Private Social Media Platform

➽ If you dont vote against Trump you're voting for him.

Fucking coward.
Please present your evidence to support your claim.
https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1744.0

Are you claiming this answer is not "stated clearly, concisely, and completely. "?
Quote from:  YDOM on 27 August @ 16:40
If you have no knowledge of the tax laws, how would you know when the IRS lies to you?

Please answer the questions.

No, not claiming that. Though you've posted a question as a claim? Questions aren't claims, so it doesn't really answer anything.

Just trying to better understand everything that you're communicating by asking questions here.

So, does that mean that everyone should learn the tax laws so that they will know the IRS lies to them, correct? Just trying to put your points into my own words so that we can discuss things without confusion.

Questions to teach is called the Socratic Method. I have been attempting to improve my use of the method since I learned of Socratic Method.

Thus my purpose is to cause folks to think about things. Such as you have done by your observation and (implied) questioning of my method.

Your interpretation of my intent is only partially correct. Since you did ask a direct question as to what you have interpreted, the direct answer is "No." This is only a first pass; a first look at the IRS'/ government lies.

Once you know that an entity lies to you, are you going to ignore any other words of that entity that might just be more lies? Or are you going to examine its other words and check them for validity?

Looking at this another way, if you have a friend that deliberately lied to you, How long would you think them a friend; Especially if their lies cost you FRN's? I'm sure most folks following Larken are aware that government lies. There are Statists that believe the myth that government is their friend.

So going a little deeper, It is my intent to expose the specific lies used to defraud the people of their hard earned FRN's.

Would it be easier to defend yourself from government's attacks when you can say, Wait just a minute, doesn't that law you are using to charge me with a crime say this, "(actual words of law)"? Can you defend yourself better if you have no clue as to those actual words of law?

That makes sense. 👌

You have a good goal.

]You and I can converse, or you can look at my prior written words on the I-tax subject.
https://synapticsparks.info/tax/ExamineFedTax.html

Quote from: D-y on 27 August @ 14:30
What is the purpose of learning the tax laws?

Quote from: D-y on 27 August @ 18:42
So, what is the purpose of learning these laws?

Quote from: D-y on 27 August @ 21:02
Sure, that's what the question is meant to address. The purpose behind learning the laws.

I apologize for insulting you. Please forgive my insult. You must be a government school graduate.

Quote from: D-y on 27 August @ 21:02
Rather than assume, would prefer to hear the intended purpose stated clearly, concisely, and completely.

Are you claiming this answer is not "stated clearly, concisely, and completely. "?
Quote from:  YDOM on 27 August @ 16:40
If you have no knowledge of the tax laws, how would you know when the IRS lies to you?

Its just a basic clarification.
The claim is that everyone should learn the tax laws so that they will know the IRS lies to them, correct?

Is there any more to it than that? Is that the only intention present?

I find it important to both know and have available certain definitions that they don't like, such as "to exploit" is to make use of a thing. When you exploit a resource, you are for example cutting down a tree or removing coal from the ground… An unexploited resource is useless. An unexploited human resource is unemployed.
So who harms a human more? The person who exploits him in exchange for money? Or the person who refuses to hire him?

3:17 PM
Exploit's common use has a negative connotation that you're taking advantage of something in an unfair or harmful way though.

Seems like that is likely to lead to unnecessary semantics arguments and confusion about what is being communicated making the discussion dysfunctional without much to gain for it.

Well the outcome is the benefit.
Their method is ambiguation, the intended outcome is to obfuscate their goals - so we can't fight back.
In order to think clearly and so act decisively and effectively, we want disambiguation aka clarity.

In large part, that means we need to know definitions so we can know what people are saying and what they aren't saying, and so we can say what we mean and understand how it will be distorted, and account for that when possible.

Their ambiguation is very intentional and effective, especially when we don't know that's the fight we're in.

Forgive my run on sentences. I don't have enough time for revisions at the moment.

Agreement, and both can be done.

So the notion is to avoid the semantics argument that will come from using terms where both parties aren't in agreement on what the terms mean, by first clarifying the terms or using other terms where there is agreement on their meaning? Sure, that'll work.

