# Good ole GW Bush



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

I ran across a little known article on the Internet news. Next time you hear Bush say "Support the Troops" think of this.......Bush is requiring soldiers that are discharged early because of BATTLEFIELD INJURIES to PAYBACK their enlistment bonuses which could be as high as $20,000.00!!!!! Way to go, King George! I'm sure the money would be better served going to the corporations that manufacture weapons. Also, our "commander-in-chief" sent home the longest serving National Guard unit in Iraq after 729 days.......WHY, you ask? Because after 730 days they would be eligible for education benefits! What a guy! Let's keep the soldiers uneducated. That way, they can be easily fooled into going back to Iraq! Then, to add insult to injury, denied medical benefits to at least 22,000 veterans suffering from post traumatic stress for enlisting with "pre-existing conditions"!!!! Remember, Bush avoided going to Vietnam to "defend freedom" (yeh right). The only suffering he experienced back then was hangovers. His partner in crime, Cheney, got FOUR deferments that kept him from being drafted in the 60s. When Cheney was asked about this, he said he had (get this) "other priorities"!!! These brave men (I use the term "brave" VERY loosely) are always eager to rush to war as long as they and their loved ones stay here. They want our kids to go, of course. These guys are setting themselves up to make $$$$$$ hand over fist. Wait 'till they leave office and go back to the "private sector". Watch Cheney go back to Halliburton as a "consultant" (the company that he headed as CEO before he became vice-president) where a $10,000,000.00 deferment package is waiting for him. Halliburton happens to have gotten multi-billion dollar contracts from the government to supply the war effort while Cheney's in office. Oh, and by the way, they've also gotten billions in contracts for Katrina. Did you know that Halliburton charges the government (us!) $28.00 for every single breakfast, lunch and dinner our troops eat! Get a calculator, you'll need one. 160,000 troops eating three times a day at $28.00 a pop for, how long is it now? Goin' on for four years! Chi-ching!!!! This is how corporations show their patriotism and sacrifice for the common good. Before I forget, our former U.S. Attorney General, John Ashcroft, went back to the "private sector". He's now CEO of his own company that, a few weeks ago, got a $52,000,000.00 contract from our generous president. Coincidence, I'm sure. These guys are managing a criminal enterprise better than the Mafia. At least, the Mafia doesn't kill nearly as many people when they make their money. I'm not anti-American. I'm anti-government. BIG difference. Thomas Jefferson once said, "Love your country, but suspect the government". We are supposed to be a Republic. Republic means being a nation of laws. No one is above the law. Or so they say. Bush uses "executive orders" or "signing statements" to circumvent constitutional restrictions on executive powers. We have democratic elections, that's true. However, our government is supposed to be a Republic. Laws in a Republic protect the minority, in case the majority passes laws detrimental to the rights of the minority. Hence, the Bill of Rights. Remember those? An example of a pure democracy is this........Two hungry wolves and one sheep voting democratically on what's going to be for dinner. In a Republic, the sheep would be well-armed. A while back, I was wondering why the younger generation sits back while our rights wither away. The young are usually known for being rebellious. I think, maybe, they just are not aware. Possibly distracted by whether Brittney Spears is wearing panties or not. Back in the 60s, there were huge protests against the war in Vietnam and the draft. Many of these protesters were products of the educational system of the 50s. It occurred to me that, in the 50s, schools taught CIVICS! A lot of emphasis was placed on knowing how government works or is supposed to work. Not any more. Now, in grade school, you have a couple of weeks to prepare for a "Constitution Test" and that's it. No long term forum for debate or discussion on differing views. We can't let our schools become factories that produce automatons without capacity for independent thought. Then they risk being used as cannon fodder for the military and corporate establishment when they intervene in other countries' affairs. To me, this is just common sense. Whatever happened to common sense? Common decency? Traditional values taught by our parents (some of whom were "uneducated" but had lots of common sense!)? They seemed to have gone the way of the horse and carriage. How about "morals"? Is war moral? Is the entrenched global economic system moral when it fails hundreds of millions (maybe even billions) of the poor? You've seen the images on TV. Those commercials that show starving children. When they look at the camera, I feel that they're looking right at me. Their eyes convict me. Jesus said that the poor will always be with us. True. I believe He said it because He knew that we are incapable (due to our faults) of creating a system where there would be a more equitable distribution of the world's resources. We need Divine intervention. And we're going to get it! Later, Cesar.









I apologize if this is TOO MUCH for ones brain to absorb. If so, dont bother reading!


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2007)

I agree with you here, but I have trouble reading your post. It's all one rambling paragraph.

Maybe you could break it up into several paragraphs or use bullet points to make it more easily read.


----------



## boozehound420 (Apr 18, 2005)

This guy lets bush have it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2007)

Can you please post a link to the "little known article" you came across on the "Internet news"?


----------



## notaverage (Sep 10, 2005)

My what a long rant!
I watched the vid too...Dam depressing we have no control over this though...


----------



## Hater (Apr 21, 2006)

I read the whole thing and couldn't agree any more. That is why I'm voting democrat in the next election no matter who the candidate is.

President Bush first priority when he came to office was to start a war so he could cash in on all this private contracts. There is a dvd called the War Machine, I recommend everyone watches it.

I'm not into politics but even I know that the goverment we have now is garbage.

Hater


----------



## greenmonkey51 (Aug 16, 2004)

Do you have a source for this, also before anyone votes democrat because Bush is a Republican. Remember how bad congress is now and who's running it.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Boozehound. I REALLY appreciate you showing that clip. Maybe, just maybe, the IDIOTS who continue to follow/back-up this madman will see that he's simply NO GOOD! Closest thing to the DEVIL himself!


----------



## Guest (Dec 31, 2007)

baddfish said:


> Boozehound. I REALLY appreciate you showing that clip. Maybe, just maybe, the IDIOTS who continue to follow/back-up this madman will see that he's simply NO GOOD! Closest thing to the DEVIL himself!


You can keepo ignoring me, but your argument would be a lot more legit if you posted a source.


----------



## TheWayThingsR (Jan 4, 2007)

```
Also, our "commander-in-chief" sent home the longest serving National Guard unit in Iraq after 729 days.......WHY, you ask? Because after 730 days they would be eligible for education benefits!
```
This is because it use to be that once a unit was deployed to combat for 365 days and longer, each soldier would recieve and extra $100 a day! That was when it was only common to have 6 month deployments. Once deployments reached that length in time, they were sent home around the 360 day mark, honorably given a year, but denied the entirety because of the $$$$. A bill was then passed denying that $100 dollars after 365 days. Another was put into effect giving troops and extra $100 a day for 730 days and longer, NOT thinking any unit would be in combat for 2 or more years straight. Little did we know, the less organized Reserves and National Guard would do an AVERAGE of 18 month deployment and most almost hitting the 2 year mark. And because a bill hasnt been put into effect to stop that, the government sends them home a couple days early of that mark.

Even though the above is still shitty and not very supporting, it has nothing to do with education benefits. If they enlist and don't get kicked out, they get education benefits no matter what. Combat deployments has nothing to do with out.


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

Hater said:


> I read the whole thing and couldn't agree any more. That is why I'm voting democrat in the next election no matter who the candidate is.
> 
> President Bush first priority when he came to office was to start a war so he could cash in on all this private contracts. There is a dvd called the War Machine, I recommend everyone watches it.
> 
> ...


that sir is a very ignorant statement.if you think its a rebublican/democrat thing,you are dead wrong.if you think all you have to do is vote democrat to save the nation or something,you have some serious problems.even democrats will agree.even you say yourself"im not into politics"you could be voting some nutjob into office on only one thing.they are democrat.foolish.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

muskielover1 said:


> I read the whole thing and couldn't agree any more. That is why I'm voting democrat in the next election no matter who the candidate is.
> 
> President Bush first priority when he came to office was to start a war so he could cash in on all this private contracts. There is a dvd called the War Machine, I recommend everyone watches it.
> 
> ...


that sir is a very ignorant statement.if you think its a rebublican/democrat thing,you are dead wrong.if you think all you have to do is vote democrat to save the nation or something,you have some serious problems.even democrats will agree.even you say yourself"im not into politics"*you could be voting some nutjob into office on only one thing.they are democrat.foolish.*
[/quote]

Id rather vote in some "nutjob" who has the chance/possibility of changing the situation for the better rather than a tyrant that you know will screw you... Any change would be better than what Bush is doing now..


----------



## Hater (Apr 21, 2006)

> that sir is a very ignorant statement.if you think its a rebublican/democrat thing,you are dead wrong.if you think all you have to do is vote democrat to save the nation or something,you have some serious problems.even democrats will agree.even you say yourself"im not into politics"you could be voting some nutjob into office on only one thing.they are democrat.foolish.


The statement you made is even more foolish. It boils down to candidates and I'm aware of that.

All I know is, when Clinton was in office(Democrat) the economy was doing great but now since the the Bush administration(republicans) took over, our country is in shambles.

Why do I have problems? Because I believe that the government we have is garbage and that is time for a change?

The leading candidates for the Democrat party are Hillary Clinton and Oraka Bama(sp), so I know I'm not going to be voting for a nut job like you say. And anyway, you don't think the president we have now is a nut job?

Like the person in the above post said:



> Id rather vote in some "nut job" who has the chance/possibility of changing the situation for the better rather than a tyrant that you know will screw you... Any change would be better than what Bush is doing now


Thank you, could not have said it any better.

Hater


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Hater said:


> > that sir is a very ignorant statement.if you think its a rebublican/democrat thing,you are dead wrong.if you think all you have to do is vote democrat to save the nation or something,you have some serious problems.even democrats will agree.even you say yourself"im not into politics"you could be voting some nutjob into office on only one thing.they are democrat.foolish.
> 
> 
> The statement you made is even more foolish. It boils down to candidates and I'm aware of that.
> ...


So thats the way you make decisions in life is by association? So b/c the economy was "better" back w/ Clinton, the democrats know how to handle the economy and our country better? Kinda feel sad for you.


----------



## maddyfish (Sep 16, 2006)

Maybe it would be better if he threatened to pull the troops out, and wanted to set dates for surrendering, thereby improving the enemies' morale, causing them to feel like they could wait us out?


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

what was foolish about my statement?i wasnt backing bush anywhere in my statement.i was merely trying to show you how naiive your statement was about voting strictly democrat.what you are saying is that every republican is going to do the same thing as bush witch is a bullshit statement and you know it.you are not hearing what im saying.read more carefully.


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

TheWayThingsR said:


> ```
> Also, our "commander-in-chief" sent home the longest serving National Guard unit in Iraq after 729 days.......WHY, you ask? Because after 730 days they would be eligible for education benefits!
> ```
> This is because it use to be that once a unit was deployed to combat for 365 days and longer, each soldier would recieve and extra $100 a day! That was when it was only common to have 6 month deployments. Once deployments reached that length in time, they were sent home around the 360 day mark, honorably given a year, but denied the entirety because of the $$$$. A bill was then passed denying that $100 dollars after 365 days. Another was put into effect giving troops and extra $100 a day for 730 days and longer, NOT thinking any unit would be in combat for 2 or more years straight. Little did we know, the less organized *Reserves and National Guard would do an AVERAGE of 18 month deployment and most almost hitting the 2 year mark.* And because a bill hasnt been put into effect to stop that, the government sends them home a couple days early of that mark.
> ...


WTF? so the most "noobish" of the military branches are stuck over there for 18-24 months?? god damn does bush like to stick it to whoever he can. first of all i dont see how having a unit in a combat zone for 2 years is healthy (no combat zone is...but 2 years?!?!?!), let alone it being some guy who was expecting to be helping out back in the US...not sweating his balls off in a desert for some psycho.


----------



## joey'd (Oct 26, 2005)

all i read is military personal are subject to revocation of funds from disability, i need not read more, way to go GW


----------



## Dawgz (Aug 18, 2005)

and why the hell did this baboon win twice?....or get away with cheating twice.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Puff said:


> ```
> Also, our "commander-in-chief" sent home the longest serving National Guard unit in Iraq after 729 days.......WHY, you ask? Because after 730 days they would be eligible for education benefits!
> ```
> This is because it use to be that once a unit was deployed to combat for 365 days and longer, each soldier would recieve and extra $100 a day! That was when it was only common to have 6 month deployments. Once deployments reached that length in time, they were sent home around the 360 day mark, honorably given a year, but denied the entirety because of the $$$$. A bill was then passed denying that $100 dollars after 365 days. Another was put into effect giving troops and extra $100 a day for 730 days and longer, NOT thinking any unit would be in combat for 2 or more years straight. Little did we know, the less organized *Reserves and National Guard would do an AVERAGE of 18 month deployment and most almost hitting the 2 year mark.* And because a bill hasnt been put into effect to stop that, the government sends them home a couple days early of that mark.
> ...


WTF? so the most "noobish" of the military branches are stuck over there for 18-24 months?? god damn does bush like to stick it to whoever he can. first of all i dont see how having a unit in a combat zone for 2 years is healthy (no combat zone is...but 2 years?!?!?!), let alone it being some guy who was expecting to be helping out back in the US...not sweating his balls off in a desert for some psycho.
[/quote]

From my understanding, the national guard has served in all our our wars...so while many believe iraq was our 1st, its not the case.


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

i never said anything about them never serving in other wars. i was WELL aware of that. what i was trying to say was that the national guard are the "lowest trained" or whatever you want to call it...of the US armed forces. they arent the marines, they arent the army or navy...they are the national guard. i just assume that the other branches of the military get better funding, thus better training than the national guard. i know they all get buildup training and stuff...but a lot of national guard members didnt join up to go to iraq...and might not be considered as "hardcore" as those that joined up the marines or army, knowing full well that they would be going to iraq. i would think that over there, if there is a group of marines, and group of national guards...that the marines will kind of look over their nose at the NG...as the marines are _tougher_ or whatever they believe. obviously ppl who have joined the national guard recently know that there is a good chance that they will be sent over, but also probably a lower percentage chance than if they were in a different branch.


----------



## joey'd (Oct 26, 2005)

Dawgz said:


> and why the hell did this baboon win twice?....or get away with cheating twice.


----------



## jmax611 (Aug 6, 2006)




----------



## joey'd (Oct 26, 2005)

jmax611 said:


>


----------



## FuZZy (Apr 18, 2003)

Your facts are mostly bogus. That 729 deal thing was worked out, and the soldiers got education benefits, UR A IDIOT. I can respect somebody bashing Bush [Our President], but ppl like your are like children


----------



## joey'd (Oct 26, 2005)

FuZZy said:


> Your facts are mostly bogus. That 729 deal thing was worked out, and the soldiers got education benefits,* UR A IDIOT*. I can respect somebody bashing Bush [Our President], but ppl like your are like children


its your AN idiot thank you very much, try not to be one when your calling someone else one


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

joey said:


> Your facts are mostly bogus. That 729 deal thing was worked out, and the soldiers got education benefits,* UR A IDIOT*. I can respect somebody bashing Bush [Our President], but ppl like your are like children


its your AN idiot thank you very much, try not to be one when your calling someone else one








[/quote]

It's actually "you're an idiot". Try not to correct people incorrectly. It places you on their level.


----------



## JD7.62 (Apr 7, 2005)

This tread just reminded me why I dont like visiting the lounge much.

Its full of articles that are not sourced.
Knee jerk reactions.
Hell my fifth grade debate team could convey their point better then you guys can! One poor soul could not even spell the candidate's name he is voting for!

Grow up children. Like some one already said, I have no problem with some one wanting change or judge the current affairs of America but PLEASE do so with some validity!!

BTW who ever the f*ck said this country is in shambles?! Where are you from? I dont know about you but I went out last night, drove on fine paved roads, had a HEAVY presence of officers, rang in the new year with loads of family and friends, had no concerns for my safety, came home, laid in a nice bed in a warm house, woke up with a terrible hang over. Nothing about that suggested this country is in shambles you mother f*cking moron!


----------



## joey'd (Oct 26, 2005)

JD7.62 said:


> This tread just reminded me why I dont like visiting the lounge much.
> 
> _Its full of articles that are not sourced_.
> Knee jerk reactions.
> ...


who are you talking to *******?
please specify next time , you are not sourcing properly


----------



## Hater (Apr 21, 2006)

> BTW who ever the f*ck said this country is in shambles?! Where are you from? I dont know about you but I went out last night, drove on fine paved roads, had a HEAVY presence of officers, rang in the new year with loads of family and friends, had no concerns for my safety, came home, laid in a nice bed in a warm house, woke up with a terrible hang over. Nothing about that suggested this country is in shambles you mother f*cking moron!


Yeah because everyone in this country is living your life you f*cking *******.

What are you going to say next? That I should go back to my country?

We have soldiers dying in a war that should not have been started in the first place. We have not found the person who was responsible for the 911 attacks and we are spending billions of dollars to fund a meaningless war when we have people dying in our hospitals because the goverment won't fund their medical insurance or won't set up programs to fund the hospitals on their behalf. Did you know that in NJ, there is no more medicaid funding to pay for deliveries of new born babies, low income people now have to try to apply for other programs or just pay their hospital bills which could run into the tens of thousands. Where do you think the money is going *******?

