For Those Not Following

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

They are saying they do not have to pay taxes (if you would take the time to look into this a small bit or look at the posts)

They are saying the Constitution states the people have a RIGHT to have issues addressed that are constitiutional and until that that happens, no ruler may collect taxes. This is the last sentenace of the First Amendment.

This is merely their latest attempt to avoid their responsibilities and pretend to have 'legal' background for doing so. As I said, unless you have evidence not from tax whackos, I don't believe for a second that a court has allowed a escrow account to be used. Every other word coming out of these people is bullshit.

Spoken as the great decider of who is a free thinker

Freedom ain't free. You got to pay taxes to keep this society going.

These assholes have been at this game for a long time - filing bullshit motions by the barrel with notes like: you must respond by X or you agree that I can skip taxed and fuck your wife when I please.

Their form of constitutional scholarship is exactly on par with those assholes from the Brady bunch. You know the routine - torture a contrary meaning out of obvious language to serve a selfish purpose.

Sorry, you don't like paying high taxes. I don't like paying for the Iraqi war anymore, but I don't get to stop paying until they explain to me how it's a legal non war or not. Given your ongoing support for Bush policy, I don't see how you're on fair ground to advocate tax dodging.

If you want to pay less for a sustained period of time (not just one administration), the lesson seems clear - vote Democrat.

Tell me where the hell I said we should not pay taxes dude?

I am not advocating that or anything of the like. But, you and many others on this site believe that Gov is running outside the Constitution. This group believes (right or wrong) they may have found a way to force, peacefully, the gov to move back within its Constittuionally places limits.

So, your "assumptions" about my stance is quite flawed.

READ WHAT THE HELL I AM POSTING AND YOU WILL MAKE FEWER MISTAKES!!!!!!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

READ WHAT THE HELL I AM POSTING AND YOU WILL MAKE FEWER MISTAKES!!!!!!

Irony meter destroyed by overload.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

READ WHAT THE HELL I AM POSTING AND YOU WILL MAKE FEWER MISTAKES!!!!!!

Irony meter destroyed by overload.

I would have to say that if this is the case I am impressed. Knowing where your "meter" is calibrated from.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I am not advocating that or anything of the like. But, you and many others on this site believe that Gov is running outside the Constitution. This group believes (right or wrong) they may have found a way to force, peacefully, the gov to move back within its Constittuionally places limits.

Nope - these are tax dodgers trying to portray that it's really about something else. We have courts and elections to deal with a rogue White House. The courts have started slapping Bush around and the electorate will ream the GOP in November. Balance will be restored.

That's almost beside the point. What I've been trying to tell you is that you can't believe a word they print, and you have yet to show any reliable source that confirms their claim of courts permitting escrow accounts. My conclusion is they lied, and you bought it.

[billvon 3,120]

>Did you read the whole thread?

Yes. I was answering your statement:

"They are saying the Constitution states the people have a RIGHT to have issues addressed that are constitiutional and until that that happens, no ruler may collect taxes. This is the last sentenace of the First Amendment."

Your statement is incorrect for two reasons, which I listed.

[rushmc 23]

“If money is wanted by Rulers
who have in any manner oppressed
the People,
they may retain it
until their grievances are redressed,
and thus peaceably procure relief,
without trusting to despised petitions
or disturbing the public tranquility.”

1774, Journals of the Continental Congress, 1:105-113

Quote

And I belive you to be incorrect based on the info posted above.

You know, I put this out to discuss. You and others seen to have a desire to trash others.

I do not nor have I ever support no taxes. Yet you imply that is what I was doing.

Go figure

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>How in the hell do you get THAT solution?

Democrats raise government spending less than Republicans do, historically.

The GOP promise to "cut your taxes" is akin to your mortgage company saying "we have a new program to reduce your payments while getting you a bigger house!" Translation - you're about to get screwed, and will be paying the bank back for decades.

The ONLY way to cut taxes in the long run is to reduce government spending. Failing that, the only way to keep taxes lower is to increase government spending very slowly.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I am not advocating that or anything of the like. But, you and many others on this site believe that Gov is running outside the Constitution. This group believes (right or wrong) they may have found a way to force, peacefully, the gov to move back within its Constittuionally places limits.

Nope - these are tax dodgers trying to portray that it's really about something else. We have courts and elections to deal with a rogue White House. The courts have started slapping Bush around and the electorate will ream the GOP in November. Balance will be restored.

That's almost beside the point. What I've been trying to tell you is that you can't believe a word they print, and you have yet to show any reliable source that confirms their claim of courts permitting escrow accounts. My conclusion is they lied, and you bought it.

I might take the time to construct a good responce it you could find a way to be way less snarky.

I "bought" nothing but I understand your propensity to insult

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>1774, Journals of the Continental Congress . . .

Yep. Too bad that didn't make it into the US Constitution, written in 1787 and ratified in 1790. (More to the point, the Bill of Rights was written and ratified in 1791.) If it had, it would have a bearing on your claim.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>1774, Journals of the Continental Congress . . .

