willywhit Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 gotta love willy for his pointless crazy posts outa left field:lol::lol::lol: the thread seemed like it was gittin' a lil too serious god bless the US, we're ALL about burnin' gas:flamethro Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 well damnit I searched valiantly and couldn't find it. Anyone got the lyrics to "I think she only loves me for my Willy" ? Or better yet a clip?:lol::lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willywhit Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 you asked for it, doc:rolleyes: <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zaIATL7RiQ&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zaIATL7RiQ&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> http://www.pauloverstreet.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=WILL-SGL 1.99= cheeeep <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efZcbCMHphU&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efZcbCMHphU&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdea Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 I see some of your and Bob's point but like I just mentioned above - fairness is my desire- I would like a millionaire to pay a little more than a barista earning $10 an hour - 6 dollars to her is a big hit. The sporting event businesses just to name a few, do not pay anything for the bridge which delivers their gate paying spectators. - I'd like them to pay to some extent. Bottom Line: There is more to using a bridge than just driving across it - others benefit - I'd like them to pay a little in that fund from thier profits.:D I agree with what you're saying to some extent, what I am pointing out is that it directly conflicts with your barn yard. if you walk into McDonalds and they see that you drive a lexus and charge you double you'd be pissed. Honestly, with what you're saying now you line up more with liberal ideals. You should be voting Obama or Clinton from the way you sound on this issue. Buckley has some great quotes on why taxes should not be on a sliding scale, flat rate for everything and everyone, trying to link it to free markets and and Jefersonian ideals. I don't buy it but it is generally the republican view. Remember when they were saying they wanted to abolish the IRS? One thing I do agree with Buckley and many ultra right on is the "drug war", it's a waste of money and resources. child rapists and violent criminals getting out of jail to make room for heroine addicts that got busted by getting desparate and trying to buy from a under cover cop or being in a flop house when it gets raided does not make sense. You should be able to write the tolls off if it's a working or business expense. ;) you might enjoy the video below, not linked to the conversation but I found it interesting <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlMEVTa-PI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 you asked for it, doc:rolleyes:<OBJECT height=355 width=425> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zaIATL7RiQ&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></OBJECT></P> http://www.pauloverstreet.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=WILL-SGL 1.99= cheeeep <OBJECT height=355 width=425> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efZcbCMHphU&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></OBJECT> </P> thats the one:lol::lol::lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C5 Golfer Posted February 27, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 , what I am pointing out is that it directly conflicts with your barn yard. I just woke up so help me out here Bob, what did I say conflicts with my barn yard you speak? Whats in my barn yard my be more a proper question? One thing I do agree with Buckley and many ultra right on is the "drug war", it's a waste of money and resources. child rapists and violent criminals getting out of jail to make room for heroine addicts that got busted by getting desparate and trying to buy from a under cover cop or being in a flop house when it gets raided does not make sense. Is not the simple answer here is to just build more jails and prisons? suprised you didn't think of that Bob, pretty easy math problem really. And I do not agree with tolls being deductible-- I wish we could remove 98% of deductions and make the good ole 1040 easy to fill out - and no way to cheat. After all it was your choice to buy that item or spend the money. I'd leave the house interest as one of the 2%. Have a nice day Bob, good discussion. thanks for your support and input! :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdea Posted February 27, 2008 Report Share Posted February 27, 2008 no, because if we go back to the barn yard you will find that there is not enough money to pay for the prisons. they are a huge expense that you don't want to pay for. the amount on money that would be saved if narcotics were legalized and comercially available would be gigantic. you can be tough on crime but you have to be willing to pay for it. Junkies do alot of stupid stuff but alot of the people in the legal system for drugs and no other related offenses should not be there, waste of money. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNw2r-qmopI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNw2r-qmopI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> my spin on it a little different but the end result is the same and he's right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andreac Posted February 29, 2008 Report Share Posted February 29, 2008 this thread for the first time and since a good chunk of the talk is about oil and i see some people from Montana... just a little plug for some good people in Missoula.... There is a new taxi company in Missoula called Green Taxi, they had to fight for a year to get a permit from PSC but they are up and running and only using hybrid cars and they don't drive around looking for fares and wasting gas, you have to call... so if anyone is in Missoula and needs a ride... call them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Dahl Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 shall be laid, except" and the constitutional amendment goes on to tell us that it is only allowed when it is done in concensus with a census, and done in such a way that it spreads the load in relation to the exercise of a privelige. The right of the common person to seek the trade of his hands, and to gather income (not as defined within the code, Sec 26 US code) is outside the realm of an "income tax", as it is not income as defined. However, if you are in the realm of privelige, as in a government worker, military personel, public office etc. (btw the terms used "including all others" only means any other within this definition, go look in a Blacks Law Dictionary) or as a corporate officer, which is included in the definition section, you are subject to the "income tax" as defined in the code. Whew! Now, property taxes are legitimate, as is gas taxes, excise taxes on import/export and so on. The law says what it means, and means what it says. A look through 7701 in the US code 26, which is the definitions section, would help. Its only about 37 pages printed out. And it isn't the only place where you find custom legal definitions. State income tax scemes fail the constitutional test also, if applied outside the realm of privelege. I may post up a list of definitions as supplied in the code, with section numbers, but you can search it online also. With the disinformation spread about by the IRS, this is how we have been bullied into submission. Searching 3.5 million words isn't fun, and seeing as how the definitions have been spread around in the code in such a sinister way, you can see how the IRS gets away with it. BTW, most attorneys know little to nothing about tax law, as do almost every tax preparer. Look at the business H&R Block would lose if we knew how to do this. Oh, they (IRS) also know how to avoid legal complications from doing this, they make the tax withholder liable for misrepresenting your staus as a taxpayer. Fun stuff, huh!?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 Its also of interest to note that the Black's Law in force at the time the law was written would be the one to check. the last two maybe three editions have left out many of the words and pharses in question. You can get a good searchable copy of the complete code from the guy who wrote "cracking the code" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted March 10, 2008 Report Share Posted March 10, 2008 interesting view of the declaration of independance. http://www.mygodgivenrights.com/PDF/The_Cause.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Dahl Posted March 11, 2008 Report Share Posted March 11, 2008 Its also of interest to note that the Black's Law in force at the time the law was written would be the one to check. the last two maybe three editions have left out many of the words and pharses in question. You can get a good searchable copy of the complete code from the guy who wrote "cracking the code" Got the book, you can search the code completly online @ Cornell law. You need Blacks law only to get a complete picture of a few terms used, and the legal meaning they have, 'cause the meaning can be obscured a bit w/o actually changing it. It is a real eye opener when you hit some of the legal definitions in the code. And you need them, because each section of US Code may use the term in question differently, and will spell it out for you in its definition section. US Code 26 uses some terms and defines them in a very narrow way, whereas other parts of the US Code gives the same term in a broader sense. This, and hiding things so well, is what makes tax code hard to understand, until you get your brain around these points. I'll post up one of the legal terms and it's use in Blacks for you, with an acompanying section of code to prove the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C5 Golfer Posted March 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2008 interesting view of the declaration of independance.http://www.mygodgivenrights.com/PDF/The_Cause.pdf Dr D-- this link possibly adds another "thorn" to this original post.. Bringing God/Religion into this political discussion - this could possibly become very ugly in 4.5 seconds. All we need to add now is mention of Noah’s Ark and we are well onto a launch! :flamethro:confused::o:sleep::( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Dahl Posted March 11, 2008 Report Share Posted March 11, 2008 The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others...This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes [a] particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded. (Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th ed.) 26 US Code sec. 7701c : Includes and including: the terms "includes" and "including" when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined. Funny how the code looks a fair bit different to the untrained eye, after you take into consideration what the term legally means. Lets play a little word game from the code to give you a taste of how the IRS plays unfairly. And let you see how using a word as it is customly defined, and therefor limited in its scope, changes the playing field. Here is one for the self-employed. The term trade or business. The common meaning is self-explanatory. You are in business, using the skill set to make a living. Clear so far? Good. US Code 26 sec. 7701 (a) (26) Trade or business. The term "trade or business" includes the performance of the functions of a public office. Are you, in the normal course of your business(common meaning) involved in public office? No? Then, as defined by the narrow legal term, you are not within the scope of this part of the code. Think about that one for a bit. OK, ready for more? Are you a United States person? 26 USC 7701 (30) United States person. The term "United States person" means (A) a citizen or resident of the United States...and it goes on to describe a few other situations where it applies. Hmmm, lets go back up the page a bit. 26 USC 7701 (9) United States. The term "United States"when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia. OK so far, right? 26 USC 7701 (10) State. The term "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title. (Which in other places, includes other posessions like Puerto Rico and Guam, et al) This is one of the biggest areas of misunderstanding. When a specific legal term is used, and is defined as such, it says what it means, and means what it says. This is how the tax code has been ruled Constitutional, yet has been grossly misapplied, with little fuss from the masses. What happened to our high school civics lessons? A 1941 report by the Treasury Dept. Division of tax research noted "For 1936, taxable income tax returns filed represented only 3.9% of the population." What has happened is this, we have been grossly misled. The real question is this: what are you going to do about it? I will always pay any tax honestly laid. I will not keep paying that which is not. The courts have consistently said this, but this quote is best: US Court of Claims, Economy Plumbing and Heating vs. United States, 470 F.2d 585 at589 (1972) " The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assesment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope." Well, what are you?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted March 11, 2008 Report Share Posted March 11, 2008 Dr D-- this link possibly adds another "thorn" to this original post.. Bringing God/Religion into this political discussion - this could possibly become very ugly in 4.5 seconds. All we need to add now is mention of Noah’s Ark and we are well onto a launch!:flamethro:confused::o:sleep::( LOL:lol: And the truth shall set them free Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.