Yes, this to me makes no sense. It's time for a change. It's time we elect someone who cares a little more about his or her country and not how much $$$$$ is going to go into their pockets.

Now wake the f*ck up you dumb ******* and smell the coffee, *ssh*l*.

Hater

P.S. If you need sources let me know ******* because I work for the hospitals and I can get you plenty of them.


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

Hater said:


> > BTW who ever the f*ck said this country is in shambles?! Where are you from? I dont know about you but I went out last night, drove on fine paved roads, had a HEAVY presence of officers, rang in the new year with loads of family and friends, had no concerns for my safety, came home, laid in a nice bed in a warm house, woke up with a terrible hang over. Nothing about that suggested this country is in shambles you mother f*cking moron!
> 
> 
> Yeah because everyone in this country is living your life you f*cking *******.
> ...










we obviously have a very mature person here.IBTL thanks to hater.


----------



## Hater (Apr 21, 2006)

> we obviously have a very mature person here.IBTL thanks to hater.


Yeah I'm not the mature person but is ok for him to call me a f*cking moron, oh excuse me, a m*ther f*cking moron. I'm all for debate and don't mind someone having a difference of opinion with me but when you go out of your way to insult me, then I have a problem.

Ban me, you say? I say, you can kiss my you know what.

Why don't you stop being selective about what you read, and read the whole thing.

Hater

*P.S Debates are not about who is right or wrong, having a different opinion doesn't make you weak, unintelligent, dumb or a moron, it just makes you different. When will some of you guys debate someones opinion without resorting to calling someone names?*


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

absolutly sir.noone should call anyone anything.this is true.i should have selected him as well.you are right about that.my bad.


----------



## Hater (Apr 21, 2006)

> absolutly sir.noone should call anyone anything.this is true.i should have selected him as well.you are right about that.my bad.


Thank you Muskie. As you can see, some people take politics too serious. That is why I decided to stay away from this thread. But when I read this gentleman call me a moron, something in me just lid up.

I'm not going to take back what I said. Moderators could delete, close or fix the post as you please. I don't have a problem with that.

Hater


----------



## JD7.62 (Apr 7, 2005)

Dont try to school me on what is going on with our so called medical crisis. My wife is a nurse on mother-baby and I perhaps work for a major insurance company on medical provider review. When you say low-income you really mean illegals and other worthless POS that cant get a job. f*ck when we had our baby we were very poor but you know what pisses us off? My wife had to go to work 6weeks after delivery to pay the bills and while at work she is taking care of illegals and crackheads who are having everything paid for them by the .gov! Oh and before you go about your racists remarks of calling me red-neck my wife is hispanic and hates all f*cking illegal Mexicans too!

I apologize for the name calling earlier (I just got up and was still drunk) but again, Im all for wanting change, but please please do it with some validity.

Joey'd, Im gonna call you a f*cking moron cause you just are. What the hell do you mean get sources? I never quoted any source!


----------



## Hater (Apr 21, 2006)

> Dont try to school me on what is going on with our so called medical crisis. My wife is a nurse on mother-baby and I perhaps work for a major insurance company on medical provider review. When you say low-income you really mean illegals and other worthless POS that cant get a job. f*ck when we had our baby we were very poor but you know what pisses us off? My wife had to go to work 6weeks after delivery to pay the bills and while at work she is taking care of illegals and crackheads who are having everything paid for them by the .gov! Oh and before you go about your racists remarks of calling me red-neck my wife is hispanic and hates all f*cking illegal Mexicans too!


I'm not going to rebuttal that, there is something personal there. I will say this though, not all low income people are illegals or Mexicans. To say you are not racist and make those statements is weird.



> I apologize for the name calling earlier (I just got up and was still drunk) but again, I'm all for wanting change, but please please do it with some validity.


Apology accepted and I agree with the second part of your sentence. I also apologize for the name calling too.

Hater


----------



## JD7.62 (Apr 7, 2005)

Yes not all are illegals or crackheads, but in my life experience of coming up from the bottom, if you are "low-income" only YOU can change that and YOU CAN change that so I have no sympathy for people that dont TRY to change. There is no better place in the world then America to do just that.

LoL I do find it funny that I keep getting called racist when I spent my new years in a latin club...


----------



## Hater (Apr 21, 2006)

JD7.62 said:


> Yes not all are illegals or crackheads, but in my life experience of coming up from the bottom, if you are "low-income" only YOU can change that and YOU CAN change that so I have no sympathy for people that dont TRY to change. There is no better place in the world then America to do just that.
> 
> LoL I do find it funny that I keep getting called racist when I spent my new years in a latin club...


That is the whole point, people are trying to change and do better but they need help. All the help that they need is no longer there because most of the funds used to get the low income people that help are being used to fund a meaningless war.

This is not about who is trying to change or not, or about you being a racist(which you obviously are, j/k) but about George Bush and the kind of government he is running right now.

This is why I'm all for a change and will be voting as so in the next election.

Hater


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

Hater you have a very optimistic view of human nature if thats what you truly believe.


----------



## Hater (Apr 21, 2006)

Lowporkwa said:


> Hater you have a very *optimistic* view of human nature if thats what you truly believe.


Yes, I expect the best out of people unless they prove otherwise.

I find it easier to believe a poor person will do whatever they can to get rich or get better off then a poor person will do nothing to better himself and stay poor forever.

To assume that all low income people are there because they chose to is just silly. I'm poor myself and I refuse to believe that this is where I want to be for the rest of my life. That is why I work 2 jobs and go to school.

I'm not asking my government to give me my riches, I'm well aware that the opportunities are there. What I'm asking is that our government uses the tax money that it takes from us and puts it to better use. No one in here, and I mean, no one in here can make any sense of this war that we are having in Iraq and about all the tax dollars that are being spent in it.

I believe it is time to get someone elected that has a little bit of common sense and that puts this country first, not their pockets. Do I know if the next candidates are the person who will make this changes? hell no. But I'm at the point that I will take anything over what we have now.

Hater


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Hater said:


> Hater you have a very *optimistic* view of human nature if thats what you truly believe.


Yes, I expect the best out of people unless they prove otherwise.

I find it easier to believe a poor person will do whatever they can to get rich or get better off then a poor person will do nothing to better himself and stay poor forever.

To assume that all low income people are there because they chose to is just silly. I'm poor myself and I refuse to believe that this is where I want to be for the rest of my life. That is why I work 2 jobs and go to school.

I'm not asking my government to give me my riches, I'm well aware that the opportunities are there. What I'm asking is that our government uses the tax money that it takes from us and puts it to better use. No one in here, and I mean, no one in here can make any sense of this war that we are having in Iraq and about all the tax dollars that are being spent in it.

I believe it is time to get someone elected that has a little bit of common sense and that puts this country first, not their pockets. Do I know if the next candidates are the person who will make this changes? hell no. But I'm at the point that I will take anything over what we have now.

Hater

[/quote]

out of respectful curiosity, what better use would you like to see tax dollars spent on?


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

Dawgz said:


> and why the hell did this baboon win twice?....or get away with cheating twice.


How did he "cheat"?


----------



## joey'd (Oct 26, 2005)

JD7.62 said:


> Joey'd, Im gonna call you a f*cking moron cause you just are. What the hell do you mean get sources? I never quoted any source!


i mean, if your gonna say as your originally did, "you f*cking moron" at least quote a source that you are reffering to, unless you were just calling everyone in the thread a f*cking moron which in that case i would assume you were including yourself










*******


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)




----------



## Hater (Apr 21, 2006)

> out of respectful curiosity, what better use would you like to see tax dollars spent on?


Are you serious? You can't think of anything the government can spend your tax dollars besides a war?

Then my friend, I'm afraid I can't help you.

Hater


----------



## the_skdster (Aug 15, 2006)

Meh. Decent read.
God Bless CANADA!


----------



## PacmanXSA (Nov 15, 2004)

I got banned for some of the sh*t that happened in this thread. I suggest many of ya watch your tones.

Source the link and then people can comment. This is useless without a source.

Pac


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Hater said:


> > out of respectful curiosity, what better use would you like to see tax dollars spent on?
> 
> 
> Are you serious? You can't think of anything the government can spend your tax dollars besides a war?
> ...


i was asking what YOU thought. i know what i think.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

ChilDawg said:


> and why the hell did this baboon win twice?....or get away with cheating twice.


How did he "cheat"?

[/quote]

oh didn't you hear? apparently, the state in question in 2000 was Florida and Jeb Bush just went ahead and rigged the count. and since he "cheated" in 2000, the victory in 2004 was also cheating. i mean true, there's no credible proof, but if we started requiring proof of wild allegations, we'd be up a river with all the lovely conspiracy theories out there.

just look at this thread's original post. the OP puts up one rambling paragraph as "a little known article on the Internet news" and after repeated requests, no source was given. this is a tactic he used twice in the Bhutto thread as well. it's great to show up and write rambling paragraph after rambling paragraph as your own thought. that, at least, makes a little sense. but when you start "quoting" statements that only YOU know where they are it takes the wind out of your argument, even if you won't admit it doesn't it?


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2008)

I agree mdrs. There is no source, just opinion and some wild out-of-a-can factoids.


----------



## pyrokingbrand (Nov 30, 2004)

Concerning this conflict with which *we all are involved * with, as well as its shaded/unshaded intentions whatever

they may be, because we will never really know everything that is going on. I am not a preacher but we have to

actively educate ourselves! I read this book which is titled "WAR IS A RACKET" which was very informative, although

it is oldschool, the priniciples are all very viable concerning our present status. Read about it on amazon, one word incredible.

It was written by this guy: Smedley Darlington Butler 

His book: WAR IS A RACKET

On a side note, although our country is not in an unlivable state it is important in my opinion to make sure that this crap will

never even get a chance to occur. I would say that this is my main concern especially because I have so much of my life left to

live and I do not want a future that is rife with unpleasantries. I love this country (america) but it requires change now and then

and I think that this is the problem now. It seems that many within our society are ignorant in their happiness. It seems people

just sit around content with their plasma and sofa doing nothing when things go awry politically and globally just becasue of their

own personal comfort level. Our rights as ctizens are lost in the name of security

(PATRIOT ACT) , which is a joke. Come on you guys WE HAVE LOST HABEOUS CORPUS look it up!

I dont know if anything I say is true in its reality. I say that because when you look up news on the net you read about the

same story 20 different ways so you get an idea but not the truth. Thats another rant for another topic but you get the point. I

guess after all this, it just seems that WE THE PEOPLE HAVE LOST THIS COUNTRY in a way AND ITS NOT REALLY OURS

ANYMORE!?!? Maybe this statment is a bit much but I feel a loss of control as a citizen, pertaining to the damage that has been

done. There seems to be a feeling of hopelessness in our destiny and i think this is unfortunate. Does anyone else on p-fury feel

this way? By the way I am not some tree hugging hippie hoping for changes with my posterboard, but I do love this nation and

the humanity it has a responsibility for. Like I said before, I do not know everthing thats going on but I think

that mistakes have been made and unfortunatly the damage has been done, but hey we can make changes for the better.

We are citizens are we not? We are all patriots and we must stay on our feet so that the terrific sacrifices made by others are

not forgotten and taken for granted.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

How, exactly, have we lost habeas corpus?


----------



## pyrokingbrand (Nov 30, 2004)

Taken from Amnesty international website, third paragraph in its entirety:

"In October of 2006, the President signed the Military Commissions Act (MCA) into law, a bill that stripped Guantanamo detainees and others of fundamental human rights, including the right to habeas. Since the bill was signed into law, the US has moved to dismiss the case of Ali al-Marri, *a US resident who has been held as an enemy combatant for almost four years*. It argued that the MCA stripped any alien "unlawful enemy combatant" of the right to challenge their detention in court. A federal court also declined to hear a challenge to the new military commissions, stating a lack of jurisdiction due to the MCA. Not long after, a federal appeals court dismissed habeas petitions for Guantanamo detainees, holding that the MCA removed their jurisdiction to hear the cases. *This ruling affects not only foreign nationals detained in Guantanamo, but could even impact the rights of legal permanent residents here in the United States*."

Amnesty International Habeas Corpus LINK

Wiki links to Habeas Corpus

Military Commissions act 2006 (wiki link)

I realize that the majority of the quoted paragraph pertains to detainees at Guantanamo but the last sentence is somwhat

unsettling considering how many grey areas there are within the language of law. A tree doesent just fall with a push you

slowly chip at it.


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

That last sentance is not fact, just someones interpretation of the law. For that to even happen you would have to pose some incredibly grave threat to the security of the state, and if that happened, im sure the public wouldnt hear about it.

Regardless, a lot of people need to quit thinking everyone is out to get them.

If you arent doing anything wrong, why does the patriot act bother you?


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

boozehound420 said:


> This guy lets bush have it.


damn good video, hmmm who was the Gov. of Florida? Jeb Bush (his brother) and how close was that race?... 2nd time around who was he facing? a douch bag, I don't even remeber because he flipped his opinions on the war and other topics. The first time, he robbed Al Gore the second time he was handed that sh*t!..lol


----------



## pyrokingbrand (Nov 30, 2004)

LOWPORKWA - I guess we simply differ in our views but I believe it is good for US citizens to be on their toes because it helps in

keeping an excellent watch upon the dealings of our government. The last sentence may be an interpretation but this government

should not have that possible power in any interpretation. The principles are whats at stake, the idea of democracy and in keeping this

government from any deviations from that path. Here is a bit from old Ben Franklin:

Franklin wrote: *"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."* (Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, Tue, Nov 11, 1755)

LINK

As a US citizen I believe that we citizens should have a unanimous feeling of control over our government if required. Not

the other way around. Although a "unanimous feeling" is simply a state of mind, I guess I am a dreamer who hopes that all US

citizens would be involved politically at a high level. Its our right for cripes sake and the polling stations as we all know are

visted by less then half the American population. A depressing joke to say the least.


----------



## Hater (Apr 21, 2006)

> If you arent doing anything wrong, why does the patriot act bother you?


It's called privacy my friend and whether I'm doing something right or wrong, I shouldn't be deprived off it.

Hater


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Another EXCELLENT site that dicloses truth's. www.prisonplanet.com


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

baddfish said:


> Another EXCELLENT site that dicloses truth's. www.prisonplanet.com


if you can post this as a credible news site, i'll be posting "truth's" from world net daily.


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

If you guys want to debate...great...but leave out the name calling or another decent discussion will need to be closed. It is unbelievable how undereducated some of you appear when you need to resort to profanity and personal attacks to get your point across. If that is all you have....dont post in this thread...you look pathetic.


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

pyrokingbrand said:


> LOWPORKWA - I guess we simply differ in our views but I believe it is good for US citizens to be on their toes because it helps in
> 
> keeping an excellent watch upon the dealings of our government. The last sentence may be an interpretation but this government
> 
> ...


Now that is a quote that i thought of immediately upon posting what I stated. While it came from arguably one of the greatest Americans in the history of this nation, that doesn't mean I have to agree with it. I feel safer knowing that when I was in the airport everyone has to pass through extensive security, i feel safe knowing there are constant searches for people that would want to inflict any harm to me or any other american. I can't really even point out one 'liberty' that the current administration has taken away from me. I can point out however, the complete lack of terrorist attacks on our soil, and that is something people seem to not notice.

And I agree with your statement about citizens having a feel of control over our government if required. The only fundamental problem with that arguement is that people never agree on anything. (as evident by this thread







) I also think that a vast majority of citizens simply aren't educated enough or mature enough to handle that type of responsibility. I feel much safer with the system the way it is now.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Why do people want sources and what makes a source credible? I believe that any government owned media is not a credible source and that is what most people think a credible source is.

An example being the 9/11 attack. People say that the loose change is not a valid source and its a students opinion based on the fact that the NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology) discredited them. So whos the NIST? A FEDERAL owned agency. So whos more credible, someone who has no relations to the government or a agency that is run by the government trying to protect the government?

Another example as far as the media goes is CNN and BBS two of the most known news/media companies that must have some credibility. So what makes them credible? The fact that they broadcast news before it even happens like the collapse of WTC7? BBS announced the collapse before it even happened.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

8o8P said:


> Why do people want sources and what makes a source credible? I believe that any government owned media is not a credible source and that is what most people think a credible source is.
> 
> An example being the 9/11 attack. People say that the loose change is not a valid source and its a students opinion based on the fact that the NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology) discredited them. So whos the NIST? A FEDERAL owned agency. So whos more credible, someone who has no relations to the government or a agency that is run by the government trying to protect the government?


So, wait...I can make up any lies I want, and suddenly I'm more credible than the government because I'm calling them out?


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Your president LIVES on the basis of lies! EXCELLENT point 8o8P. Finally another person with rational!!!


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

A source is someone that has some degree of academic accredidation. Now you not trusting the government is your own accord, and i'm not starting a seperate discussion on that.

Regardless, a credible source usually comes from someone with some academic background, someone that is not being influenced by any outside people or companies, and has reproducible facts and figures that were collected and reported using honest methods.

