[2] Why isn't Congress working hard to plug the hole?
[3] Face it, no one beat the system and Schulz is lying.
[1] Then explain why you folks don't know how they beat the system?
[1] What do you mean by "beat the system"?
A2, Could you take a break?
I have a question standing for RG, and I need a clear channel so that RG's deliberate failure to have discourse with me can be proven, or, better yet, we have that discourse and get to some facts.
Second time:
[1] Then explain why you folks don't know how they beat the system?
What do you mean by "beat the system"?
.
Second time:
[1] Then explain why you folks don't know how they beat the system?
What do you mean by "beat the system"?
.
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 03.20.06 - 1:45 pm | #
*****************************
You guys with your Lex Luthor like plans can't evade the 16th Amendment either. 67 million? Right, Lex!
Reasonable Guy | 03.20.06 - 12:08 pm | #
Try and keep up, Dale. You are better at holding Whiners Club meetings over the meaning of "income". Sorry the definition isn't the way you like but at least you have your members to whine to.
I am not going to assume what you mean by your non-responsive reply. That is why I am asking you straight up what you mean.
Third time:
[1] Then explain why you folks don't know how they beat the system?
What do you mean by "beat the system"?
.
Dale,
Really, try to keep up. For you, I'll speak slowly.
They are trying to beat the S i x t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t.
Got it, now? If not, ask A2 who is about to go public with his IRS challenge.
Toodles...
said it before....
The fact is the word "Income" was defined by the supreme court in the first half of the 20th century....Then adopted into the constitution as the 16th amendment in 1956 or so........So having been defined as "CORPORATE PROFIT"!!! and there have been no supreme court cases since 1956....that have "redefined" the word Income.
[4] They are trying to beat the S i x t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t.
RG, thank you for speaking slowly.
You think "beating the system" is "beating the Sixteenth Amendment".
So that means this statement:
[1] Then explain why you folks don't know how they beat the system?
Means:
[1a] Then explain why you folks don't know how they beat the Sixteenth Amendment?
Your clarification also means that this statement:
[3] Face it, no one beat the system and Schulz is lying.
Means:
[3a] Face it, no one beat the Sixteenth Amendment and Schulz is lying.
You are making issue that nobody has gotten around the Sixteenth Amendment...
Let us take a look at the written words of the sixteenth amendment:
[4] 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.
Before I engage you on the 16th Amendment, I must ask this "no-brainer" question:
If one does not have [5] Sixteenth Amendment Income, does the Sixteenth Amendment allow taxation of [6] NON-Sixteenth Amendment Income?
It is self-evident that you can NOT answer that question in the affirmative.
The Sixteenth Amendment does not confer power to the Congress to tax NON-Sixteenth Amendment Income.
This leads to the next no-brainer question:
In order to determine what the Sixteenth Amendment allows Congress to tax, (with or without apportionment), does it stand to reason that one MUST understand the meaning of "[7] Income" as used in the Sixteenth Amendment?
Does it stand to reason that one MUST understand what [5] Sixteenth Amendment Income is?
Again, it is self-evident what the answer is.
Your naked assertion Sorry the definition isn't the way you like... notwithstanding, The definition of "Income" is clearly stated in the several Supreme Court decisions.
Since you made statements regarding the meaning of [5,6,&7] income, and what the [4]Sixteenth Amendment does, I infer from your posts that you wish a rational dialog as to those topics.
So, RG, What is the definition of income as used in the 16th Amendment?
Dale, you may argue with fellow members of the Whiners Club.
I refer your pretzel logic back to the IRS for clarification.
Accept reality, Man!
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/f...tl/ friv_tax.pdf
[8] Does the document you linked to overrule Supreme
Court decisions?
I've previously posted this, but I've cleaned it up to make it polite,
and reposted it here:
On page 30 of the above cited UNOFFICIAL (read no force of law)
document linked above by RG are these words:
6. Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct
non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens.
Some
assert that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct
non-apportioned income tax and thus, U.S. citizens and residents are
not subject to federal income tax laws.
The Law: The courts have
both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment
authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States
citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid.
The above sentence is PROVABLY a Bold faced lie
The following linked page highlights the words of those two courts.
On the following linked page are links to the FindLaw cites of those
two court cases.
http://www.synapticsparks.info/t.../
16discuss.html
After
you read what the court cases actually state, ponder why the alleged
IRS document has no document "ID" number, no author, no publication
date and is not listed as an official publication of the U.S.
Government or U.S. Department of Treasury.
In short, a RG posted a link to OFFICIAL LIES.
I'm outa here for awhile.
http://www.synapticsparks.info/t...o/them/ rg2.html
A2, Thanks for pausing.
Have at him.
Well then....
Will Dale join with A2 in publically challenging the IRS to a duel?
I can't wait.....
You guys appear to alternate between Denial and Anger.
Well, as they say, "It's a process".
http://zonka.kimcm.dk/Notes/Grief.html
I'm back.
In short, RG posted a link to official lies.
http://www.synapticsparks.info/t...o/them/ rg2.html
RG,
[8] Does the document you linked to overrule Supreme Court decisions?
RG,
[8] Does the document you linked to overrule Supreme Court decisions?
Dale Eastman | Homepage | 03.20.06 - 7:09 pm | #
***************************
The document contains dozens of Supreme Court decisions. One might think by that that question that you didn't read it. Probably not, since you are still confused about the definition of "income".
RG,
That is NOT a responsive answer to the question asked of you.
I repeat:
[8] Does the document you linked to overrule Supreme Court decisions?
Dale, What kind of question is that?
The cases cited are the established rule of law. If you take issue with them, it's not my problem.
Dale, What kind of question is that?
A very simple one.
The cases cited are the established rule of law.
I didn't ask you about the cases cited in the document you linked to. I asked you about the document you linked to.
I'm now asking for the fourth time:
[8] Does the document you linked to overrule Supreme Court decisions?
.
Get to your point, Dale, if you have one.
Get to your point, Dale, if you have one.
I have several points, but you just helped me with one... As I stated earlier:
A2, Could you take a break?
I have a question standing for RG, and I need a clear channel so that RG's deliberate failure to have discourse with me can be proven...
I have asked you four times:
[8] Does the document you linked to overrule Supreme Court decisions?
[8] It is quite obvious that The document you linked to DOES NOT OVERRULE the Supreme Court.
Now, since it is quite obvious to even the casual reader that what you present does not overrule what the Supreme Court has stated, we can move on to page 30 of that document where a BLATANT BOLD FACED LIE is told.
[9] Does the document you linked to state on page 30:
"The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens..."?
.
Perspective has much more legal knowledge than I do.
I have logic, common sense and the ability to use them well.
Dale, I challenge you to make a point in three short sentences or less.
I don't think you can. Prove me wrong. I don't have time to waste on your gibberish. We've already established that you don't agree with the established definition of "income". What else do you have to talk about?
Perspective has much more legal knowledge than I do.
I have logic, common sense and the ability to use them well.
That is your version of the side-step boogie.
You placed the link on the blog.
In fact, you placed two different links to two different versions in two different files on this blog.
On 03.15.06 - 5:40 pm you placed this link on the blog.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/f...s-3-14- 2005.pdf
On 03.20.06 - 4:04 pm you placed this link on the blog.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/f...tl/ friv_tax.pdf
The PDF file sizes are: 661kb & 392kb respectively. Both are smaller than THIS haloscan web page which currently is 714kb.
[9] Does the [frivolousarguments-3-14-2005] document you linked to state on page 30:
"The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens..."?
[9] Does the [friv_tax] document you linked to state on page 26:
"The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens..."?
Dale, I challenge you to make a point in three short sentences or less.
Translation: "Ain't no way I'm gonna put the time in engaging Eastman in a discussion of what the Supreme Court says "income" is... He's going to cite Supreme Court cases at me with them damn no-brainer questions which will remove every inch of my wiggle room."
I don't think you can. Prove me wrong. I don't have time to waste on your gibberish.
But you have time to make 52 posts in this comment line alone, of lies, name calling, and other dishonest tactics to evade the issues of fact.
We've already established that you don't agree with the established definition of "income". What else do you have to talk about?
The very thing you DON'T want to talk about... What the established definition of income is.
[9] Do the documents you linked to state on page 26 or 30:
"The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens..."?
In the event that you have been banned from this blog, (which I suspect) you may continue this discussion by emailing me directly. You can find the address on my contact page.
http://www.synapticsparks.info/t...o/them/ rg2.html
Dale, as I said before, you can't ban the 1st Amendment.
I'll be back for Art's conviction coverage.
Accept reality.
Get a plan to change the law if you don't like it through legal means.