The concern was that it might be likely to befuddle communication if one party is using a term to its literal definition, while the other is using the common meaning of it. Lots of good discussions get stuck in a fight/semantics argument over what each individual thinks the term's definition should be, instead of moving inexorably towards the truth and finding a way to talk clearly about the matter at hand.

Right.  When they "takeover" a word they are taking linguistic and so mental territory.
Anyone who thinks of their definitions in place of correct definitions is captured.
And that's arguably the most important territory.

So ok, now just having a conversation with someone who is ideologically captured is way more difficult.

They reinforce their ideology, and by engaging poorly, our own thoughts are easily ambiguated.

Con - together
Versare - turn about (change)

To change together.

But instead of a conversation, it turns into a verbal fight.  You're fighting their specter; they're fighting your specter.

How do you disentangle this clusterfuck?

My first thought is not to define every single term in every single conversation.

It's to prioritize.

As soon as you identify a critical term, reinforce your accurate understanding of it.

Read the dictionary definition and importantly the etymology.

Then in conversation, whenever those critical terms come up, ask the other party to define that term.  Don't say what you think their definition is.  Ask them to open that kimono.

Be ready to give your definition and receipts for why it is the correct one.

Give receipts for why their usage is incorrect.

Whatever the broader topic is becomes secondary because you can't discuss it with confused language.

They captured those terms in order to stop people from coming to opposing conclusions.

If you disarm that term by breaking their occupation of it, then people can come to opposing conclusions.
An example of an incorrectly used term
Gender.
The correct usage of the word gender just means "of a certain class, type, or category"
It can be applied to biological sex.
It can also be applied to types of emotions, like if you want to engender a feeling of comradery.

Now when it is applied to biological sex, it is being applied to biological sex.
If it were being applied to social sexual gender roles, it would be applied to that, not some ethereal non-sexual "gender".
You can't have a type of nothing.  You can only have a type of a thing.

Gender, when applied to biological sex has always been about biological sex.

So then the idiot will say "yeah but language evolves bro."

Except this term didn't evolve that way.
It was intentionally captured and then enforced by ideologues in the 70s.

I can't find the name of the professor who wrote that nonsense in right now, no time.
But it would be good to have that info if having this debate with a lefty for example.

at 5:41 PM
"The modern academic sense of the word... was popularized and developed by the feminist movement from the 1970s onwards, which theorizes that human nature is essentially epicene and social distinctions based on sex are arbitrarily constructed. In this context, matters pertaining to this theoretical process of social construction were labelled matters of gender."

So, literally made up by marxist ideologues espousing the long debunked tabula rasa theory.

Their technique was very effective.

As long as you identify as literally any "identity" other than your nationality, then you can't beat communism the way it was beat last time.

And look where we are now.

Ah, If the target is to confront others about the definitions of words, then the suggestion is instead to create culture. It is one of the most powerful methods of moving language.

While the grammarians nit pick each other over millimeters in specifics, the public use of things moves miles. Reminded of Bugs Bunny essentially changing the meaning of the word Nimrod, because the public misunderstood the joke in the cartoon.


    So then the idiot will say "yeah but language evolves bro."


Gender's new use has been meticulously changed by the cultist culture of the Gay Race Communists being supported by the system. They indoctrinated the children with it with cartoons and teachers, and for the college students its their professors, the doctors are now instructed to use it, its enforced in the office place with HR. Its everywhere in programming licenses for free and paid programs/code now too!


IF enough people are using their power to encourage it's use(that of the classical definition of gender) then something might change over time. But culture that can get people to do that should be what is produced; A one on one with someone over the definition of something isn't going to get very far, unless they're a celebrity and the discussion changes their use of the word, and its in such a way that their fans will also do the same. Something like that might work. Or meme culture that hits many people could. Lots of options to look at.

Of note, there's a bunch of legal terms that have different meanings like "Understand" that were captured by the system as well.
The legal system managed to keep and still use latin terms for many things that have been around for centuries. Perhaps if the essence of that is figured out, it might help with efforts to preserve definitions.

Ah, just thought of other examples that might be helpful. Elon changed twitter's name to X. That created a culture-vs-counterculture movement of people calling it different things.

Now whether somebody calls it twitter, twatter, or X, it conveys more information about what they think of the site.