So generally, outside of the scientific field ( in my experience being a chemist ) one won't find many sources that are perfectly credible and undisputable.

Giving a source, any source, just helps one establish the validity of whatever that person is claiming.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

ChilDawg said:


> Why do people want sources and what makes a source credible? I believe that any government owned media is not a credible source and that is what most people think a credible source is.
> 
> An example being the 9/11 attack. People say that the loose change is not a valid source and its a students opinion based on the fact that the NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology) discredited them. So whos the NIST? A FEDERAL owned agency. So whos more credible, someone who has no relations to the government or a agency that is run by the government trying to protect the government?


So, wait...I can make up any lies I want, and suddenly I'm more credible than the government because I'm calling them out?
[/quote]

Whos to say they are lies? Thats my point. Just because a BIG corporate owned business doesnt tell you the info makes it a lie and uncredible? How can you trust a company that is run by the entity it is trying to protect.


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

8o8P said:


> Why do people want sources and what makes a source credible? I believe that any government owned media is not a credible source and that is what most people think a credible source is.
> 
> An example being the 9/11 attack. People say that the loose change is not a valid source and its a students opinion based on the fact that the NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology) discredited them. So whos the NIST? A FEDERAL owned agency. So whos more credible, someone who has no relations to the government or a agency that is run by the government trying to protect the government?


So, wait...I can make up any lies I want, and suddenly I'm more credible than the government because I'm calling them out?
[/quote]

Whos to say they are lies? Thats my point. Just because a BIG corporate owned business doesnt tell you the info makes it a lie and uncredible? How can you trust a company that is run by the entity it is trying to protect.
[/quote]

2nd that


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Lowporkwa said:


> A source is someone that has some degree of academic accredidation. Now you not trusting the government is your own accord, and i'm not starting a seperate discussion on that.
> 
> Regardless, a credible source usually comes from someone with some academic background, someone that is *not being influenced by any outside people or companies,* and has *reproducible facts and figures that were collected and reported using honest methods.
> *
> ...


Im not trying to argue, but you name me one "credible" source that fits this definition.

Last statement response... people dont want sources they want credible ones.


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

How can you trust a group of students over a group of well established scientists? The data NIST shows can be reproduced by ANYONE and shows scientifically what actually happened. You trust factual evidence, not random opinions.

I just don't understand your logic on this particular example. You trust some kids not even out of college over PhD level scientists. Really once again, nobody is out to get you, stop thinking like that.

But regardless, nobody can make you trust or believe in anything, they can merely point out evidence and its your decision in which side you take. Knowing someones background, who they work for, who is funding them, etc etc etc, helps you better make that decision.

If you really think that the government is responsible for 9/11 and believe everything said on loose change thats your own accord, I dont care. I'll stick with what i believe.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

With all this said, I got one last point.. Do all you people pay Federal income tax? If so, why? Because the government tells you that you have to or your going to jail.. So you ASSUME thats credible info because the government tells you so and you agree signing a W2 and give up majority of your hard earned money.

Well wake up people NO ONE and I will say it again NO ONE needs to pay a federal income tax. You are being tricked by a so called credible source, your US government.



Lowporkwa said:


> How can you trust a group of students over a group of well established scientists? The data NIST shows can be reproduced by ANYONE and shows scientifically what actually happened. You trust factual evidence, not random opinions.
> 
> I just don't understand your logic on this particular example. You trust some kids not even out of college over PhD level scientists. Really once again, nobody is out to get you, stop thinking like that.
> 
> ...


First off, I used that as an example as its a widely known example. But just because their scientist makes them credible? They are working for the government, look at what you wrote, I bolded it. Like someone said above, give me a scientist who has no outside influence. There are other scientists and engineers that have gone on file to say that it couldnt have happened the way it was explained. Professional demolition crews have gone on file saying that this was a controlled demolition. So whos right? They both got the degrees and experience to back up their claims but id rather listen to someone who isnt influenced by "big brother"


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

8o8P said:


> A source is someone that has some degree of academic accredidation. Now you not trusting the government is your own accord, and i'm not starting a seperate discussion on that.
> 
> Regardless, a credible source usually comes from someone with some academic background, someone that is *not being influenced by any outside people or companies,* and has *reproducible facts and figures that were collected and reported using honest methods.
> *
> ...


Im not trying to argue, but you name me one "credible" source that fits this definition.

Last statement response... people dont want sources they want credible ones.
[/quote]

Haha and i'm not trying to argue with you either. I was trying to allude to the fact that there are few if any purely 100% credible sources, only ones that can be said to be more 'credible' than others. I didnt really state that very well in my previous post, and i apoligize for that









This is getting way too philosophical


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

8o8P said:


> How can you trust a group of students over a group of well established scientists? The data NIST shows can be reproduced by ANYONE and shows scientifically what actually happened. You trust factual evidence, not random opinions.
> 
> I just don't understand your logic on this particular example. You trust some kids not even out of college over PhD level scientists. Really once again, nobody is out to get you, stop thinking like that.
> 
> ...


First off, I used that as an example as its a widely known example. But just because their scientist makes them credible? They are working for the government, look at what you wrote, I bolded it. Like someone said above, give me a scientist who has no outside influence. There are other scientists and engineers that have gone on file to say that it couldnt have happened the way it was explained. Professional demolition crews have gone on file saying that this was a controlled demolition. So whos right? They both got the degrees and experience to back up their claims but id rather listen to someone who isnt influenced by "big brother"
[/quote]

Well this is where the whole idea of sources is required. I would like to know who exactly these engineers that claim this are, what their professional background is, their experience, who is funding THEM, etc etc etc. Same goes for these various scientists and demolition crews. Who is to say that they are not being influenced by some outside force as well? Who's to say they say these things not merely to gain some fame or make money themselves?

Once again, while i'm not saying i trust the government scientists more than others, they are the only ones i have seen so far that put forth all the evidence and explain it clearly using scientific method. I am a scientist and i will tend to side with other accredited scientists. Sorry its simply the nature of who I am and what i believe.

If you choose to believe a different view, cool with me, i'm not saying you are right or wrong in that belief. I am just stating how different people choose what to believe based on the information provided.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

8o8P said:


> Why do people want sources and what makes a source credible? I believe that any government owned media is not a credible source and that is what most people think a credible source is.
> 
> An example being the 9/11 attack. People say that the loose change is not a valid source and its a students opinion based on the fact that the NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology) discredited them. So whos the NIST? A FEDERAL owned agency. So whos more credible, someone who has no relations to the government or a agency that is run by the government trying to protect the government?


So, wait...I can make up any lies I want, and suddenly I'm more credible than the government because I'm calling them out?
[/quote]

Whos to say they are lies? Thats my point. Just because a BIG corporate owned business doesnt tell you the info makes it a lie and uncredible? How can you trust a company that is run by the entity it is trying to protect.
[/quote]

I didn't say that, did I? What I meant is that, by YOUR standards, written here on P-Fury, you would trust me more than the government if I told lies about them, because a government denial would come from the party interested in denying my false accusations.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

ChilDawg said:


> How can you trust a group of students over a group of well established scientists? The data NIST shows can be reproduced by ANYONE and shows scientifically what actually happened. You trust factual evidence, not random opinions.
> 
> I just don't understand your logic on this particular example. You trust some kids not even out of college over PhD level scientists. Really once again, nobody is out to get you, stop thinking like that.
> 
> ...


First off, I used that as an example as its a widely known example. But just because their scientist makes them credible? They are working for the government, look at what you wrote, I bolded it. Like someone said above, give me a scientist who has no outside influence. There are other scientists and engineers that have gone on file to say that it couldnt have happened the way it was explained. Professional demolition crews have gone on file saying that this was a controlled demolition. So whos right? They both got the degrees and experience to back up their claims but id rather listen to someone who isnt influenced by "big brother"
[/quote]

Well this is where the whole idea of sources is required. I would like to know who exactly these engineers that claim this are, what their professional background is, their experience, who is funding THEM, etc etc etc. Same goes for these various scientists and demolition crews. Who is to say that they are not being influenced by some outside force as well? Who's to say they say these things not merely to gain some fame or make money themselves?

Once again, while i'm not saying i trust the government scientists more than others, they are the only ones i have seen so far that put forth all the evidence and explain it clearly using scientific method. I am a scientist and i will tend to side with other accredited scientists. Sorry its simply the nature of who I am and what i believe.
*
If you choose to believe a different view, cool with me, i'm not saying you are right or wrong in that belief. I am just stating how different people choose what to believe based on the information provided.*
[/quote]
I am glad we can have a civilized chat.


----------



## pyrokingbrand (Nov 30, 2004)

I think its good that this topic is becoming philosophical because it is what needs to be discussed. For example: we are

saturated with unpleasant news daily every second (fox news, CNN, etc...). Is this right ethically P-Furians? This is not an

example deciding if these news sources are legit, simply a base to work from. Think about all of the people that you meet in

your daily life that use these news sources as their only form of information. What is the effect upon the average human being?

This for example is where changes need to be made. I'm not saying that information should be turned off or censored in any

way, my opinion is quite the opposite in fact, but it seems as if fear and terror are the words pounded into our brains daily. This

has an effect upon people over time psychologically. Don't get me wrong I love the security at airports but the constant

warnings from the department of Homeland Security over the intercom system is kind of creepy.

On the otherside of the argument I nor most likely many of you will ever know what is really going on in the world within the

shadows. (that movie MUNICH for example creeps me out, all the crazy clandestine $hit. I know its just a movie but Israel's

Mossad did take out alot of the people responsible in real life. OPERATION WRATH OF GOD )
So maybe all of this security within the US (and other countries) is perfectly reasonable but at the same time, how do we know?

The age old question I guess... It seems through educaation of the masses, we will be able to make this country what it was

meant to be, but Ill agree, that you cannot please everyone........its alot to digest, maybe this is why so many people do not talk

about this stuff.... we simply do not know..

///closes eyes brain explodes

LMFAO


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

I will use myself as a example about credible sources and the info they provide.

I am one man, on the internet in a forum telling you that you dont have to pay federal income tax. I am not a scientists, I only have an associates degree. But the info I am telling you is true. Believe it or not. You do not have to pay an income tax despite what you believe and what the government or IRS tells you. In fact, many people reading this will NOT believe what I am saying as they will take the governments word over mine and that is the brainwashing that this government has placed upon its people. But I know for a fact that you dont have to pay as I havent paid in two years, my father hasnt paid in four years, and we have met people that hasnt paid in decades ALL of us are not in jail. So just because I am not a credible source doesnt mean the info i am telling you is a lie.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

8o8P said:


> I will use myself as a example about credible sources and the info they provide.
> 
> I am one man, on the internet in a forum telling you that you dont have to pay federal income tax. I am not a scientists, I only have an associates degree. But the info I am telling you is true. Believe it or not. You do not have to pay an income tax despite what you believe and what the government or IRS tells you. In fact, many people reading this will NOT believe what I am saying as they will take the governments word over mine and that is the brainwashing that this government has placed upon its people. But I know for a fact that you dont have to pay as I havent paid in two years, my father hasnt paid in four years, and we have met people that hasnt paid in decades ALL of us are not in jail. So just because I am not a credible source doesnt mean the info i am telling you is a lie.


Admitting it publically is not a good idea, I would imagine, but that's just me.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

8o8P said:


> With all this said, I got one last point.. Do all you people pay Federal income tax? If so, why? Because the government tells you that you have to or your going to jail.. So you ASSUME thats credible info because the government tells you so and you agree signing a W2 and give up majority of your hard earned money.
> 
> Well wake up people NO ONE and I will say it again NO ONE needs to pay a federal income tax. You are being tricked by a so called credible source, your US government.


oh wow. okay so let's see if i can get this all in. there's a difference between "credible info" and a LAW. it is the LAW that you pay income tax. if you don't and you owe, you go to jail. a w2 is only a way of seeing if you have to pay MORE tax or not. the government talking about how you pay income tax is an especially terrible example of of government lies.



> First off, I used that as an example as its a widely known example. But just because their scientist makes them credible? They are working for the government, look at what you wrote, I bolded it. Like someone said above, give me a scientist who has no outside influence. There are other scientists and engineers that have gone on file to say that it couldnt have happened the way it was explained. Professional demolition crews have gone on file saying that this was a controlled demolition. So whos right? They both got the degrees and experience to back up their claims but id rather listen to someone who isnt influenced by "big brother"


 and i've seen documentaries about 911 where the original structural designer said that the walls fell exactly as they should have had they been impacted by commercial jets. i watched the history channel documentary about cleanup where he worked directly with the involved parties to asses weaknesses in walls and what could be taken out first. if the man who designed it said that the walls were right where they should have been in the case of a plane colliding with them who would know better?

and what media companies are "government owned"? i'm REALLY curious about that one. please tell me what "scientists and engineers" have "gone on file to say that it couldn't have happened the way it was explained". you see, this is where SOURCES are important. you say something i don't believe and you show me where you found said information to maintain the understanding that you actually do read about this and are credible. this is how a rational debate works. that way, when i say something that YOU don't believe, you can ask for my source and keep me honest as well. otherwise, we can both spew bogus facts and don't have to be informed at all.

again, this is how a rational debate works. if you want to stop posting in this discussion, i'd understand because when asked for factual data, many conspiracy guys just shut down and call me a sheep.


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

I love spending more time on this thread than lab work right now lol









but anyways,

I really dont blame the news media for constantly reporting bad news. I really think they do it for the mere fact that it sells. It seems the american mass would really just rather watch this than other news reporting 'good' things. Maybe this reflects the ideology of American society more than just the news media's unwillingness to report 'good' news for the most part. Is it ethically right? probably not, but if you were in charge of these companies, would'nt you rather get more money?









Maybe the problem isnt the media reporting the bad news, but us as Americans eating it up! If we collectively tuned out until better news is on TV that would solve the problem lol!

But honest i think it only impacts the american psychologically as much as it lets them. I take what i hear on the news for the most part with a grain of salt.

Oh and i wish i knew about all the clandestine agencies, technology etc that exists, as im sure there is some really really crazy stuff out there


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

8o8P said:


> I will use myself as a example about credible sources and the info they provide.
> 
> I am one man, on the internet in a forum telling you that you dont have to pay federal income tax. I am not a scientists, I only have an associates degree. But the info I am telling you is true. Believe it or not. You do not have to pay an income tax despite what you believe and what the government or IRS tells you. In fact, many people reading this will NOT believe what I am saying as they will take the governments word over mine and that is the brainwashing that this government has placed upon its people. But I know for a fact that you dont have to pay as I havent paid in two years, my father hasnt paid in four years, and we have met people that hasnt paid in decades ALL of us are not in jail. So just because I am not a credible source doesnt mean the info i am telling you is a lie.


this is another good opportunity to discuss the validity of sources. for instance you don't understand that you don't have the opportunity to "not pay" income tax. your wages are garnished by the government before you get a paycheck, unless you get paid under the table. you confuse paying income tax with filing a return.

that aside, if you know "for a fact" that you DON'T "have to pay" income tax, please by all means show me some FACTS. show me a SOURCE that says the income tax laws are a myth. simply saying "i haven't paid and nothing's happened to me" is not proof the there are no laws stating the income tax isn't mandatory.


----------



## armac (Nov 28, 2002)

8o8P said:


> I will use myself as a example about credible sources and the info they provide.
> 
> I am one man, on the internet in a forum telling you that you dont have to pay federal income tax. I am not a scientists, I only have an associates degree. But the info I am telling you is true. Believe it or not. You do not have to pay an income tax despite what you believe and what the government or IRS tells you. In fact, many people reading this will NOT believe what I am saying as they will take the governments word over mine and that is the brainwashing that this government has placed upon its people. But I know for a fact that you dont have to pay as I havent paid in two years, my father hasnt paid in four years, and we have met people that hasnt paid in decades ALL of us are not in jail. So just because I am not a credible source doesnt mean the info i am telling you is a lie.


All that will catch up to you. Where you and your tax absconding buddies will not have to worry about taxes or internet, it is call the Federal Penal System................


----------



## Hater (Apr 21, 2006)

> Admitting it publically is not a good idea, I would imagine, but that's just me.


I don't believe he is doing anything illegal. There must be something he knows that allows him not to pay his taxes.

How about sharing with us?

Hater


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

mdrs said:


> With all this said, I got one last point.. Do all you people pay Federal income tax? If so, why? Because the government tells you that you have to or your going to jail.. So you ASSUME thats credible info because the government tells you so and you agree signing a W2 and give up majority of your hard earned money.
> 
> Well wake up people NO ONE and I will say it again NO ONE needs to pay a federal income tax. You are being tricked by a so called credible source, your US government.


oh wow. okay so let's see if i can get this all in. there's a difference between "credible info" and a LAW. *it is the LAW that you pay income tax.* if you don't and you owe, you go to jail. a w2 is only a way of seeing if you have to pay MORE tax or not. *the government talking about how you pay income tax is an especially terrible example of of government lies.*



> First off, I used that as an example as its a widely known example. But just because their scientist makes them credible? They are working for the government, look at what you wrote, I bolded it. Like someone said above, give me a scientist who has no outside influence. There are other scientists and engineers that have gone on file to say that it couldnt have happened the way it was explained. Professional demolition crews have gone on file saying that this was a controlled demolition. So whos right? They both got the degrees and experience to back up their claims but id rather listen to someone who isnt influenced by "big brother"


 and i've seen documentaries about 911 where the original structural designer said that the walls fell exactly as they should have had they been impacted by commercial jets. i watched the history channel documentary about cleanup where he worked directly with the involved parties to asses weaknesses in walls and what could be taken out first. if the man who designed it said that the walls were right where they should have been in the case of a plane colliding with them who would know better?

and what media companies are "government owned"? i'm REALLY curious about that one. please tell me what "scientists and engineers" have "gone on file to say that it couldn't have happened the way it was explained". you see, this is where SOURCES are important. you say something i don't believe and you show me where you found said information to maintain the understanding that you actually do read about this and are credible. this is how a rational debate works. that way, when i say something that YOU don't believe, you can ask for my source and keep me honest as well. otherwise, we can both spew bogus facts and don't have to be informed at all.

again, this is how a rational debate works. if you want to stop posting in this discussion, i'd understand because when asked for factual data, many conspiracy guys just shut down and call me a sheep.
[/quote]

SHOW ME THE LAW!! Show me where it says you have to pay an income tax.... Ill give you the rest of your life to show me as there is no law that says you have to pay an income tax. If you are referring to amendment 16 then you should research it more as you will see that it was illegally ratified as it did not have the 3/4 vote that was necessary. Also, if you read the amendment there are direct and indirect taxes and you cannot have a direct tax on a US citizen which is what the federal income tax is.

Look up a man named Joseph Banister, he is a former IRS CRIMINAL investigation division special agent. While working under the IRS, he learned that what they are doing is illegal and unethical. He started his own company to educate Americans about the corruption that is being brought upon Americans by its government. In 2004, he was indicted for many violations including conspircay against the Federal Reserve. As of 2005, he was acquitted of ALL charges and is a free man today.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

8o8P said:


> SHOW ME THE LAW!! Show me where it says you have to pay an income tax.... Ill give you the rest of your life to show me as there is no law that says you have to pay an income tax. If you are referring to amendment 16 then you should research it more as you will see that it was illegally ratified as it did not have the 3/4 vote that was necessary. Also, if you read the amendment there are direct and indirect taxes and you cannot have a direct tax on a US citizen which is what the federal income tax is..


How do you figure? 38 out of 48 states ratified it...


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Hater said:


> > Admitting it publically is not a good idea, I would imagine, but that's just me.
> 
> 
> I don't believe he is doing anything illegal. There must be something he knows that allows him not to pay his taxes.
> ...


Yes, there is a right way to get this done. I went through a company that is comprised of lawyers and former IRS agents. I DO NOT encourage you to just stop paying your taxes, you will definately go to jail. I will explain it to you in a simplified manner.

When you decided to work, you filled out a W2 form. This form is then turned into the IRS and a IMF is created. A IMF is a Individual Master file. What is in that file is your entire work history, it states all the jobs you had, time started, time ended, the amount of money earned, collected, and money returned via tax returns or money owed. You can request this file via a Freedom of Information act. Upon getting this file, majority of the info is written in code via numbers. (That is why you need the company I went through, as lawyers and IRS agents can decipher them)

Like I said earlier a direct tax CANNOT be imposed upon US citizens. It can only be imposed on foreigners working within the US or US residents working abroad. With that said, and this is the illegal part, the IRS puts on record that you are a foreigner working in the US and therefore you can be taxed. According to my IMF, I was a resident of the Bahamas and a cigarette salesman. How does this benefit you? If I am a resident of the Bahamas, I apply to THEIR laws for income tax and THEIR laws is NOT applicable in the USA. Therefore, I will agree with what is on my IMF and put it in public records so that anyone who wants to investigate me may do so. From there, all US laws for income tax do not apply to me as I am a resident of the Bahamas as stated by the IRS in my IMF. In conclusion, I pay no taxes.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

ChilDawg said:


> SHOW ME THE LAW!! Show me where it says you have to pay an income tax.... Ill give you the rest of your life to show me as there is no law that says you have to pay an income tax. If you are referring to amendment 16 then you should research it more as you will see that it was illegally ratified as it did not have the 3/4 vote that was necessary. Also, if you read the amendment there are direct and indirect taxes and you cannot have a direct tax on a US citizen which is what the federal income tax is..


How do you figure? 38 out of 48 states ratified it...
[/quote]

You really need to do your research. There were only 38 states that were on the board that would ratify the law. MOST of them did not even respond when the law was being requested. One man, Philander Knox, illegally ratified the amendment due to the passing of the Federal reserve act which was implaced earlier that year. The Federal reserve has NOTHING FEDERAL about it. It is a privately owned bank that lends money to the US. Therefore, if government wanted money in 1913 after the federal reserve was created, they HAD to pass Amendment 16.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

8o8P said:


> > Admitting it publically is not a good idea, I would imagine, but that's just me.
> 
> 
> I don't believe he is doing anything illegal. There must be something he knows that allows him not to pay his taxes.
> ...


Yes, there is a right way to get this done. I went through a company that is comprised of lawyers and former IRS agents. I DO NOT encourage you to just stop paying your taxes, you will definately go to jail. I will explain it to you in a simplified manner.

When you decided to work, you filled out a W2 form. This form is then turned into the IRS and a IMF is created. A IMF is a Individual Master file. What is in that file is your entire work history, it states all the jobs you had, time started, time ended, the amount of money earned, collected, and money returned via tax returns or money owed. You can request this file via a Freedom of Information act. Upon getting this file, majority of the info is written in code via numbers. (That is why you need the company I went through, as lawyers and IRS agents can decipher them)

Like I said earlier a direct tax CANNOT be imposed upon US citizens. It can only be imposed on foreigners working within the US or US residents working abroad. With that said, and this is the illegal part, the IRS puts on record that you are a foreigner working in the US and therefore you can be taxed. According to my IMF, I was a resident of the Bahamas and a cigarette salesman. How does this benefit you? If I am a resident of the Bahamas, I apply to THEIR laws for income tax and THEIR laws is NOT applicable in the USA. Therefore, I will agree with what is on my IMF and put it in public records so that anyone who wants to investigate me may do so. From there, all US laws for income tax do not apply to me as I am a resident of the Bahamas as stated by the IRS in my IMF. In conclusion, I pay no taxes.
[/quote]

okay i'm intrigued. what company did you go to? and what paperwork do you submit when getting a job to not have those funds taken from your check? does this count for ALL taxes or income? does this include state and local taxes as well?


----------



## MONGO  (Feb 7, 2006)

With no taxes how do you expect the government to run?


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

RockinTimbz said:


> With no taxes how do you expect the government to run?


how indeed...

in reality whatever tax loophole there might be is irrelevant. i'm NOT saying he's full of it but if EVERYONE took advantage, the govt would move with astonishing speed and efficiency to close the loophole.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Hater I have answered your PM

I will not give out the company name on this site as it is against the rules and is soliciting. PM me for more info.. This does NOT apply to state taxes only the federal income tax.

The government wouldnt crumble, they just wouldnt have the high paying salaries that they do now and the corruption that money brings in people. The power will be back into the hands of the people and not the power money can buy. That is why the government "threatens" its citizens with jail time if they do not comply with them.

Remember there are two different principles, tax evasion and tax avoidance. Whats the difference? As Theodore Roosevelt pointed out in his example. There are two cities seperated by two bridges. The first bridge is a direct access from one city to another. There is a toll booth on this bridge that you must pay to cross and its for your convenience. The second bridge is 20 miles away but there is no toll and it is free to cross. People that are willing to drive and put in the time can cross the second bridge for free. The difference between evasion and avoidance is I CANNOT just fly through the toll on the first bridge, break the barrier and not get punished. That is evasion as I had to pay but chose not to. On the other hand, driving to the second bridge where I can cross for free is avoidance. I didnt break any laws I just sought to find a better, free path.

That is what I am doing. I am not breaking the law, I am finding a legal and better way to go about my business. Now not paying your taxes without taking the time to do it right will definately land your ass in jail..


----------



## MONGO  (Feb 7, 2006)

Its not that hard to live in America... all Uncle Sam wants is his share and thats all he asks. I dont see it as threatening its citizens.. you commit the crime you do the time. Tax evasion is a crime and you admit that it is contributing to the downfall of our government yet you take part in this scam.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

RockinTimbz said:


> Its not that hard to live in America... all Uncle Sam wants is his share and thats all he asks. I dont see it as threatening its citizens.. you commit the crime you do the time. Tax evasion is a crime and you admit that it is contributing to the downfall of our government yet you take part in this scam.


What share? Since when does uncle sam deserve a share of the money you worked hard to earn and deserve. Remember, your taxes do not go to schools, roadways, public servies and all that other crap, it goes to paying off the national debt. Remember the money that Bush has been borrowing, billions of dollars to fund the war needs to be payed by someone and it aint going to be him. That someone is all of the hard working americans getting taxed by the federal reserve. Our tax money goes to the IRS which is part of the Federal Reserve which is paying his debt so NONE of our money goes directly to the government. All the money that goes to government for schools etc is from state taxes which you will still be paying. Dont be fooled in thinking our billions of tax dollars goes out to public services. Yes tax evasion is illegal which is whay I pointed out the difference between tax evasion and avoidance.

I am sorry about my previous statement about the government falling and I have edited it.


----------



## MONGO  (Feb 7, 2006)

http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/...=119100,00.html


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

Rockin thats from a government website....so its not a credible source


----------



## muskielover1 (Dec 7, 2004)

Lowporkwa said:


> Rockin thats from a government website....so its not a credible source


LOL!!!!!good1


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2008)

mdrs said:


> Another EXCELLENT site that dicloses truth's. www.prisonplanet.com


if you can post this as a credible news site, i'll be posting "truth's" from world net daily.
[/quote]

Hey mdrs, check out this hidden jem of journalism by prisonplanet.com



> What share? Since when does uncle sam deserve a share of the money you worked hard to earn and deserve.


Good point...I mean who needs a military, who needs cops and firemen? Who needs social programs?

Life would be much better if the Chinese could shoot you while a gangster steals your tv and your house burns down. And then, when you've lost it all, you can just sit under a tree and die. But hey, it beats paying taxes!


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Another EXCELLENT site that dicloses truth's. www.prisonplanet.com


if you can post this as a credible news site, i'll be posting "truth's" from world net daily.
[/quote]

Hey mdrs, check out this hidden jem of journalism by prisonplanet.com



> What share? Since when does uncle sam deserve a share of the money you worked hard to earn and deserve.


Good point...I mean who needs a military, who needs cops and firemen? Who needs social programs?

Life would be much better if the Chinese could shoot you while a gangster steals your tv and your house burns down. And then, when you've lost it all, you can just sit under a tree and die. But hey, it beats paying taxes!
[/quote]

Hey maybe you should research into this topic before you state a ludicrous statement. Who the f*ck is Uncle Sam? All he is is a made up character that is used instead of saying the government. Our tax money does not go to ANY government ties including the military. All of our taxes goes to pay the national debt. We can still have a military without a federal reserve bank and the IRS. We had a military before 1913 when the Federal reserve Act was placed. The Federal Reserve runs the government, bottom line. Why? Because if the government wants money they need to get it from the Federal Reserve. Why do you think Bush needs to ASK for the money. As one of the founders of the Federal Reserve bank, a Rockefeller said, Give me the control of a nations currency and i care not who makes the laws.

Research more into the Federal reserve and you will see that our nation is run by a privately owned bank that controls all of our nations money. Look up 1910 and Jeckyl island where 4 of the richest families (Rockefellers, Rothchilds etc..) met to create a "superbank" that would control our entire nations currency. Our government has NO power whatsoever, the federal reserve does. Kennedy is one of the presidents that wanted to abolish the FR and he got assassinated.

Its not a coincidence that former IRS agents are now blowing the whistle on the Federal Reserve and the IRS with their illegal practices. These are some of them:

Joseph R. Banister, C.P.A., former IRS-CID Special Agent

Clifton Beale, CEP, A.S., B.S., MS-Taxation, Former IRS Revenue Agent and Appeals Officer

Paul Chappell, Attorney at Law, former U.S. Tax Court Clerk, IRS Chief Counsel Attorney

Sherry P. Jackson, C.P.A., C.F.E., former IRS Revenue Agent

John Turner, E.A., former IRS Revenue Officer

ALL of these people gave up high paying salaries and placed themselves into possible turmoil trying to fight for our freedoms.

You want credibility, heres the link to Joseph Banisters website, and his biography. Look at his accomplishments and awards while employed by the IRS. You will see he is not a "rogue agent" or a man that has a problem with the IRS, or a man fired from them. He is a man that was highly recognized in his field and he is a man that saw what The FR and IRS are doing is illegal.

http://www.freedomabovefortune.com/index.p...9&Itemid=37


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

the sixteenth amendment was ratified by 42 states out of 48 in 1913. an income tax is an indirect tax, NOT a direct tax. also, direct taxes are not unconstitutional.

regardless, income you get from property (ie, buy a house, house goes up in value) is a direct tax...ALL OTHER INCOME is indirect.

dont pay your taxes, it's your choice, but you will go to jail.

and by your logic, if someone doesnt go and buy your lawyers services, and gets through this loophole, and ends up in jail, that should be false imprisonment right? since taxing income is unconstitutional? well then why are you so sure they'd go to jail? surely it's known by now that you DONT have to pay taxes! haha. have fun in the halfway house.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

8o8P said:


> Another EXCELLENT site that dicloses truth's. www.prisonplanet.com


if you can post this as a credible news site, i'll be posting "truth's" from world net daily.
[/quote]

Hey mdrs, check out this hidden jem of journalism by prisonplanet.com



> What share? Since when does uncle sam deserve a share of the money you worked hard to earn and deserve.


Good point...I mean who needs a military, who needs cops and firemen? Who needs social programs?

Life would be much better if the Chinese could shoot you while a gangster steals your tv and your house burns down. And then, when you've lost it all, you can just sit under a tree and die. But hey, it beats paying taxes!
[/quote]

Hey maybe you should research into this topic before you state a ludicrous statement. Who the f*ck is Uncle Sam? All he is is a made up character that is used instead of saying the government. Our tax money does not go to ANY government ties including the military. All of our taxes goes to pay the national debt. We can still have a military without a federal reserve bank and the IRS. We had a military before 1913 when the Federal reserve Act was placed. The Federal Reserve runs the government, bottom line. Why? Because if the government wants money they need to get it from the Federal Reserve. Why do you think Bush needs to ASK for the money. As one of the founders of the Federal Reserve bank, a Rockefeller said, Give me the control of a nations currency and i care not who makes the laws.

Research more into the Federal reserve and you will see that our nation is run by a privately owned bank that controls all of our nations money. Look up 1910 and Jeckyl island where 4 of the richest families (Rockefellers, Rothchilds etc..) met to create a "superbank" that would control our entire nations currency. Our government has NO power whatsoever, the federal reserve does. Kennedy is one of the presidents that wanted to abolish the FR and he got assassinated.

Its not a coincidence that former IRS agents are now blowing the whistle on the Federal Reserve and the IRS with their illegal practices. These are some of them:

Joseph R. Banister, C.P.A., former IRS-CID Special Agent

Clifton Beale, CEP, A.S., B.S., MS-Taxation, Former IRS Revenue Agent and Appeals Officer

Paul Chappell, Attorney at Law, former U.S. Tax Court Clerk, IRS Chief Counsel Attorney

Sherry P. Jackson, C.P.A., C.F.E., former IRS Revenue Agent

John Turner, E.A., former IRS Revenue Officer

ALL of these people gave up high paying salaries and placed themselves into possible turmoil trying to fight for our freedoms.

You want credibility, heres the link to Joseph Banisters website, and his biography.

http://www.freedomabovefortune.com/index.p...9&Itemid=37
[/quote]

in terms of who has power and what percentage of what tax goes to where do you have a SOURCE? it would lend a lot of weight to your increasingly conspiracist argument.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

r1dermon said:


> the sixteenth amendment was ratified by 42 states out of 48 in 1913. an income tax is an indirect tax, NOT a direct tax. also, direct taxes are not unconstitutional.
> 
> regardless, income you get from property (ie, buy a house, house goes up in value) is a direct tax...ALL OTHER INCOME is indirect.
> 
> ...


Well I am not paying my taxes and I am NOT in jail so am I an acception to the rule?

Did I say that the company I went through is the only way. Hey, go to school, learn about tax laws and you can do it yourself but you better do it right or yes your ass will end up in jail. Like everything else in life there is a right and wrong way to do something. You choose to stop paying taxes tomorrow is the wrong way and it will be your problem, it took one year in order to get my paperwork filed the right way and yes I went directly to the IRS corporate office to get my paperwork done.


----------



## pcrose (Mar 9, 2003)

Bullsnake said:


> I agree with you here, but I have trouble reading your post. It's all one rambling paragraph.
> 
> Maybe you could break it up into several paragraphs or use bullet points to make it more easily read.


ewww


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2008)

> Hey maybe you should research into this topic before you state a ludicrous statement. Who the f*ck is Uncle Sam? All he is is a made up character that is used instead of saying the government. Our tax money does not go to ANY government ties including the military.


I decided to do some research on how the US tax system works. The answer I gave was based on the Canadian tax system (federal and provincial). Here's what I found:

Explaining local tax spending.

The Local Council tax (I believe that is a tax paid based on a property value? I had a hard time understanding).

This tax pays for your schools, your roads, your fire defence and your local social services.



> All of our taxes goes to pay the national debt.


I read that the taxes pay interest on the national debt, and that the federal government recieves loans from the bank to pay for services. Thus, your taxes (somewhat indriectly) appear to pay for the things I mentioned.

See here.

By the way, I know those are old numbers, I was just looking for a general arrangement to better understand what kind of percentages were being discussed.



> We can still have a military without a federal reserve bank and the IRS. We had a military before 1913 when the Federal reserve Act was placed. The Federal Reserve runs the government, bottom line. Why? Because if the government wants money they need to get it from the Federal Reserve. Why do you think Bush needs to ASK for the money. As one of the founders of the Federal Reserve bank, a Rockefeller said, Give me the control of a nations currency and i care not who makes the laws.
> 
> Research more into the Federal reserve and you will see that our nation is run by a privately owned bank that controls all of our nations money. Look up 1910 and Jeckyl island where 4 of the richest families (Rockefellers, Rothchilds etc..) met to create a "superbank" that would control our entire nations currency. Our government has NO power whatsoever, the federal reserve does. Kennedy is one of the presidents that wanted to abolish the FR and he got assassinated.


Ok, I did do some research. I discovered that none of what you said has any relevance to what I had implied in my original post. You dont pay taxes, the government cannot spend the money on the things which keep the country stable.



> Its not a coincidence that former IRS agents are now blowing the whistle on the Federal Reserve and the IRS with their illegal practices. These are some of them:
> 
> Joseph R. Banister, C.P.A., former IRS-CID Special Agent
> 
> ...


Please source each name given.



> You want credibility, heres the link to Joseph Banisters website, and his biography. Look at his accomplishments and awards while employed by the IRS. You will see he is not a "rogue agent" or a man that has a problem with the IRS, or a man fired from them. He is a man that was highly recognized in his field and he is a man that saw what The FR and IRS are doing is illegal.
> 
> http://www.freedomabovefortune.com/index.p...9&Itemid=37


Again, where's the relevance? Just because you dont like the FR, doesn't mean people shouldnt have to pay taxes. Maybe you should do more about it. Maybe find out more about the issue, and write letters to your elected official explaining why you feel it is a problem. Breakiing the law isn't progressive, atleast not in this case.

By the way, here's something I came across while reading up on the issue:

*]Constitutional Amendment Claims*

There are a lot of relevant contentions and replies in that document.

Is this image factual?


----------



## MONGO  (Feb 7, 2006)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Another EXCELLENT site that dicloses truth's. www.prisonplanet.com


if you can post this as a credible news site, i'll be posting "truth's" from world net daily.
[/quote]

Hey mdrs, check out this hidden jem of journalism by prisonplanet.com



> What share? Since when does uncle sam deserve a share of the money you worked hard to earn and deserve.


Good point...I mean who needs a military, who needs cops and firemen? Who needs social programs?

Life would be much better if the Chinese could shoot you while a gangster steals your tv and your house burns down. And then, when you've lost it all, you can just sit under a tree and die. But hey, it beats paying taxes!
[/quote]
Thats exactly what I was trying to say... for once I agree with your tree huggin ass.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2008)

This is a rediculously complicated issue, way too much to handle at 12 30 :laugh: Take care gents.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Dannyboy..

If you read my posts, I said that local or state taxes are still paid. Therefore, yes you do pay for public services but it is not your federal income tax, so thanks for proving my pt.

Second, yes our Federal income tax is used to pay off the national debt including the interest. The way the money flows is the FR loans out money to the government. The government then decides what they want to do with the money. From there, we the people, pay off the governments debts to the FR. So yes, in a way we do pay for what the government decides to spend the money on but that is indirect. Our money goes directly to the FR. So again thanks for proving my pt.

Third, firemen, cops and public services like you mentioned in your first post are all public services which are paid by your local state tax. You dont have the USA police it is a state police like Seattle Police, Houston Police, Honolulu police all state run agencies. The military has been here before the federal reserve/IRS was created so what makes you think we cant have one without it. Its already been done.

Fourth, I will not source each name, do your own research and look it up.. In fact I do source one name Joseph Banister and you tell me it has no relevance so what more do you want me to do? I do have a problem with the FR and I am trying to get the word out which is what I am doing now, aint I? I tell my family and friends and I have introduced many people and showed them how to reduce their tax liability. You say Im breaking the law, what law? SHOW ME THE LAW which says I have to pay taxes.. SHOW ME THE LAW AND I WILL NEVER MENTION THIS AGAIN... PERIOD... END OF STORY.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

"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." ~ 16th amendment. ratified 42-6 in 1913. proposed by president taft in 1909.

also see the revenue act of 1913.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1.html


----------



## Hater (Apr 21, 2006)

8o8p I've learned something very important from Frank Mallaganes in this forum. I'll quote him :



> You won't be able to convince everyone and sometimes its just knowing when to end the argument on your side.


Obvously, you have made some strong point. So instead of debating you, I'll research the information you gave us and the company you mention and if what you said it's true, I will the same as you.

You're talking to deph ears. Your critics on this thread have already made up their mind and nothing you can do, say or write will change theor views. So just leave it alone and let then do what they do and you do what you.

thanks for the information 8o8P.

Hater


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

Hater said:


> 8o8p I've learned something very important from Frank Mallaganes in this forum. I'll quote him :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


well put.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

I could NOT agree more. Great Job 8o8P. GREAT F'n JOB!












































Well people. Glad to have sparked some interest in what's going on behind our backs. Just wanted to let you know that the websites I go to are considered by some to be without merit. I understand that and I don't take everything they say as "gospel truth" until I do alot of research using even the "mainstream media" as a source. Most of the time, the regular news (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc.), if anything, catches up with the Internet. The thing is, they usually "spin" it to clean up the true meaning of the information meant for public consumption. If you want to find info on Iraq spending bills, try Googling "Recent War Funding Bills/Bush". That may work, however, they may show the whole thing (sometimes hundreds of pages!) and you may have to go to some of these "alternative" websites that will direct you to what page and paragraph for exact quotes. It may take awhile, but it's worth it because, while searching for that, you end up finding out alot of other stuff! Topics like......."Operation Northwoods, Operation Ajax, Operation Gladio" each of these three individually.......they will be surprised at how far those that have hijacked our country will go to promote their illegal agenda. These are the "false flag" operations the CIA does to scare the population into submission. It's just the tip of the iceberg! Later. Oh, by the way, I WILL expect ALOT of skepticism. There are ALWAYS those who can't handle the truth.


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

baddfish said:


> I could NOT agree more. Great Job 8o8P. GREAT F'n JOB!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lol pinche guey " YOU CAN' T HANDLE THE TRUTH!" Few Good Men. yeah you did


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

I agree that the Federal Income tax is one of the greatest scams ever perpetrated, although nowadays, if we're ever to reform health care and make it affordable, I don't know how you could avoid having a federal income tax like the one's in Canada or Great Britain unless health care costs were covered by a tax similar to Social Security. There's no way in the next 30 years that the Health care system will continue to be run by Health Insurance and drug companies that pay off congressmen, therefore a federal tax would be necessary on some level. Also, I can't help but feel that the federal income tax came around at the same time that America became a major actor on the world stage. How would we afford our military without one - it almost seems like a necessary evil at this point. Does Ron Paul want to abolish the income tax, and if so, does he spell out how our military would continue to operate and how revenues would continue to come in?


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

I answered my own question.

http://paul4prez.blogspot.com/2007/07/coul...bolish-irs.html



> How would the government be able to operate without income taxes? Ron Paul points out that the federal government did just fine for the first 137 years of its existence without the income tax, which wasn't enacted until 1913. But federal spending has gone up a lot since then, so where would the reductions come from?
> 
> Ron Paul has not yet published a detailed plan, but has stated several ideas in the debates and other speeches. Withdrawing US forces from Iraq and other countries around the world would save close to $200 billion per year. Closing down the departments of Education ($56B), Energy ($23B), and Homeland Security ($32B), and ending foreign aid ($26B), could save well more than $100 billion annually. In his speech announcing his presidential bid, Ron Paul said that no real fiscal conservative could doubt that federal spending could be reduced by at least 25 percent, so expect further across-the-board budget cuts.
> 
> ...


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Thank you for those that actually took the time to research what I was saying instead of blindly arguing with me.

Hater... I agree, I am talking upon deaf ears. Decades of brainwash has changed our people to sheep that blindly follow the masses. Yes, research the company more and you will see how much corruption the government has put upon its people. Thanks for having a open mind and good luck into your venture. If you need any help Ill gladly assist you.

Faro... Thanks for printing that article. Yes, Ron Paul, a* PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE *knows that what the FR and IRS are doing is illegal and wishes to get rid of it. Unfortunately, the last president to do this was assassinated so he really needs to watch his back. I also like the fact that he poonts out that we had a military for over a century before the FR act was even implaced. Thanks again for the good read.

Baddfish.. I answered your pm about the company.


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

yes but our military was hardly the world power it is today before world war war I and even before world war II started we werent necessarily a global military superpower...really it began for us after world war II began. So yes, we had a military, but it was never as strong as it is now. Which may or may not have anything to do with the FR, but its still true.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

r1dermon said:


> "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." ~ 16th amendment. ratified 42-6 in 1913. proposed by president taft in 1909.
> 
> also see the revenue act of 1913.
> 
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1.html


Like I said earlier, A16 was illegally ratified and if you think its just me being stubborn.. Many people have been taken to court over tax laws and *A16 HAS BEEN USED IN COURT TO PROVE INNOCENCE BY FRAUD* and won. Heres a link to explain more.

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/theman.asp

Read the last paragraph, 38 states ratified it like someone said, including Kentucky, California, and Oklahoma. Further research shows that Kentucky rejected it, California didnt even vote on it, and Oklahoma wanted a entirely different proposal, *all documented in their records*. so you take out just those three states alone and you will see that only 35 approved which isnt 3/4 vote. But if you look into the link that shows the breakdown of all the states and you will see that only 9 actually ratified it.


----------



## MONGO  (Feb 7, 2006)

8o8P said:


> Dannyboy..
> 
> If you read my posts, I said that local or state taxes are still paid. Therefore, yes you do pay for public services but it is not your federal income tax, so thanks for proving my pt.
> 
> ...


FBI, CIA, NSA, US Marshals?









You are also comparing a military from an era that is alot different than what we have today.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

^ i was addressing his original post and he mentions nothing of FBI, CIA, etc. he only mentions local state police.. Read the whole thread.


----------



## MONGO  (Feb 7, 2006)

8o8P said:


> ^ i was addressing his original post and he mentions nothing of FBI, CIA, etc. he only mentions local state police.. Read the whole thread.


Okay.. my point still stands who will pay for these agencies without people paying federal income taxes?


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

^How bout this, instead of arguing every pt I make why dont you research it on your own. Like I said, I am not a scholar, I am not a scientist or politician, I dont have all the answers. But what I do know for fact I am telling you.

When I was first faced with this oppourtunity I was as skeptical as most of you are and I had to do my own research into what I was getting involved in. I didnt have someone on a forum trying to provide answers for every single pt I could think of, I had to find my own answers. What do you want? You want me to hand you this on a silver platter? I wrote MANY things that you can research for yourself, take the time and do it its for your benefit, not mine. Like I said earlier, I could care less if you disagree, but I am getting the message out and its up to you whether or not you want to pursue it more..

With that said, I am taking Haters advice and I am done with this thread, if you are serious and want more answers about how to get this done you can PM me. If your just gonna attack me with more crap then dont bother I am not going to answer. I have provided more than enough info, none of them has been discredited.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

Some more quotes. If you dont like to read OR are NOT willing to learn, DO NOT continue reading.

"Those who would wage war, should first eliminate all domestic enemies before
proceeding to attack the external foe." (Sun Tzu, "The Art of War," about 700BC)

"The Constitution does not protect our guns, our guns protect the Constitution "! Allen Croft

" America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards" [ traitors]. Claire Wolf

"It is also in the interests of a tyrant to keep his people poor, so that they may not be able to afford the cost of protecting themselves by arms and be so occupied with their daily tasks that they have no time for rebellion." - Aristotle

"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." - Henry Kissinger, quoted in "Kiss the Boys Goodbye: How the United States Betrayed Its Own POW's in Vietnam"

"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic." D.James
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the Government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may not act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history,the stage of rule by brute force.""We are discreet sheep; we wait to see how the drove is going and then we go with the drove."

Mark Twain

"Those in possession of absolute Power cannot only prophesy and make their prophesies come true, but they can also lie and make their lies come true."

Eric Hoffer

"We shall have a World government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World government will be achieved by conquest or consent."James Paul Warburg, February 17, 1950, before the U.S. Senate

"Big Brother in the form of an increasingly powerful government and in an increasingly powerful private sector will pile the records high with reasons why privacy should give way to national security, to law and order, to efficiency of operation, to scientific advancement and the like."
William O. Douglas 1898-1980), U. S. Supreme Court Justice

"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism and religious dogmas."

G. Brock Chisholm, co-founder of the World Federation for Mental Health,former director of UN World Health Organization

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and thus clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

H.L. Mencken

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling the money and its issuance."

James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

A true patriot does not confuse government with country. A patriot's loyalty is to his country, and loyalty to country requires holding government accountable. -- Paul Craig Roberts

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have..........

Thomas Jefferson (1743 -1826)

"Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

"Great empires cannot subsist without great armies, and liberty cannot subsist with them." - Cato

"The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened." 
Josef Stalin, bosom buddy of Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"I've been saying all along that my biggest fear is that someone would program a machine to give a wrong answer. If that were to happen, the machine would still work fine - we just wouldn't know it.

Avi Rubin Professor, Computer Science Johns Hopkins University

"Why am I always being asked to prove these systems aren't secure? The burden of proof ought to be on the vendor. You ask about the hardware. 'Secret.' The software? 'Secret.' What's the cryptography? 'Can't tell you because that'll compromise the secrecy of the machines.'... Federal testing procedures? 'Secret'! Results of the tests? 'Secret'! Basically we are required to have blind faith."

Dr. David L. Dill Professor, Computer Science Stanford University

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."

-Communist Tyrant and mass murderer Josef Stalin (attributed)

"In a time of universal deceit, speaking the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell, 1984

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident. -- Arthur Schopenhauer, philosopher, 1788-1860

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

James Madison, while a United States Congressman

"No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffusd and Virtue is preservd. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders."

Samuel Adams (letter to James Warren, 4 November 1775)

The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasionsthat I wish it to be always kept alive. -- Thomas Jefferson

In a recent conversation, with an official at the Internal Revenue Service, I was amazed when he told me that, 'If the taxpayers of this country ever discover that the Internal Revenue Service operates on 90 percent bluff, the entire income tax system will collapse.' -- Senator Henry Bellmon of Oklahoma

"Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution, feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the people have exchanged one master for another."

QUOTABLE:

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

-Thomas Jefferson 
We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years....It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."

David Rockefeller - Bilderberg Meeting - June 1991 - Baden, Germany

Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution."

Thomas Jefferson

"Whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall
seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

White Christian, Thomas Jefferson, Letter to White Christian, W.S.Smith, Nov. 13, 1787. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross"

-- Sinclair Lewis

"When tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign foe."

-- James Madison


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

im sorry but posting a bunch of quotes which are merely opinions does not prove anyones point in this arguement


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

The Rothschilds and the Rockefellers are two of the families that own the Federal Reserve and this is what they have said.

"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws."
- Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
- David Rockefeller

*AND THIS IS THE BEST ONE*

Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal* working against the best interests of the United States*, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and *I am proud of it*."
- David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

ok wow...just wow. This goes against everything you previously stated about accredited sources. Rockefeller just wanted to be rich and powerful, and was acting for himself, just like you think the government is doing, so why do you believe him? Just because you are so staunchly against anything the government does you blindly accept whatever you want to believe?

Seriously if you think America is so out to get you and put you down and oppress you and all this why do you even bother living here?


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Lowporkwa said:


> ok wow...just wow. This goes against everything you previously stated about accredited sources. Rockefeller just wanted to be rich and powerful, and was acting for himself, just like you think the government is doing, so why do you believe him? Just because you are so staunchly against anything the government does you blindly accept whatever you want to believe?
> 
> Seriously if you think America is so out to get you and put you down and oppress you and all this why do you even bother living here?


WTF are you talking about, accredited sources?

Rockefeller RUNS THIS COUNTRY with the other families that own the Federal Reserve. They are in control of our monetary system not the government. Why do I believe him, because he has the power to do things. If he doesnt like what the government does, he can cut off all funds to the US. HE HAS TOTAL POWER and thats why the Federal Reserve needs to be abolished. This is not a country run by the government it is a country run by four VERY RICH AND POWERFUL families that use the government as their puppet.


----------



## MONGO  (Feb 7, 2006)

8o8P said:


> ^How bout this, instead of arguing every pt I make why dont you research it on your own. Like I said, I am not a scholar, I am not a scientist or politician, I dont have all the answers. But what I do know for fact I am telling you.
> 
> When I was first faced with this oppourtunity I was as skeptical as most of you are and I had to do my own research into what I was getting involved in. I didnt have someone on a forum trying to provide answers for every single pt I could think of, I had to find my own answers. What do you want? You want me to hand you this on a silver platter? I wrote MANY things that you can research for yourself, take the time and do it its for your benefit, not mine. Like I said earlier, I could care less if you disagree, but I am getting the message out and its up to you whether or not you want to pursue it more..
> 
> With that said, I am taking Haters advice and I am done with this thread, if you are serious and want more answers about how to get this done you can PM me. If your just gonna attack me with more crap then dont bother I am not going to answer. I have provided more than enough info, none of them has been discredited.


Im not saying it doesnt work and if its legal or not... our government wouldnt function without proper funding and thats where our taxes go. If you dont pay taxes whether its federal, state, or local you dont deserve to live here.


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

well 8o8p if that bothers you so much, I dont think it would bother those four families that 'run' our country if you left.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

I am sorry, I don't know if this was already covered or not and I don't have the energy to read every post in this thread in detail - but why is the federal income tax unacceptable while state income tax, sales tax, property tax, and numerous other local taxes for cities, townships, etc.. acceptable ?


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Rockin.. You really need to read this thread, I still pay state and local taxes i just dont pay federal. And who are you to say that this country couldnt run without this unjust tax system? It worked prior to 1913 before taxes came into law. So why wouldnt it work after?

Lowpork... Ok, now you are attacking me on a personal level, I should get up and leave the country beacuse I am fighting for my rights? I am trying to fight for everyones rights and expose the corruption that is going on everyday... You cant accept the truth and you tell me to leave the country? Why attack me on a personal level? I didnt say I dont like living here or I have a problem with government, I said I have a problem with the Federal Reserve and its unjust taxes.



Jewelz said:


> I am sorry, I don't know if this was already covered or not and I don't have the energy to read every post in this thread in detail - but why is the federal income tax unacceptable while state income tax, sales tax, property tax, and numerous other local taxes for cities, townships, etc.. acceptable ?


Because federal tax is a direct tax on an individual which is illegal unless you are a foreigner working within the USA or you are a US resident working abroad. Sales tax, property tax and other local taxes are indirect taxes which means that it is not put on a person or corporation. People pay these taxes indirectly by higher priced goods, etc.


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

I fail to see how asking you why you live here if you are so upset and untrustworthy of the government is attacking you at a personal level. I'm more intrigued with how you can believe everything you say with such passion and still live in this country.

I can accept any truth if it is actually true. Don't tell me otherwise. You have yet to show me anything that actually proves your point besides some random quotes, citations from sketchy websites, and pretty much just whatever comes out of your mouth? Do you have a degree in taxation etc etc etc...i doubt it.

More curiously, before 1913 could America really be considered the super power we are today? Or rather just relatively 'new' country that still has yet to get its wheels running. So sure the country was alive, but it did not provide nearly the many opportunities for success that the country currently has.


----------



## MONGO  (Feb 7, 2006)

8o8P said:


> Rockin.. You really need to read this thread, I still pay state and local taxes i just dont pay federal. And who are you to say that this country couldnt run without this unjust tax system? It worked prior to 1913 before taxes came into law. So why wouldnt it work after?
> 
> Lowpork... Ok, now you are attacking me on a personal level, I should get up and leave the country beacuse I am fighting for my rights? I am trying to fight for everyones rights and expose the corruption that is going on everyday... You cant accept the truth and you tell me to leave the country? Why attack me on a personal level? I didnt say I dont like living here or I have a problem with government, I said I have a problem with the Federal Reserve and its unjust taxes.


You dont pay federal taxes so you dont deserve the protection that a tax paying citizen deserves.. a fugitive from the top 10 most wanted list parks his ass outside your home youre on your own.

Alot of things were different in the US prior to 1913 so I dont know why that has to do with today?


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2008)

So what happens if everyone stops paying federal tax...who foots the bill for the national debt.

And who pays for the military?


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

8o8P. NOW im done. They just dont get it.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2008)

baddfish said:


> 8o8P. NOW im done. They just dont get it.


What a cop out. Please give me an answer, and some sources backing up the "groundbreaking facts and stats from the internet news" that will accompany it.


----------



## Hater (Apr 21, 2006)

8o8P you are just wasting your time man, this people will not give in and are resolving to personal attacks and asking you to leave the country.

I've been involved in the whole thread and i don't beleive he ever said he had a problem with this country, so why ask the man to leave it? It's that the best you can do?

Why not take the information he has given us and research it? Why not just give it a chance? What if what he said or wrote is true, how could this new information benefit you?

I mean you answer 1 question and they come back with 100 more, geez. Do your own research, answer your own questions. I mean really, do you expect him to have the answer to everything?

You ladies can keep going back at him and attack him at a personal level if you wish(which is something that happens here a lot, when someone disagrees with another person) but I on the other hand, will take the information presented by this poster and run with it. What do I have to lose?

Hater

P.S.-Calling you guys ladies was just a joke. Have to make sure people know this or I will get the personnal attacks directed at me.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Lowporkwa said:


> 8o8P you are just wasting your time man, this people will not give in and are resolving to personal attacks and asking you to leave the country.
> 
> I've been involved in the whole thread and i don't beleive he ever said he had a problem with this country, so why ask the man to leave it? It's that the best you can do?
> 
> ...


THANK YOU..


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2008)

The reason people will not give in is because there is a whole lot of hearsay, a whole lot of opinion, and very little fact being put on the table. Why is it our job to research someone else's point. Thats the entire idea of a debate - you offer information to someone with an opposing point of veiw.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

ANSWERS, SOURCES, everyone wants answers and sources. I gave you tons of information that you can research yourself. Put it in your own hands to do the work then you can believe what you want to believe. Why ask me to do it for you then not believe what I tell you. I laid the foundation the rest is up to you. If you dont take the time to find your own answers then thats your problem..

HAS ANYBODY RESEARCHED THE INFO I HAVE GIVEN???

Here Ill even give you stuff to look up

1910, Jeckyl Island
Rockefellers, Rothschilds,

1913, Federal Reserve act, Amendment 16 
Philander Knox

Waiting.. still waiting....


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

8o8P said:


> So what happens if everyone stops paying federal tax...who foots the bill for the national debt.
> 
> And who pays for the military?


Good questions.


----------



## Hater (Apr 21, 2006)

> The reason people will not give in is because there is a whole lot of hearsay, a whole lot of opinion, and very little fact being put on the table. Why is it our job to research someone else's point. Thats the entire idea of a debate - you offer information to someone with an opposing point of veiw.


Hearsay? The man gave you information on how he did it, he gave you sources to research and is even willing to provide you with the company that helped him get everything accomplished, what more do you want man? do your own research man.

Even if he did back this points up, then you would have another 100 questions that you would want answered and sourced.



> Do states not tax income ? We don't have state income tax here in WA but plenty of other states do.


We pay state taxes here in NJ Jewel.



> Good questions.


He said he didn't have all the answers but I'm sure that the goverment could figure out a way to get this problem resolved.

Hater


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

8o8P said:


> ok wow...just wow. This goes against everything you previously stated about accredited sources. Rockefeller just wanted to be rich and powerful, and was acting for himself, just like you think the government is doing, so why do you believe him? Just because you are so staunchly against anything the government does you blindly accept whatever you want to believe?
> 
> Seriously if you think America is so out to get you and put you down and oppress you and all this why do you even bother living here?


WTF are you talking about, accredited sources?

Rockefeller RUNS THIS COUNTRY with the other families that own the Federal Reserve. They are in control of our monetary system not the government. Why do I believe him, because he has the power to do things. If he doesnt like what the government does, he can cut off all funds to the US. HE HAS TOTAL POWER and thats why the Federal Reserve needs to be abolished. This is not a country run by the government it is a country run by four VERY RICH AND POWERFUL families that use the government as their puppet.
[/quote]

It ain't even worth it bro, that's why I just read without posting, like pissing into the wind..lol


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Jewelz said:


> So what happens if everyone stops paying federal tax...who foots the bill for the national debt.
> 
> And who pays for the military?


Good questions.
[/quote]

Im sorry jewelz I do not have that answer. i can try and find it for you but it may take a while.

As for the military I think someone posted Ron Pauls plan on how to replace the money that the federal reserve gets to support our military.. as for myself, Im sorry but I dont have the answer to that.


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

Hater said:


> > The reason people will not give in is because there is a whole lot of hearsay, a whole lot of opinion, and very little fact being put on the table. Why is it our job to research someone else's point. Thats the entire idea of a debate - you offer information to someone with an opposing point of veiw.
> 
> 
> Hearsay? The man gave you information on how he did it, he gave you sources to research and is even willing to provide you with the company that helped him get everything accomplished, what more do you want man? do your own research man.
> ...


great points


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Hater said:


> > Do states not tax income ? We don't have state income tax here in WA but plenty of other states do.
> 
> 
> We pay state taxes here in NJ Jewel.


As do plenty of other states, so why the outrage about federal income tax ?



> > Good questions.
> 
> 
> He said he didn't have all the answers but I'm sure that the goverment could figure out a way to get this problem resolved.
> ...


Fact is, we should be more concerned about how government spends our tax money rather than source of revenue, don't you think ?


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Let me ask you all this, do you all believe that there is a Federal Reserve? And if you do, do you believe that it creates money for the US government without any backing?

Ill give you time to answer then ill tell you where Im goin with this...



Jewelz said:


> > Do states not tax income ? We don't have state income tax here in WA but plenty of other states do.
> 
> 
> We pay state taxes here in NJ Jewel.


*As do plenty of other states, so why the outrage about federal income tax ? *



> > Good questions.
> 
> 
> He said he didn't have all the answers but I'm sure that the goverment could figure out a way to get this problem resolved.
> ...


Fact is, we should be more concerned about how government spends our tax money rather than source of revenue, don't you think ?
[/quote]

I can answer this one. Its because our federal taxes goes to a private organization, the Fedral Reserve. Our taxes goes DIRECTLY to the FR, it does not go through government and then the reserve.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

I will admit I am far from an expert in this field but I don't believe that Federal Reserve is an entirely private organization.

From wikipedia:

The basic structure of the Federal Reserve System includes:

* The Federal Reserve Board of Governors

* The Federal Open Market Committee

* The Federal Reserve Banks

* The member banks.

Each Federal Reserve Bank and each member bank of the Federal Reserve System is subject to oversight by a Board of Governors.[22] The seven members of the board are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.[23] Members are selected to terms of 14 years (unless removed by the President), which are generally limited to one term. However, if someone is appointed to serve the remainder of another member's uncompleted term, he or she may be reappointed to serve an additional 14-year term.[24] Conversely, a governor may serve the remainder of another governor's term even after he or she has completed a full term.


----------



## Hater (Apr 21, 2006)

> Fact is, we should be more concerned about how government spends our tax money rather than source of revenue, don't you think ?


Agreed. But it's also interesting to me where the money that is being taken out of my payckech is going and what can I do to lower it or prevent it.

hater


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Jewelz nothing of what you wrote indicates it isnt privately owned. It just shows how it manages its business. The government has NO SHARES in the Federal Reserve, therefore they own none of it.

So do we all agree that there is a federal reserve and they print money with no backing?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Hater said:


> Jewelz nothing of what you wrote indicates it isnt privately owned. It just shows how it manages its business. The government has NO SHARES in the Federal Reserve, therefore they own none of it.
> 
> So do we all agree that there is a federal reserve and they print money with no backing?


From the same article:

The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. Created in 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, *it is a quasi-public (part private, part government) banking system*

At the very least, it's heavily regulated by the government which is not the same as private banks simply taking your income and sharing whatever they feel like with the government.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Jewelz said:


> Jewelz nothing of what you wrote indicates it isnt privately owned. It just shows how it manages its business. The government has NO SHARES in the Federal Reserve, therefore they own none of it.
> 
> So do we all agree that there is a federal reserve and they print money with no backing?


From the same article:

The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. Created in 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, *it is a quasi-public (part private, part government) banking system*

At the very least, it's *heavily regulated by the government* which is not the same as private banks simply taking your income and sharing whatever they feel like with the government.
[/quote]

but it isnt owned by the government... Yes the government regulates where the money is going but they do not own it.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Well since no one wants to answer my question about the federal reserve and them printing money then I will answer. Yes, it obviously exists, and yes they do print out money with no backing thus the reason why we have inflation. So what does this have to do with anything?

This is from the CONSTITUTION OF THE USA, so I hope it fits a "credible source."

*"No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."

Article 1, Section 10, united States' Constitution*

In Laymans terms, nobody can create any type of currency or tender to pay debts. Gold and silver is the only thing that can be made as it has value and can back up its worth.

Therefore, the activites that the Federal reserve does directly violates the constitution. So if the Federal Reserve can go against the constitution the very thing our founding fathers put forth on our nation whos to say there isnt more corruption abroad.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

8o8P said:


> Jewelz nothing of what you wrote indicates it isnt privately owned. It just shows how it manages its business. The government has NO SHARES in the Federal Reserve, therefore they own none of it.
> 
> So do we all agree that there is a federal reserve and they print money with no backing?


From the same article:

The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. Created in 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, *it is a quasi-public (part private, part government) banking system*

At the very least, it's *heavily regulated by the government* which is not the same as private banks simply taking your income and sharing whatever they feel like with the government.
[/quote]

but it isnt owned by the government... Yes the government regulates where the money is going but they do not own it.
[/quote]

Well, if the government does it's job, would that not prevent your money from being stolen ?

Again, I think a bigger issue is how the government spends the revenue, not how it gets it


----------



## armac (Nov 28, 2002)

You keep referring to "printing money" here is a figure for you from the government

*"the $776 billion of currency in circulation, two-thirds of which is held overseas."*

did you realize that 2/3 of our money is not even in the US?


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

armac said:


> You keep referring to "printing money" here is a figure for you from the government
> 
> *"the $776 billion of currency in circulation, two-thirds of which is held overseas."*
> 
> did you realize that 2/3 of our money is not even in the US?


Thats what the Federal Reserve is doing, printing money out of the air. They have NO BACKING what so ever.

Yes I know our currency is in other countries, we do business with other countries dont we? With that said, some countries dont even want our money anymore as it has no value due to inflation. It is our inflation that has collapsed the worlds economy.

One notable protester is Gholam Nozari, the Iranian oil minister who runs the oil exports and is the fourth largest supplier in the world. He says and I quote, "At the moment selling oil in dollars has been completely halted, in line with the policy of selling crude in non-dollar currencies," Nozari said. "The dollar is an unreliable currency, considering its devaluation and the oil exporters' losses."


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Jewelz said:


> Jewelz nothing of what you wrote indicates it isnt privately owned. It just shows how it manages its business. The government has NO SHARES in the Federal Reserve, therefore they own none of it.
> 
> So do we all agree that there is a federal reserve and they print money with no backing?


From the same article:

The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. Created in 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, *it is a quasi-public (part private, part government) banking system*

At the very least, it's *heavily regulated by the government* which is not the same as private banks simply taking your income and sharing whatever they feel like with the government.
[/quote]

but it isnt owned by the government... Yes the government regulates where the money is going but they do not own it.
[/quote]

Well, if the government does it's job, would that not prevent your money from being stolen ?

*Again, I think a bigger issue is how the government spends the revenue, not how it gets it*
[/quote]

Isnt that kinda ass backwards. If we can control how the governmet gets its money then we can control how its spent. If we abolish the Federal Reserve, we get rid of the financial banking that the US gets its money from. The US government doesnt ask us what we want them to do with the money they just get it from the FR and do what they wish with it, and our responsibility is to pay back their debts. If we get the power back into the peoples hands of how the government gets the money we ultimately decides where it goes or in other words if we dont like what theyre spending the money on, we dont have to supply it. THE POWER IS BACK IN THE PEOPLES HANDS!! Isnt that what Freedom and democracy is about?


----------



## armac (Nov 28, 2002)

8o8P said:


> You keep referring to "printing money" here is a figure for you from the government
> 
> *"the $776 billion of currency in circulation, two-thirds of which is held overseas."*
> 
> did you realize that 2/3 of our money is not even in the US?


Thats what the Federal Reserve is doing, printing money out of the air. They have NO BACKING what so ever.

*Yes I know our currency is in other countries, we do business with other countries dont we? * With that said, some countries dont even want our money anymore as it has no value due to inflation. It is our inflation that has collapsed the worlds economy.

One notable protester is Gholam Nozari, the Iranian oil minister who runs the oil exports and is the fourth largest supplier in the world. He says and I quote, "At the moment selling oil in dollars has been completely halted, in line with the policy of selling crude in non-dollar currencies," Nozari said. "The dollar is an unreliable currency, considering its devaluation and the oil exporters' losses."
[/quote]

Sure we sell items but who would have thought we possess only 1/3 of our own money...........


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

armac said:


> You keep referring to "printing money" here is a figure for you from the government
> 
> *"the $776 billion of currency in circulation, two-thirds of which is held overseas."*
> 
> did you realize that 2/3 of our money is not even in the US?


Thats what the Federal Reserve is doing, printing money out of the air. They have NO BACKING what so ever.

*Yes I know our currency is in other countries, we do business with other countries dont we? * With that said, some countries dont even want our money anymore as it has no value due to inflation. It is our inflation that has collapsed the worlds economy.

One notable protester is Gholam Nozari, the Iranian oil minister who runs the oil exports and is the fourth largest supplier in the world. He says and I quote, "At the moment selling oil in dollars has been completely halted, in line with the policy of selling crude in non-dollar currencies,âââ€š¬ Nozari said. âââ€š¬Åâ€œThe dollar is an unreliable currency, considering its devaluation and the oil exportersâââ€š¬ââ€ž¢ losses.âââ€š¬
[/quote]

Sure we sell items but who would have thought we possess only 1/3 of our own money...........
[/quote]

Why would we want our money ITS USELESS. We trade our useless paper, I wont even call it money, for a commodity that has value, oil. Its almost like getting something for nothing. Why would we keep something useless if we can give it away and take something that has value in return?

Heres an example.. A barrel of oil just hit the $100 mark. Out of that $100 how much of it has any value or backing, less than a $1, considering a dollar is worth fractions of a penny. On the other hand, the barrel of oil that we acquired has tremendous value in this day and age.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

Lowporkwa said:


> 8o8P. NOW im done. They just dont get it.


What a cop out. Please give me an answer, and some sources backing up the "groundbreaking facts and stats from the internet news" that will accompany it.
[/quote]
You're being very lazy; I layed out evidence on the Ron Paul post that if we merely reduced our spending to 1997 levels, we would not have needed the additional levels of the personal income tax, which allows for FBI, CIA, etc. Stop hating and start reading the entire thread and doing some of your own research.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Fargo said:


> 8o8P. NOW im done. They just dont get it.


What a cop out. Please give me an answer, and some sources backing up the "groundbreaking facts and stats from the internet news" that will accompany it.
[/quote]
You're being very lazy; I layed out evidence on the Ron Paul post that if we merely reduced our spending to 1997 levels, we would not have needed the additional levels of the personal income tax, which allows for FBI, CIA, etc. Stop hating and start reading the entire thread and doing some of your own research.
[/quote]

Thank you Fargo.


----------



## Hater (Apr 21, 2006)

Here is a little something I found while doing a little *"research"* which some people in this thread are too lazy to do for them selves.



> Iran drops dollar from oil deals: report
> 
> Raw Story
> December 8, 2007
> ...


Hater

*That is one of the worst arguments ever against a dissenting opinion - that you if you don't like it don't live here. Our constitution explicitly provides for freedom of assembly, and the questioning of government or corporate policy should be encouraged, otherwise we might as well all just live in a fascist state. *

Thank you sir. Could not have said it any better.

Hater


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Heres another one for you lazy guys that dont want to research. Aaron Russo, a world recognized producer/filmmaker created a documentary America: Freedom to Fascism. *edited* I made a mistake by saying Mr Russo produced Bowling ofr Columbine and sicko... So if anyone has some credibility it has to be him. Please take the time to watch this video it will only take 10 minutes of your life and it goes more into what I have said.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

8o8P said:


> Heres another one for you lazy guys that dont want to research. Aaron Russo, a world recognized producer/filmmaker created a documentary America: Freedom to Fascism. Mr. Russo is also credited with Bowling for Columbine (gun control) and Sicko (US medicare) So if anyone has some credibility it has to be him. Please take the time to watch this video it will only take 10 minutes of your life and it goes more into what I have said.


Wait. So b/c he's a famous filmaker he has credibility? Then, you list his recent works bowling and sicko which are two very biased films and its supposed to sway me? I know a famous writer. Her name is Ann coulter. She has many books on the NY best sellers list...


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

diddye said:


> Heres another one for you lazy guys that dont want to research. Aaron Russo, a world recognized producer/filmmaker created a documentary America: Freedom to Fascism. Mr. Russo is also credited with Bowling for Columbine (gun control) and Sicko (US medicare) So if anyone has some credibility it has to be him. Please take the time to watch this video it will only take 10 minutes of your life and it goes more into what I have said.


Wait. So b/c he's a famous filmaker he has credibility? Then, you list his recent works bowling and sicko which are two very biased films and its supposed to sway me? I know a famous writer. Her name is Ann coulter. She has many books on the NY best sellers list...
[/quote]

No, he has credibility because he has taken the time to research what he is presenting to you. What more do you want? Facts based on research. What makes a source credible? Damn, you are so damn picky in finding a source that your missing the whole message. You obviously didnt watch the film cause if you did you wouldnt have been done in time to post this.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

No, I didn't watch the video, but then again, I never claimed to have done so. A credible source is as neutral as possible stating facts rather then opinion. I dont think its that hard to distinguish between a reliable and unreliable source.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

diddye said:


> No, I didn't watch the video, but then again, I never claimed to have done so. A credible source is as neutral as possible stating facts rather then opinion. I dont think its that hard to distinguish between a reliable and unreliable source.


HELLO? Watch the video and you will see that he is stating facts and not his opinions. He shows you through research and history of how the Federal Reserve came about. If you dont watch the video then dont comment about it or the producer Mr. Russo. You wanna talk about credible sources and you say Ann Coulter.. What a joke. Isnt she the one who said.

"Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from Arabic countries leave..." racist comment after the 9/11 attacks

"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote."---Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01

*to a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC*

"Anorexics never have boyfriends. ... That's one way to know you don't have anorexia, if you have a boyfriend."---Politically Incorrect 7/21/97

Yeah thats the type of person that is credible a racist and stereotypical person.. Someone who doesnt even respect our soldiers/veterans, soldiers who fought for her freedoms... GREAT JOB!!


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

8o8P said:


> Jewelz nothing of what you wrote indicates it isnt privately owned. It just shows how it manages its business. The government has NO SHARES in the Federal Reserve, therefore they own none of it.
> 
> So do we all agree that there is a federal reserve and they print money with no backing?


From the same article:

The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. Created in 1913 by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act, *it is a quasi-public (part private, part government) banking system*

At the very least, it's *heavily regulated by the government* which is not the same as private banks simply taking your income and sharing whatever they feel like with the government.
[/quote]

but it isnt owned by the government... Yes the government regulates where the money is going but they do not own it.
[/quote]

Well, if the government does it's job, would that not prevent your money from being stolen ?

*Again, I think a bigger issue is how the government spends the revenue, not how it gets it*
[/quote]

Isnt that kinda ass backwards. If we can control how the governmet gets its money then we can control how its spent. If we abolish the Federal Reserve, we get rid of the financial banking that the US gets its money from. The US government doesnt ask us what we want them to do with the money they just get it from the FR and do what they wish with it, and our responsibility is to pay back their debts. If we get the power back into the peoples hands of how the government gets the money we ultimately decides where it goes or in other words if we dont like what theyre spending the money on, we dont have to supply it. THE POWER IS BACK IN THE PEOPLES HANDS!! Isnt that what Freedom and democracy is about?
[/quote]

Suppose Federal Reserve is abolished and our money goes directly to the government with no private banks being involved. Would the people really have better control of government spending ? Sorry, I just don't understand how. Well, I've already conceded I am not an expert; but wouldn't the government still tax our income and spend it according to how politicians on Capitol Hill vote ?

Elections are supposed to be a mechanism to control how government spends our money. Right now, Dems are more likely to increase domestic spending - f.e. health care, social programs and such while Repubs are more likely to spend on military. Flawed as it may be currently due to lobbying and special interest groups, that is still the best way for an average citizen to have a say in what's being done with public funds.


----------



## Hater (Apr 21, 2006)

> Wait. So b/c he's a famous filmaker he has credibility? Then, you list his recent works bowling and sicko which are two very biased films and its supposed to sway me? *I know a famous writer. Her name is Ann coulter. She has many books on the NY best sellers list*...


Well, there goes that.

8o8p, again you are wasting your time. When someone comes back at you with Ann Coulter, then you really know is time to give up the fight.

Hater


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Hater said:


> > Wait. So b/c he's a famous filmaker he has credibility? Then, you list his recent works bowling and sicko which are two very biased films and its supposed to sway me? *I know a famous writer. Her name is Ann coulter. She has many books on the NY best sellers list*...
> 
> 
> Well, there goes that.
> ...


I think the point that he was trying to make is Bowling for Columbine and Sicko are biased, just like Ann Coulter's books


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Oops I fucked up bigtime. Sicko and Bowling is not even by him.. My bad, I got him confused with Michael Moore. Michael Moore is the one who produced Bowling and Sicko. *I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION...* Im trying to do other work on the side as well as finding info for you folks so I apologize for misleading you.

Aaron Russo was a proud supporter of Ron Paul and his quest for freedom. Aaron Russo truly lives by his message on his gravestone.. FREEDOM FIGHTER...

RIP Aaron Russo 
February 14, 1943 - August 24, 2007..


----------



## Hater (Apr 21, 2006)

> I think the point that he was trying to make is Bowling for Columbine and Sicko are just biased, just like Ann Coulter's books


Got it Jewels.

Hater


----------



## pirayaman (Nov 3, 2007)

ok with all the stuff every one has said vote for ron paul

so we can get our freedom and our rights back also do away with a federal tax \

say yes to the constitution say yes to ron paul


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> > Wait. So b/c he's a famous filmaker he has credibility? Then, you list his recent works bowling and sicko which are two very biased films and its supposed to sway me? *I know a famous writer. Her name is Ann coulter. She has many books on the NY best sellers list*...
> 
> 
> Well, there goes that.
> ...


I think the point that he was trying to make is Bowling for Columbine and Sicko are biased, just like Ann Coulter's books
[/quote]

Bingo....I thought I was sarcastic enough. Guess I'll have to work harder next time.


----------



## pirayaman (Nov 3, 2007)

pirayaman said:


> ok with all the stuff every one has said vote for ron paul
> 
> so we can get our freedom and our rights back also do away with a federal tax \
> 
> say yes to the constitution say yes to ron paul


i say what do you think of this guy ron paul


----------



## pyrokingbrand (Nov 30, 2004)

Dont worry 808P its alright man, people are nervous to even talk about stuff like this. Many do not know any better or do not

even care to look for the information themselves. A good American does whatever he is told nowadays without question and

many people cannot get away from this concept. Its all about money, cars, clothes, @ss and not freedom my friend. Who cares

about freedom when its all about me, me, me. Screw everyone else I have my ipod, xbox, flascreen and meds that "help me

sleep" ....by the way I cant pay for any of it... I am not saying all americans are like this but [email protected] too many are. I asked my

fellow Senior status classmates(college 400 level history class) about their feelings concerning atrocitites committted by

American soldiers in Iraq, specifically Abu Ghraib there was silence and about 80% of the class did not know anything had

happened. It seems that many Americans have some kind of odd disinterest or maybe its laziness that lets everything outside of

the "me" realm just skirt on by. Maybe I just live in a goofy part of the country but that is scary when 30 people look at you and

have no clue about a major series of events that have occurred. Maybe Americans have been truly dumbed down.... Oh well if

anyone reading this thread gets anyhting out of it, its to question what we are told and look for the truth.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

pirayaman said:


> ok with all the stuff every one has said vote for ron paul
> 
> so we can get our freedom and our rights back also do away with a federal tax \
> 
> say yes to the constitution say yes to ron paul


i say what do you think of this guy ron paul
[/quote]

I support him 100% and have given donations to his cause. For those who dont know who he is, this is a link to his webpage and a breif bio. He is one of the few politicians that still lives by the constitution and what it stands for.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/

This is from the link

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

^^ Thanks Pyro.. I got so much stuff to do and trying to educate your PFurians that I got all caught up. Yes, more people need to get educated and its sad that people take things for granted. Like sheep that follow the masses blindly.


----------



## pirayaman (Nov 3, 2007)

YES RON PAUL IS DEFFINATLY A ECONOMIOCS MASTER STATIS PRESADENT ELECT

he raisied the most money and never gets plublicity wtf

every body talks about obama and clintion wtf these 2 canadates suck

VOTE EVERY BODY VOTE RON PAUL TAKE BACK AMERICA DONT JUST SIT THERE YOUR FREEDOME IS AT RISK DID YOU KNOW THE NEW TERRORIST LAWS ALLOWS THE POLICE TO JUST BREAK IN YOUR HOUSE WITH NO WARRENT 
DID YOU KNOW YOU CAN SHOOT A COP IF YOU ARE UNLAWFULLY ARESTED TO PROTECT YOUR SELF 
THE FEDS CAN LOOCK YOU UP FOR UP TO 5 YEARS BEFORE THEY PROVE THEIR CASE


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

pyrokingbrand said:


> fellow Senior status classmates(college 400 level history class) about their feelings concerning atrocitites committted by
> 
> American soldiers in Iraq, specifically Abu Ghraib there was silence and about 80% of the class did not know anything had
> 
> ...


I had the same problem in graduate school. Major events were happening and no one gave a sh*t. Complete apathy, and that's why the govt gets away with taking away freedoms and maintaining high 
taxes and continuing the Iraq war. Democracy is supposed to operate such that the rulers fear the people, not the other way around.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Fargo said:


> fellow Senior status classmates(college 400 level history class) about their feelings concerning atrocitites committted by
> 
> American soldiers in Iraq, specifically Abu Ghraib there was silence and about 80% of the class did not know anything had
> 
> ...


I had the same problem in graduate school. Major events were happening and no one gave a sh*t. Complete apathy, and that's why the govt gets away with taking away freedoms and maintaining high 
taxes and continuing the Iraq war. Democracy is supposed to operate such that the rulers fear the people, not the other way around.
[/quote]

Exactly, its like horses with blinders on. They only have one agenda, themselves, and they are oblivious to the world around them. Its also sad that when people like myself goes against the masses and tries to fight for our freedoms we get attacked and ridiculed. Its that type of mentality that will leave this country in a fascist state and when that happens and government controls their lives they will realize what a fool theyve been.

PLEASE, AS AMERICANS, WE NEED TO FIGHT FOR WHAT IS TRULY OURS, OUR COUNTRY AND OUR FREEDOM.


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

what are you not free to do 8o8p?


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

Accusing those who aren't indoctrinated into the same thinking as yourselves of being lazy and not finding the sources that (hopefully) you've used to come by your knowledge is a real turn-off to those who you seek to educate. Some diplomacy and academic integrity would help to further your cause more than just by using unsourced statements of questionable veracity.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

LMAO, out of everythig I said, you still knit pick and criticize me. Where did I say anyone is lazy? I said people dont take the time. Where did I say you HAVE TO FOLLOW me or my agenda? Like I said earlier and many times, believe me or not, I dont care. Some academic criteria? The company I go through is comprised of lawyers, tax lawyers, former IRS agents. I think that is academic criteria.

Like i said earlier, I could care less if you believe me or follow me or whatever. Im getting the message out and you do what you will... Like Hater said, hell keep an open mind, take the info and run with it. IN MY OPINION, its just sad that people dont take this info and educate themselves more about what is going on around them, instead theyd rather take the time and criticize me, who is trying to help them.


----------



## Guest (Jan 4, 2008)

8o8P said:


> Accusing those who aren't indoctrinated into the same thinking as yourselves of being lazy and not finding the sources that (hopefully) you've used to come by your knowledge is a real turn-off to those who you seek to educate. Some diplomacy and academic integrity would help to further your cause more than just by using unsourced statements of questionable veracity.


I agree. I'm almost laughing at how personal some people take it when I ask them to provide me with a source, as if I was doubting that they know these facts because they are just that smart.

If you want to prove a point, you provide people with ALL of the information they will need. You dont say "hey, chocolate chip cookies are easy to make. Im not going to tell you how though, Im just saying that they are. Go look it up yourself, you lazy bum" when someone asks if chocolate chip cookies are easy to make and how.

BTW, whats the name of this company? If what you are doing is legal, and you want to share the secret, surely you can give us such an important peice of the puzzle?


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

8o8P said:


> "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." ~ 16th amendment. ratified 42-6 in 1913. proposed by president taft in 1909.
> 
> also see the revenue act of 1913.
> 
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1.html


Like I said earlier, A16 was illegally ratified and if you think its just me being stubborn.. Many people have been taken to court over tax laws and *A16 HAS BEEN USED IN COURT TO PROVE INNOCENCE BY FRAUD* and won. Heres a link to explain more.

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/theman.asp

Read the last paragraph, 38 states ratified it like someone said, including Kentucky, California, and Oklahoma. Further research shows that Kentucky rejected it, California didnt even vote on it, and Oklahoma wanted a entirely different proposal, *all documented in their records*. so you take out just those three states alone and you will see that only 35 approved which isnt 3/4 vote. But if you look into the link that shows the breakdown of all the states and you will see that only 9 actually ratified it.
[/quote]

ACTUALLY!... kentucky voted in favor SECOND on february 8th, 1910, california voted in favor january 31st 1911, and oklahoma was, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, the 6th to ratify the amendment, on march 10th 1910. this according to the GPO, the United states government printing office. source those "records" you refer to. only 9 actually ratified it???!?!?!? the only states that rejected it were rhode island, florida, connecticut, and utah, and the only states not to vote were pennsylvania and utah. i encourage you to research pollack vs. farmers loan and trust co..... DO IT!


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Accusing those who aren't indoctrinated into the same thinking as yourselves of being lazy and not finding the sources that (hopefully) you've used to come by your knowledge is a real turn-off to those who you seek to educate. Some diplomacy and academic integrity would help to further your cause more than just by using unsourced statements of questionable veracity.


I agree. I'm almost laughing at how personal some people take it when I ask them to provide me with a source, as if I was doubting that they know these facts because they are just that smart.

If you want to prove a point, you provide people with ALL of the information they will need. You dont say "hey, chocolate chip cookies are easy to make. Im not going to tell you how though, Im just saying that they are. Go look it up yourself, you lazy bum" when someone asks if chocolate chip cookies are easy to make and how.

BTW, whats the name of this company? If what you are doing is legal, and you want to share the secret, surely you can give us such an important peice of the puzzle?
[/quote]

How would answering those questions prove my pt? I am talking about the federal reserve and FEDERAL INCOME TAX, I have said NOTHING about state tax EXCEPT I STILL PAY THEM. Why do some states pay them and some dont, I dont know. But is that the topic at hand, is that what I wrote in my posts? No it isnt, I am talking about the Federal income tax.

I didnt bring up the military, other people did. Like I said earlier, Ron Paul has a plan as to how the government would fund the military once the federal reserve is abolished. Is that not good enough? Hes more than qualified/accredited to come up with a plan. I on the other hand am not qualified, will not act like Im qualified, and will openly tell you that.

Again who did call lazy? Who did I criticize because they dont want to listen to what I have said. Like I said when I answered his post, I dont care if you follow me or not. i hav done nothing to criticize those who object me, I am trying to answer their questions.

I did tell you how I did it, reread the thread.. I simplified the process, but I told you exactly what I did and how I did it and the process and reasoning behind it. If you dont take the time to read it then thats your problem. Release the companies name? Not on this forum, like I said earlier, pm me and ill talk to you about it. I have already given the company out to two members of this forum so its not like Im hiding the info.

The way you people are criticizing and acting towards me is like Im conspiring to overthrow the government, or planning to do a terrorist attack and Im trying to get people involved for the cause. DO you not want to know how to reduce your tax liability, if you dont, then fine, this isnt for you. If you do, why all the hate towards me? I am trying to do YOU a favor by trying to HELP YOU financially. You dont like it, well, move on.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

oops double post


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

r1dermon said:


> "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." ~ 16th amendment. ratified 42-6 in 1913. proposed by president taft in 1909.
> 
> also see the revenue act of 1913.
> 
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/1.html


Like I said earlier, A16 was illegally ratified and if you think its just me being stubborn.. Many people have been taken to court over tax laws and *A16 HAS BEEN USED IN COURT TO PROVE INNOCENCE BY FRAUD* and won. Heres a link to explain more.

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/theman.asp

Read the last paragraph, 38 states ratified it like someone said, including Kentucky, California, and Oklahoma. Further research shows that Kentucky rejected it, California didnt even vote on it, and Oklahoma wanted a entirely different proposal, *all documented in their records*. so you take out just those three states alone and you will see that only 35 approved which isnt 3/4 vote. But if you look into the link that shows the breakdown of all the states and you will see that only 9 actually ratified it.
[/quote]

ACTUALLY!... kentucky voted in favor SECOND on february 8th, 1910, california voted in favor january 31st 1911, and oklahoma was, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, the 6th to ratify the amendment, on march 10th 1910. this according to the *GPO, the United states government printing office*. source those "records" you refer to. only 9 actually ratified it???!?!?!? the only states that rejected it were rhode island, florida, connecticut, and utah, and the only states not to vote were pennsylvania and utah. i encourage you to research *pollack vs. farmers loan and trust co..... DO IT!*
[/quote]

Are you serious? So your going to to use a document in the GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE to defend the government... Is this a joke. Do you really believe the government would keep an incriminating evidence in their own files?? In fact whatever you read is wrong 7 states rejected it the four you mention plus Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Come on man. You want sources, go to the 48 states that were in the union and look in its state records you will find it there, that is what Bill Benson did and he has documents to prove it. He hasnt paid federal income tax since finishing his report. They have tried him in court, spent a breif time in jail but ultimately releaed due to the fact that if the government wants to convict him they have to prove A16 was properly ratified which they cant.

I researched it, and you know what i found

1895
The Court, in Pollack v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co., finds a federal income tax unconstitutional. Sections 2 and 9 of Article I of the Constitution state that federal capitation taxes may not be imposed directly, but must be apportioned based on the population of each state. The decision is reversed by the federal income tax amendment (the Sixteenth) 19 years later, in 1913.

*1895?, Thats 18 years before the Federal reserve act and A16 was even created!!* Whats your point? He even won his case saying a federal income tax was unconstitutional. It wasnt until A16 was illegally ratified did he get convicted. I dont know what your getting at but it doesnt disprove anything I said.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Okay r1der.. i did my research now do yours. Look it up and Ill make it easy by providing dates so you can find it easier.

Joseph Bannister Vs. United states of America, thats right the USA tried to prosecute him.

4 felony charges, one of them being conspiring against the Federal government.

Started in 2004, thats right four years ago not over a century like your case. He was ACQUITTED OF ALL CHARGES in 2005.

Look it up... DO IT

*EDITED*

You want another just in case you cant find the first one... this is more recent as well.

Robert Lawrence Vs. United states of America

3-16-06 Indicted
Charged with 6 counts, 3 of tax evason and 3 of unwilling and knowing to not file tax.
Here is a link to the court documents that were filed
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/PRA/PRA-...eIndictment.pdf

5-12-06 Dismissed
Here is a link to the court documents that were filed
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/PRA/Plea...sWPrejudice.pdf

So why after less than two months would the government dismiss its case?

The motion for dismissal came on the heels of a surprise tactic by Lawrence's defense attorney Oscar Stilley. The tactic threatened exposure of IRS's on-going efforts to defraud the public. The move put DOJ (Department of Justice) attorneys in a state of panic that left them with only one alternative: beg for dismissal, with prejudice.

Look it up.. DO IT


----------



## Hater (Apr 21, 2006)

> The way you people are criticizing and acting towards me is like Im conspiring to overthrow the government, or planning to do a terrorist attack and Im trying to get people involved for the cause. DO you not want to know how to reduce your tax liability, if you dont, then fine, this isnt for you. If you do, why all the hate towards me? I am trying to do YOU a favor by trying to HELP YOU financially. You dont like it, well, move on.


Dude, sometimes I believe people in this forum are insane. You are giving them great information, opening up their minds and all they do is nit pick at your thread. If it's not one thing is the other, you just can win.

I applaud you 8o8P for continuing on despite of all the criticism.

Hater


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Hater said:


> > The way you people are criticizing and acting towards me is like Im conspiring to overthrow the government, or planning to do a terrorist attack and Im trying to get people involved for the cause. DO you not want to know how to reduce your tax liability, if you dont, then fine, this isnt for you. If you do, why all the hate towards me? I am trying to do YOU a favor by trying to HELP YOU financially. You dont like it, well, move on.
> 
> 
> Dude, sometimes I believe people in this forum are insane. You are giving them great information, opening up their minds and all they do is nit pick at your thread. If it's not one thing is the other, you just can win.
> ...


Thank you hater. I will admit that sometimes its like fighting a losing battle. It is very hard to change the influence that decades and decades have brought upon people. Im glad there are people like yourself who has an open mind and are willing to listen to what I have to say. Its people like you that keep me going in spreading the word.. If I can convince even one person in this thread Ive done my job because one becomes two, two becomes four, which becomes eight and so on..

*edited*

You know whats funny? This isnt even my thread, sorry Baddfish for severely derailing your thread.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

Why did Banister get acquitted but Thompson get convicted?


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

"oops"


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

baddfish said:


> "oops"


"oops" what? "You did it again" Britney Spears...lol...joto. On a serious note this has been one of the best posts. The information on here has gone a long way at least for me. thank you 8o8P and Badffish


----------



## 2keepnbeararms (Jan 4, 2008)

Hater said:


> > The way you people are criticizing and acting towards me is like Im conspiring to overthrow the government, or planning to do a terrorist attack and Im trying to get people involved for the cause. DO you not want to know how to reduce your tax liability, if you dont, then fine, this isnt for you. If you do, why all the hate towards me? I am trying to do YOU a favor by trying to HELP YOU financially. You dont like it, well, move on.
> 
> 
> Dude, sometimes I believe people in this forum are insane. You are giving them great information, opening up their minds and all they do is nit pick at your thread. If it's not one thing is the other, you just can win.
> ...


8o8P, ditto. Continue on informing people who will listen. You're on the right track.


----------



## Guest (Jan 4, 2008)

I get the feeling a wild orgy could break out between 808P, Hater, face2006 and baddfish at any moment.

Lets take a little less time patting eachother on the back, and more time giving us some substantial sources.

Again, what is the name of this company 8o8p?

And if Federal taxes wont pay pack the National Debt, who will?


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

8o8P said:


> LMAO, out of everythig I said, you still knit pick and criticize me. Where did I say anyone is lazy? I said people dont take the time. Where did I say you HAVE TO FOLLOW me or my agenda? Like I said earlier and many times, believe me or not, I dont care. Some academic criteria? The company I go through is comprised of lawyers, tax lawyers, former IRS agents. I think that is academic criteria.
> 
> Like i said earlier, I could care less if you believe me or follow me or whatever. Im getting the message out and you do what you will... Like Hater said, hell keep an open mind, take the info and run with it. IN MY OPINION, its just sad that people dont take this info and educate themselves more about what is going on around them, instead theyd rather take the time and criticize me, who is trying to help them.


Hey, I didn't say that you said that anyone was lazy. Others have, though, and I'm responding to them. I also didn't say that you said people HAVE TO FOLLOW you or your agenda. I just made a comment about how novel claims need sources and telling people who ask for them that they're lazy is a turn-off. Some of your compadres have been calling those who ask for sources lazy.


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

DannyBoy17 said:


> *I get the feeling a wild orgy could break out between 808P, Hater, face2006 and baddfish at any moment.*
> 
> Lets take a little less time patting eachother on the back, and more time giving us some substantial sources.
> 
> ...


I gotta feeling that you would like to see that, because of your







, weren't you the one with the horrible one word posts? *SOURCE?* stick to the topic!! NO need to go there. What substantial source do you have that supports you're ideology?


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

8o8P MY good man. You did NOT derail my thread. I APPLAUD YOU!







Getting the point accross to the people about this government is something that should ALWAYS be open to the public. Between you and many others like my older bro (2keepnbeararms). People will eventually learn the truth. Like you said. Its worth taking criticism from people who would rather just be "followers". Its VERY convenient for most. Thats all. As long as a precious few will begin to do a little research, more and more will be exposed. Keep up the GREAT work. Continue to TEACH what you KNOW. I will do my best with the help of my bro to add ANYTHING i possibly can to this thread to help others learn the truth. I kindly ask the MODERATORS to allow this thread to remain open.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Fargo said:


> Why did Banister get acquitted but Thompson get convicted?


I think a lot has to do with what happened prior to the trial, he was already arrested 4 times for contempt. Then he led the police on a high speed chase that went through neighborhoods and on the interstate reaching speeds of 100 mph. You also have to realize, Thompson was a business owner that withheld taxes from his employees, way different than what Mr. Bannister did. He was one of the first to blow the whistle on CORPORATIONS withholding taxes not just individuals. Thompson appeared in a national magazine to talk about it. He also decided to represent himself (which was foolish) because he didnt know what he was doing. He was NOT a ex-IRS agent and didnt know how "the system" works and since he went to trial on his own couldnt come up with the documentation to prove his innocence. Mr. Bannister is highly trained from the IRS and its operations and he knew what documents he could present.

Bannister told the court that he wanted a seperate trial from Thompson because of this, which was granted.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

DannyBoy17 said:


> 8o8P MY good man. You did NOT derail my thread. I APPLAUD YOU!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks Baddfish


----------



## Piranha Guru (Nov 24, 2005)

8o8P said:


> What national debt?, Our national debt is to the Federal Reserve, how will we pay them back if they dont exist? Think about it.


Perhaps someone can explain to me how the debt is to the Federal Reserve and not to public and external (foreign) creditors...I don't see how wiping out the Federal Reserve would wipe out our debt.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

BioTeAcH said:


> What national debt?, Our national debt is to the Federal Reserve, how will we pay them back if they dont exist? Think about it.


Perhaps someone can explain to me how the debt is to the Federal Reserve and not to public and external (foreign) creditors...I don't see how wiping out the Federal Reserve would wipe out our debt.
[/quote]
*edited*
You are right, it will not wipe it out totally, some of it is to foreign debt, and private but majority is to the federal reserve. Also, the Federal reserve is putting us farther into debt and destroying not only our economy but the worlds economy. If we abolish the FR we get rid of Majority of our debt and the very thing that creates it. A lot of foreign debt is not due to import/export it is due to other countries paying off our debt to the Federal Reserve so technically we would be even more in debt to the FR had they not bought it from us. Sorry for the confusion, its early in the morning and Im trying to do my work.

You need to understand how the flow of money works. The government must ask the Federal Reserve for a loan. Just like how Bush asked the FR for billions of dollars for the Iraq war. Ok, so now, the government is in debt to the Federal Reserve, remember the FEDERAL RESERVE IS NOT A GOVERNMENT OWNED BANK. It is privately owned. So yes, our government is indebt to a select few private owners. (4 families, Rockefellers, Rothschilds etc.) Ok, so now they have the debt, who will pay it... You and me of course, well not me anymore. You pay it off by paying our federal income tax. Go look at the government website that shows the national debt. Below it you will see "What you owe"

*edited*
I found out how much you owe

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK

The Outstanding *Public Debt* as of 04 Jan 2008 at 07:47:22 PM GMT is:
$ 9 , 2 1 3 , 5 0 5 , 7 4 7 , 8 0 5 . 4 2

The estimated population of the United States is 303,990,817
so *each* *citizen's share of this debt is $30,308.50.*

You must also remember that this is for EVERY CITIZEN, young, old, homeless, whatever. Not everyone can/will pay their share so you actually pay more than whats shown.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

8o8P said:


> Why did Banister get acquitted but Thompson get convicted?


I think a lot has to do with what happened prior to the trial, he was already arrested 4 times for contempt. Then he led the police on a high speed chase that went through neighborhoods and on the interstate reaching speeds of 100 mph. You also have to realize, Thompson was a business owner that withheld taxes from his employees, way different than what Mr. Bannister did. He was one of the first to blow the whistle on CORPORATIONS withholding taxes not just individuals. Thompson appeared in a national magazine to talk about it. He also decided to represent himself (which was foolish) because he didnt know what he was doing. He was NOT a ex-IRS agent and didnt know how "the system" works and since he went to trial on his own couldnt come up with the documentation to prove his innocence. Mr. Bannister is highly trained from the IRS and its operations and he knew what documents he could present.

Bannister told the court that he wanted a seperate trial from Thompson because of this, which was granted.
[/quote]

All right thanks. I had to go to work and didn't have time to research why the one guy got busted. 3 things: First, what do you think of the theory, put forth by conspiracy theorists and IRS apologists, that Bannister is an IRS plant that is generating all this publicity so that he can come into contact with some of the worst Tax evadors?

2nd: There are tons of web sites that claim either the 16th Amendment was or wasn't ratified. If you come across the most straightforward link for this debate and who seems more right, please post it or PM.

3rd: Is bannister in the movie, Freedom to fascism? The movie is free online but I'll probably buy it anyway.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

1. Possibly, but I highly doubt it. There have been numerous people before Bannister even got out of the IRS that have been taken to court and was acquitted. He is not the first and only ex IRS agent to come forth with this information. Plus why would the IRS risk exposing millions of people to possible fraud in order to capture one of the heavy hitters. Doesnt make sense. Remember, he is not the only one that has come up with evidence that can discredit the validity of A16 and the tax laws. Some notable ones are our ex-president JFK, which cost him his life. Another is presidential candidate Ron Paul. Other people have done their own research and have come up with the same results. Another being that Mr Thompson is the only notable person linked to Bannister and like I said there was alot going against him in his trial. According to Mr Bannister and the IRS, Bannister has been locked out and disbared from the IRS. He is even being robbed of his CPA certification due to that fact. His entire career is over. Yes they could be paying him, but I highly doubt it. If he conspires to send another person to jail by his actions he is just as guilty as the person who went to jail. Remember undercover/placed agents can investigate, but they cannot do illegal activities themselves or they would be considered "rogue agents." