2 evils as opposed to voting for who we truly believe in? all we are doing is adding to the huge problem this country is facing...

my2hands · July 2008

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Would you suggest she votes for someone she thinks will just carry on the mess?

i didnt suggest she do anything... people vote for who they want... i am not runnign around trying to tell 150 million people how to vote. sorry, dont have the time

fuck · July 2008

Urban Hiker wrote:

Voting for a candidate who will continue the mess changes the mess how?

Exactly! most people say obama is going to 'change the game'.... how can you CHANGE the game if you're fucking PLAYING it?!

my2hands · July 2008

_outlaw wrote:

the whole point is that you're not the only one doing it.
if all the people who actually like Nader more than Obama were to actually vote for him, then it would definitely 'change the mess'...

"if" my aunt had balls should would be my uncle

my2hands · July 2008

Urban Hiker wrote:

A lot of us are doing much more than checking a box this coming November - Working to change things from the bottom all the way to the top, all at once. We're multi-taskers!

thats the exact problem with Nader... he has no interest in "bottom up" which is why he abandons the 3rd parties after every election, until the next one 4 years later

Nader has been trying to do it "top down" like he is some fucking messiah... yet he still hasnt cracked 5% of the vote

no thanks

Urban Hiker · July 2008

my2hands wrote:

thats the exact problem with Nader... he has no interest in "bottom up" which is why he abandons the 3rd parties after every election, until the next one 4 years later

Nader has been trying to do it "top down" like he is some fucking messiah... yet he still hasnt cracked 5% of the vote

no thanks

He may be running for the top, but he is a part of organizing and garnering strength for the bottom.

http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5649454&postcount=18

fuck · July 2008

my2hands wrote:

"if" my aunt had balls should would be my uncle

way to ignore the rest of the post :rolleyes:

writersu · July 2008

my2hands wrote:

"if" my aunt had balls should would be my uncle

I want to be a gutzy girl but not a manly woman. There are those, not many but there are ............

writersu · July 2008

slightofjeff wrote:

I worry about what they are teaching your son in civics class. Must have stopped before the 16th Amendment:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

See, I am old enough to think that anything he learns in school is true. Or accurately told to me. But he also said that a kid he works with doesn't have taxes taken out under the same idea. Idk........

what year will liberals stop being afraid of conservatives???

Comments

Categories