A similar thing happened with Kiev or Kyiv(that the media pushes).

These are key examples of culture and terms being changed.

The liberty movement has terms like voluntarist and modern day abolitionist that are so powerful. They need culture to promote them for them to become used by the public though.

7:43 PM
well there's no instant solution.
if people in your town are asshole drivers,
they won't instantly all be courteous drivers just because you let someone get over one time.
we should make a habit of doing things the way we think they should be done.
each time we do, it will influence someone for better or worse.
make a habit of making it for the better.
Then when you come across a bigger influencer, you can do that with them.
and you can work to become one yourself.

But none of this is an overnight fix.

We're off by at least one generation, more likely two.

But as the african proverb goes:

"How do you eat an elephant?

One bite at a time."

So, we'd better get started, and keep right on.

Mostly agree!
It's important to lead by example.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
There's so many fakers, that when someone is the real deal people are actually surprised.


The term "influencer" has become so yucky! 🤢 lol
Another overused term by the trendies that is fighting its old definition.

Being a good influence on those around you still works thankfully. There's also giving someone the facts, both for and against, and letting them decide for themselves. A reputation is needed for that one to have any pull though.


Really its only such a battle because nearly all of the institutions of learning and media are so blatantly captured by bad actors.

Occupying logistical linguistic ground is what allowed Newspeak to take root in 1984

Question everything! It's time to uncover the truth about the largest financial scam in history: The Americans Who Lie in Order to Enslave You! https://rumble.com/v4rbhrk-the-americans-who-lie-in-order...

🌟 Want to keep all of your hard-earned money and say goodbye to the IRS? According to Title 26 of the U.S. Code, only certain individuals can legally be taxed, and you might not be one of them! Wake up and discover the real truths about the tax system and what it means for you! 🤑

▶️ https://drreality.news/?sld=charlesmoody
#Freedom #KnowledgeIsPower #Moody #ITSTM #ItsTime #USA #America

end ALL taxation!

https://synapticsparks.info

just a friendly heads up, Dave is pro-police, he ran for Sheriff and has repeatedly bad mouthed anarchy. When we kindly asked him in the most respectful manner about his campaign for Sheriff and his support for police, he responded with insults, ad hominem attacks and threats to "take care of us".
That is to say, given the seemingly anti-tax work he promotes of himself, he's not actually be the pro-freedom person he leads on to be and instead he's quite the aggressionist playing the political game of (at times) just simply saying what people want to hear in order to gain their support for his agendas.

out of curiosity, have you read “ income tax, shattering the myths”?

▶️ https://drreality.news/?sld=charlesmoody

Nope, I haven't but I can understand how it might be useful to some people. For me, I would seek out other mentors, preferably someone who didn't campaign to be a ruler over other people.

thank you for the feedback, sir. I’m pretty sure you have a reason for saying that. Do you mind sharing it with me?

Are you asking people to publicly self incriminate themselves? If so, why would you put people in that position knowing full well the government is a terrorist organization that has a habit of slandering and imprisoning whistleblowers, and people who disobey?

out of curiosity, have you read “ income tax, shattering the myths”?
▶️ https://drreality.news/?sld=charlesmoody”

I would rather seek material from someone who doesn't support oinkers and didn't try to become one. And if all you are going to do is try to get people to self incriminate and post material for that tyrant, then perhaps this isn't the group for you. The average anti-freedom statist group would be a better fit.

that’s what I thought. lol

I could spend my entire life reading material from tyrants. I'd rather not. You clearly have no problem with Dave trying to enslave people via trying to become a badged tyrant, so why would you even join a pro-freedom group?

it's CM's complete lack of knowing the statist Dave Champion that has me thinking CM doesn't understand the liberty movement.

Let’s stay focused on creating a supportive and respectful environment for everyone.

You mean, say nothing while you repeatedly post links of material by a tyrant and try to get people to self inciminate?

Thanks for the suggestion, but we're about the education of liberty in this group.

no, I’m not asking people to publicly incriminate themselves. That’s obvious to a dead man. For the record, I’d like to see more people educate themselves. (I haven’t filed a tax return in over 25 years. Boo! 👻)

Feel free to give us a shout if you’d prefer to hire an all-American business instead of the alternative.
CM's link not copy-pasted.

Spam? Really? See Mike, I didn't think he was on the up and up. Like politicians, I believe he's just saying what he thinks we want to hear.

there's a fine line between genuine patriotism and pretending to love one’s country. True patriotism involves actively supporting and uplifting our communities, advocating for justice, and engaging in meaningful dialogue. Perhaps we can focus on actions that reflect our values rather than just empty words,

there's the real CM. Just another shill fraud.

🤣😂

Please tell me the sole and exclusive activity engaged in by 'US persons' in every Treasury regulation issued since the inclusion of 'US person' in the Tax Code (1962).

What does extortion codes have to do with my freedom and liberty? Also notice how you pander to the gov's fictional word of "tax" instead of calling it what it really is, coercion/extortion/theft.

Y’all have a great evening. Take care now!

do not get addicted to escaping. Face your problems, handle your business, and triumph. No battle was ever won by those who run.

You mean pander to the terrorist government's system and glorify the thugs who support gov's armed thugs who enslave everyone and civilians would otherwise not be enslaved if not for them and that system?

Do you have any idea about the answer I attempted to post here in the 'Introduction of Liberty' group?

OCR'd: Tax law strictly limits Withholding Agents to withholding upon income of which persons and entities?

CHARLES: "Do not get addicted to escaping. Face your problems, handle your business, and triumph. No battle was ever won by those who run."

JEFF:
#1: Who is escaping? We are educating people about liberty and government. Working within the system is why we live in tyranny and permanent war.

#2: Identify the "problems." The problem IS government. We are facing this head on. It is you that sees politics as the answer.

#3: I turn your quote back to you, with a little modification; "No battle was ever won by those who choose to support politics as the answer to the tyranny created by politics."

CHARLES: "Do you have any idea about the answer I attempted to post here in the 'Introduction of Liberty' group?"

JEFF: Do you grasp the idea that the answer is NOT found within the political system?

I have an interest in what all three of you have to say.
I am unhappy with the direction this attempt at information exchange has taken.
Paraphrasing Champion's message: Stand on what the written words of tax law say. Champion is 30 years of not paying or filing income tax... Because he is obeying the tax laws as written.
He was once a bible thumping believer. That has changed as evidenced by his Tats. Champion does not know that he is still under the spell of his government school indoctrination. This does not change his knowledge of the written words of tax law. I have been aware of Dave's tax law teachings for 15+ years.
Laws are created in the political system so Jeff I can understand why you wrote: "the answer is NOT found within the political system" If the system changed the tax laws, the system would be admitting that it and all the congressturds have been openly lying since 1913.

DALE: "Champion is 30 years of not paying or filing income tax... Because he is obeying the tax laws as written."

JEFF: HOWEVER, Champion is not against taxation. THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART OF THE DISCUSSION. He's said as much while running for office, when it was asked about how he expected to be paid. Previous to this he had claimed to be an anarchist. While running for office he took both sides (anarchist and statist) in order to gain support. Being against one tax does not make an individual a friend of liberty. For instance, the Democrats are opposed to war, except the wars created by the Democrats. Republicans are against anti-gun legislation, except anti-gun legislation created by Republicans.

If Charles Manson was still alive, and he told you that in the united States, traffic must drive on the right side of the street or road, Would you reject the truth of those words? Would you drive on the left side of the road because a convicted murderer told you don't?

The issue is NOT who or where the words came from. The issue is the veracity of the words.

I am personally annoyed by liberty folk bitching about that tax called "income" deliberately ignoring the words of law that they can use to legally stop paying an income tax on the fruits of their labor. Do you want to help folks legally stop paying the income tax that has not been imposed on payroll of Americans working in any of the 50 States united?

Dale Eastman I wouldn't listen to Manson and then think him a man of liberty, no more than I would listen to the words of Hitler, Stalin, Biden, Trump or Champion. The latter is a statist. Like all politicians, he won't show his true beliefs until he obtains political power. Go ahead and follow his words, but never forget that "legal" only works for the state. They don't let such things get in their way.

Here's my question YOU deliberately ignored:
Do you want to help folks legally stop paying the income tax that has not been imposed on payroll of Americans working in any of the 50 States united?

Here's my other words YOU deliberately ignored:

The issue is NOT who or where the words came from. The issue is the veracity of the words.

I hate having to repeat myself:
The issue is the veracity of the words.

Please admit or deny the veracity of the words of tax law.
(If you deny words you have never looked at...)

It is now my intent to present specific words. And after having done so, I am going to ask you and MC to admit or deny the veracity of the copy-pasted words of law.

PS: Ignore the murderer, drive on the left (wrong) side of the street or road. Fuck Around and Find Out.

Dale Eastman, Just a heads up, CM is gutlessly reporting comments in this group. 😂 That's the immaturity he's sunk to.

CM has been banned for reporting comments and posts to Facebook like the immature piece of sht he is who cuckolds for the thug Dave Champion who tried to rule people via a Sheriff badge. Fking scumbag.

DALE: "Here's my question YOU deliberately ignored:
Do you want to help folks legally stop paying the income tax that has not been imposed on payroll of Americans working in any of the 50 States united?"
JEFF: #1 I did not see your questions to me so I did not deliberately ignore you. #2 It is YOU, Champion and Moody Moody who "help" folks stop paying income tax. YOU post that stuff, and I don't. I don't stop you from doing it, but I do comment when you mention the statist wanna-be cop. The primary reason I don't post that stuff is because the government doesn't obey the law. If they go after you and others, I don't want to be the reason. Remember that Al Capone was brought down for income tax evasion charges.
DALE: "Here's my other words YOU deliberately ignored: The issue is NOT who or where the words came from."
JEFF: Repeat of my not deliberately ignoring you. I don't HAVE to respond if I don't see a need. In fact, the issue IS "who or where the words came from." You have seen me many times attempt to educate others for using the words and quotes from statists. Champion lied many times over the years in order to gain support. You are welcome to idolize statists, but I am not required to follow that path.
I do not care what Champion writes. I go by the history of the government. Never forget that Al Capone was brought down for income tax evasion charges. I will guess that many others were too. You want to trust the government to obey words then be my guest. DO NOT bring yourself to the low level of "shaming" others to obey you!

Dale Eastman, Have you considered that if I explain the appropriate answer to you it would self incriminate?
- Here's something else to consider, are we to think Dave has some magical words and magical legal insight that the lawyers of celebrities with 100 times Dave's wealthy don't have?
To explain that consideration further and for just one example, Wesley Snipes left the country over the gov's extortion demands so he could avoid being thrown in a cage and only after 100s of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees and years later, PLUS eventually being forced to pay said extortion anyway, only then was he able to come back to the USA without threat of being in a cage.
-- Consider the fact that there are NO LAWS that can save a civilian from the gov's systems, after all, the tyrant doesn't play fair, it doesn't even play by its own rules, it will change the rules at the drop of a hat, it will make up new rules on the spot and if gov wants to fry someone it will.
For what reason are we to believe that some boot licking thug Dave has the magic answer to defeat the government by using the gov's systems?
What's next? Begging the government within the gov's systems to declare us all Sovereign citizens exempt from its rule?
I don't understand why you are so hell bent on believing in that boot licker like he's some sort of messiah.
-- Consider, you have only gotten away with what you have gotten way with because there's 300 million people in this country and the tyrant machine can't attack everyone.
And if/should you unfortunately land in its crosshairs, I highly doubt any of the videos from the boot licking thug piece of sht Dave will solve your legal problems or anyone else's legal problems for that matter.
He's selling false hope predicated upon the fact that the chances of one of his followers actually being prosecuted is slim, and not because his so-called legal solutions are so good but instead simply because the tyrant machine can't attack everyone at the same time.
I don't care if that piece of sht has the secret to how the pyramids were built, he's a fking tyrant who refuses to denounce is intent and wishes to be a thug with a badge.

Dale Eastman, And btw, I had typed another comment earlier with other important factors in reply to your question but it was interrupted by the gutless piece of worthless dg-sht Charles B Moody reporting comments and posts in this group because he's an immature ccccooooowwwwarrrrd.
Of which I mentioned to you about earlier, but I'm mentioning it again because I don't want you to think my comment above is that comment (it was a totally different comment).