Yep. Too bad that didn't make it into the US Constitution, written in 1787 and ratified in 1790. (More to the point, the Bill of Rights was written and ratified in 1791.) If it had, it would have a bearing on your claim.

Historical context only works when you agree I see.

On a side note. I only posted this thread because I find the topic interesting. I do not support the group or other wise. Many of thier grips I agree with as to many on this site..

So, you may want to find kallend bone cracker. He/she can maybe fix your neck too

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>Historical context only works when you agree I see.

It is definitely interesting historical context. It gives a better picture of what they were considering 13 years before writing the Constitution - indeed, before they were even free of England's rule. Clearly their thinking evolved a bit before they wrote the Constitution itself. Which is to be expected; after all, things are a bit different when you have to write your own laws instead of disagreeing with someone else's.

>On a side note. I only posted this thread because I find the topic
>interesting.

The topic is indeed interesting, but I find I do not have much patience for people who want government services but do not want to pay taxes (for whatever the reason du jour is.)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>1774, Journals of the Continental Congress . . .

Yep. Too bad that didn't make it into the US Constitution, written in 1787 and ratified in 1790. (More to the point, the Bill of Rights was written and ratified in 1791.) If it had, it would have a bearing on your claim.

Such writing in 1774 is rather likely to refer to King George and the Revolutionaries discontent with policies by Mother England.

My snarky response is that these guys should be mailing letters of greviance to QEII.

[rushmc 23]

The topic is indeed interesting, but I find I do not have much patience for people who want government services but do not want to pay taxes (for whatever the reason du jour is.)

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

“If money is wanted by Rulers
who have in any manner oppressed
the People,
they may retain it
until their grievances are redressed,
and thus peaceably procure relief,
without trusting to despised petitions
or disturbing the public tranquility.”

1774, Journals of the Continental Congress, 1:105-113

Quote

And I belive you to be incorrect based on the info posted above.

You know, I put this out to discuss. You and others seen to have a desire to trash others.

I do not nor have I ever support no taxes. Yet you imply that is what I was doing.

Go figure

Somewhat more relevant than a pre-revolutionary statement:

To facilitate to them the performance of their duty it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue; that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseperable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties) ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the Conduct of the Government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining Revenue which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.
George Washington, President.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

“If money is wanted by Rulers
who have in any manner oppressed
the People,
they may retain it
until their grievances are redressed,
and thus peaceably procure relief,
without trusting to despised petitions
or disturbing the public tranquility.”

1774, Journals of the Continental Congress, 1:105-113

Quote

And I belive you to be incorrect based on the info posted above.

You know, I put this out to discuss. You and others seen to have a desire to trash others.

I do not nor have I ever support no taxes. Yet you imply that is what I was doing.

Go figure

Somewhat more relevant than a pre-revolutionary statement:

To facilitate to them the performance of their duty it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue; that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseperable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties) ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the Conduct of the Government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining Revenue which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.
George Washington, President.

And what, you think I disagree with this?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And what, you think I disagree with this?

Well, then, why did you post 1774 writings?

Let's remember that the first vision of America by the Founders failed badly, and was then replaced by the Constitution.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

And what, you think I disagree with this?

Well, then, why did you post 1774 writings?

Let's remember that the first vision of America by the Founders failed badly, and was then replaced by the Constitution.

Ya, and now we have to fight those trying to tear it (the Constitution) down. One attack was partially addressed today

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>Ya, and now we have to fight those trying to tear it (the
>Constitution) down. One attack was partially addressed today

Agreed. We have a ways to go, but it's a good start.

[BIGUN 1,488]

Quote

Democrats raise government spending less than Republicans do, historically.

Presidentially speaking - that is correct... Since 1970, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does. However:

Democratic-controlled congresses have increased spending at a rate more than twice the rate that Republican congresses have.

Government spending has grown fastest when a Republican was in the White House and Democrats controlled Congress. It has grown most slowly when a Democrat was President and Republicans controlled Congress.

Source: http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_11/bradford-spending.html


Edit: Don't you just love the play on words from BOTH sides..

"Democrats raise government spending less than Republicans."

"It has grown most slowly when a Democrat was President and Republicans controlled Congress."

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[billvon 3,120]

>Democratic-controlled congresses have increased spending at a rate
>more than twice the rate that Republican congresses have.

Correct. So the most important question is - what happens when the democrats control congress AND the White House? From your link:

"When Democrats controlled the White House plus both houses of Congress, spending grew at 1.70% per year, slightly below the average growth rate of 1.83% for the entire period."

And what if McCain wins?

"During the 14 years Republicans controlled the White House and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, spending grew at an average annual rate of 1.92%."

So if you want the least amount of government spending this time around, Obama is your man. (At least, based on history.)

[BIGUN 1,488]

Historically, that would be the argument.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.