[9] Do the documents you linked to state on page 26 or 30:
"The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens..."?
Well until RG gets banned again, I'll resume where I left off. Questions RG doesn't seem capable of answering.
[9] Do the documents you linked to state on page 26 or 30:
"The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens..."?
You folks are funny. You can't ban the truth.
Keep the denial and whine flowing while you try to silence the truth you need to hear. Pathetic!
"Truth! You can't handle the truth!"
Jack Nicholson flubbed his lines. He should have said:
"Truth! RG can't answer the truth!"
I have asked you to answer this question 6 times.
How about you prove you can handle the truth.
How about you answer with the truth.
[9] Do the documents you linked to state on page 26 or 30:
"The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens..."?
Dear Deluded Dale,
You can never bring yourself to make a concise point, can you? I challenged you to make a point in three sentences or less and you failed.
I can be magnanimous in victory, however. Let's assume whatever twisted Mr. Potter like spider web of pretzel logic you had planned to spring on me had worked and I was crying "Uncle, uncle. You're right Dale, your web of pretzel logic has me under your spell".
Now what? Does my agreement with you in some way change the laws of physics, turning back time like Superman so you can somehow influence Congress in the contruction of the 16th Amendment? Or perhaps my agreement has the power to overturn dozens of court cases (time travel again)?
Tell us, what is your plan to change the law? Don't sit there in denial, man. Do something! Your games here mean nothing because you choose to deny reality.
Down goes Frasier!
"You can never bring yourself to make a concise point, can you?", Says the person who for some reason can not answer a simple yes or no question with a truthful yes or no.
"You can never bring yourself to make a concise point, can you?", Says the person who for some reason can post 158 words, but can not post ONE word, a YES or NO, that would allow moving on to the next point.
RG has been asked 6 times if the document linked by RG states on page 26 or 30 states:
"The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens..."
This screen capture of the PDF file open in the adobe program shows that the answer of truth that RG is unable to state in reply to my question is yes.
YES, The document linked by RG states on page 30:
"The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens..."
Moving on to the next question:
RG,
You posted the link to the document that makes this assertion:
the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax
[10] Do you agree that "the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax"?
"you had planned to spring on me"
Are you admitting to being an idiot?
You would have to be an idiot for me to spring this on you.
You know full well where this is going and that is why you are resisting with every distraction at your disposal.
A2,
One can shout "Yick Wo!" or "No more war!" all day long. Without a plan, you are wasting your time.
Denial and conspiracy mongering make a poor plan for change.
Funny you should mention denial:
http://www.synapticsparks.info/t...o/them/ rg2.html
I believe there is a question standing before you right now.
For the second time:
RG,
You posted the link to the document that makes this assertion:
the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax
[10] Do you agree that "the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax"?
.
Dale,
I answered that yesterday. Go read the post. The answer ended with "Down goes Frasier!"
The courts have knocked out your arguments again and again.
If you are convinced you are right, go public and challenge the IRS to prosecute you. Otherwise, you are just a deluded man with a tired story.
You have NOT answered my question until you post one of two words: YES or NO.
For the THIRD time:
RG,
You posted the link to the document that makes this assertion:
the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax
[10] Do you agree that "the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax"?
.
"I can be magnanimous in victory, however. Let's assume whatever twisted Mr. Potter like spider web of pretzel logic you had planned to spring on me had worked and I was crying "Uncle, uncle. You're right Dale, your web of pretzel logic has me under your spell".
The above statement equals yes if you want it so.
Now what? Are you going to use me as an authority in your pending court case when you challenge the IRS to prosecute you? You should hope not. My opinion does not count. I've said before many times that you need to convince the courts and they have shot down every TP argument with extreme prejudice. I am sorry about what happened to Irwin, but he set himself up and he must accept responsibility for his actions.
Now what is you plan to change the law? Why won't you answer that one?
How about answering when you are going to challenge the IRS to prosecute you? If you are convinced you are correct in your beliefs, now is not the time to wimp out. Stand up for yourself!
You have NOT answered my question until you post one of two words: YES or NO.
For the FORTH time:
RG,
You posted the link to the document that makes this assertion:
the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax
[10] Do you agree that "the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax"?
.
Bifurcated logic:
Either
[a] RG is an IRS employee, or,
[b] RG is not an IRS employee.
If RG is not an IRS employee, then either
[c] RG is a tax lawyer, accountant (CPA), or an enrolled agent (EA) that makes his living off of the tax laws , or,
[d] RG is a garden variety internet troll.
Let us pause to consider in each case, What if:
[a] RG is an IRS employee;
[c] RG is a tax lawyer, CPA, or EA;
[d] RG is an internet troll.
We can dispense with case [d] fairly quickly. RG is articulate with his choice of words, he knows how to spell, AND his PosTingS Don'T haVE TROllll lIke properties. In other words, the attempts at disruption have a focused purpose, whereas a blatant grief causing troll just wants uproar. Consider, If RG is attempting disruption with a focused purpose, he has to pass himself off as legitimate and NOT as a garden variety troll in order to push that purpose.
Case [c] is quite viable. If RG is one of the parasites that makes a living... uh... helping people with their taxes, he would have a vested interest in maintaining the Status Quo of the fraud. If taxes as most know it go away, his job goes away. Considering that here we are in March, the IRS Tax Terrorism Season, CPA's and EA's should be pretty busy preparing taxes for those Citizens who have not yet found out that the government is lying about the law. Of course, if there are actually 67 million no-filers out of the 174 million of the 18 to 64 yr. old demographic, I would suspect that tax preparers may already be suffering a 38% decrease in business. So timewise we can't really eliminate RG as a CPA and EA.
My first choice is case [a], RG is an IRS employee.
He could be acting as an agent provocateur with his "What's your plan?" mantra.
Of course, this is a distraction of the execution of the one plan that has the most possibility of winning:
Educating the masses as to what the WRITTEN WORDS of the Statutes and Regulations say, so that the masses can compare those WRITTEN WORDS with what the government says and does; with what agent provocateurs say on blogs like this one; and; with what corrupt federal judges like Dawson and McBryde say in their court rooms.
If [a] RG is an IRS employee or if [c] RG is a tax lawyer, CPA, or EA, consider this:
What happens if either go on record stating a lie and the true identity ever comes to light? What happens when somebody in the IRS outs that agents have been posting under pseudonyms and telling provable lies?
Even under a pseudonym, I don't think an IRS agent would flat out tell a lie. By pushing people to read an unofficial document that just happens to reside on an IRS server, they have deniability- Uh, it's up to the citizens to determine what the tax law requires... I didn't post that document. It's the IT people's fault for posting an unofficial document.
A short recap of events on this blog is in order.
On various occasions, RG has posted links to an unofficial document.
The name of that document is "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments."
RG was asked four times: "Does the document you linked to overrule Supreme Court decisions?"
RG replies but refuses to answer.
RG was asked six times: "Does the document you linked to state on page 30:
"The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens..."?"
RG replies but refuses to answer.
A screen capture of the PDF file open in the adobe program shows the answer, as anybody who has the December 2005 version can plainly see by looking at page 30. (Page 26 on the earlier version.)
RG was asked three times: Do you agree that "the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax"?
RG replies but refuses to answer.
Making even simpler:
RG posts link to document.
Document states the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax
Issue: Is this the truth.
Remember who brought this document into evidence - It was RG.
Dale,
Could it be that I am not even close to who you think I am? I have stated in this forum in months past who I am. Since you are most proficient at counting posts, words and so forth, I'll leave it to you to go through it all if you really want to find the answer. You just can't stand it, can you? I'll give you a clue...Remember CJ? He was like you and would use the tactic of using questions in lieu of straight shooting discussion points. It is in that time period that you will find the answer.
Good luck...
Could it be that I am not even close to who you think I am?
I think you are incapable of answering questions about the crap you post.
You have been asked four times to answer this question:
You posted the link to the document that makes this assertion:
the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax
You have been asked four times to answer this question:
[10] Do you agree that "the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax"?
.
Since you posted the link to that document, and you won't answer questions about that document, It now MUST BE PRESUMED that you agree with that document in its entirety.
You have NOT denied that you agree that "the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax" which is part of that document, therefore it now MUST BE PRESUMED that you agree with the document's statement: "the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax".
Now, moving on to the next question:
Did the Supreme Court in the BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO. case state:
"We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.
...
And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows:
...
But it clearly results that the proposition [The "erroneous assumption above] and the contentions under it, if acceded to, WOULD CAUSE ONE PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION TO DESTROY ANOTHER; that is, they WOULD RESULT IN BRINGING THE PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDMENT exempting a direct tax from apportionment INTO IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT WITH THE GENERAL REQUIREMENT that all direct taxes be apportioned.
Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states.
This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion."?
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/sc...&vol=240&page=1
Parsing:
... the confusion ... arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation
... the confusion ... arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for ... a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.
the proposition ... WOULD CAUSE ONE PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION TO DESTROY ANOTHER;
the proposition ... WOULD RESULT IN BRINGING THE PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDMENT exempting a direct tax from apportionment INTO IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT WITH THE GENERAL REQUIREMENT that all direct taxes be apportioned.
Your document contains a lie on page 30 (or 26 of the older PDF document.)
Since you posted the link to that document, and you won't answer questions about that document, It now MUST BE PRESUMED that you agree with that document in its entirety.
Dale,
Refer to my comment above to Perspective. It is completely irrevelevant whether I agree with you or not.
To move things along, just assume that I will answer whatever you question is with this: "Gee Dale, that's great, I agree with you 100%, but what is your plan to sell that point of view to the courts? And what if Congress plugs the revenue hole immediaty? Won't that bring us back to where we are now, rendering your whole mission as moot?"
Refer to my comment above to Perspective.
Nope.
Address it to me if you want me to consider it. I refuse to chase down splitting threads of dialog.
[2]And what if Congress plugs the revenue hole immediaty?
I believe I previously numbered that topic as [2].
I'm not done with this topic yet.
When I address topic [2], I will explain why Congress will not plug that hole, for reasons other then the one I am presently dealing with which makes that hole impossible for Congress to plug.
Won't that bring us back to where we are now, rendering your whole mission as moot?
No.
Now returning to the topic at hand:
YOU posted a link to a document... "YOUR" document.
"YOUR" document does not overrule the Supreme Court.
"YOUR" document claims that "the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax".
"YOUR" document is contradicted by the Brushaber case, which states NO DIRECT UNAPPORTIONED taxes.
In short, "YOUR" document contains a lie.
.
I hear you, Frank. He just keeps coming back for more. I'll keep knocking him down as long as he keeps coming at me. He doesn't have to, you know. He could face reality and admit he needs a plan to change the law.
Until then,
Down goes Frazier!
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/sc...ol=240&page=103
STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916) states:
But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation...
A power to levy a direct, unapportioned tax would be a new power of taxation.
In simple English, if a direct unapportion tax was not constitutional before the Sixteenth Amendment, it is NOT constitutional after the Sixteenth amendment.
http://www.synapticsparks.info/t.../ 16discuss.html
alleged IRS document that has
- no document "ID" number,
- no author,
- no publication date
- and is not listed as an official publication of the U.S. Government or U.S. Department of Treasury.
- And contains a provable
lie.
I think you guys are certifiably loony.
If you want the law to be interpreted differently, what is your plan?
Obviously, the courts have ruled that all your arguments are frivolous, so are you going to keep following your leaders off the cliff or get a plan to change the law.
You first have to accept what the law is and what it is not. It is not the way Dale sees it. It is the way the court sees it. The sooner you accept reality, the sooner you can deal with it.
Whining and denial make a poor plan for change.
It is not the way Dale sees it. It is the way the court sees it.
Well, golly gee... How come you don't want to discuss the way the Supreme Court sees the direct unapportioned taxes in the discussion of the 16th. Amendment in Brushaber and Stanton cases?
http://www.synapticsparks.info/t.../ 16discuss.html
Nevermind... It was a silly question.
Somebody just emailed me this link:
http://www.synapticsparks.info/t...o/them/ rg2.html
.
The result of generalized legal plunder is moral chaos precisely
because law and morality have been set at odds. “When
law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel
alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect
for the law.” Bastiat points out that for many people, what is legal
is legitimate. So they are plunged into confusion. And conflict.
***************
Props to Dale. I've got to point out a good post from you even though we have our differences.
I've been pointing out the difference between legality and morality to deaf ears (until now).
Maybe there is hope for you after all.
RG 03.28.06 - 9:16 am Sez:
Props to Dale. I've got to point out a good post from you even though we have our differences.
You must mean the differences you refuse to address.
RG (initials of his FAKE name) posts a link to a document.
That document states the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax.
RG is asked MULTIPLE times:
Do you agree that "the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax"?
RG replies but never answers the question.
Dialog history:
http://www.synapticsparks.info/t...o/them/ rg2.html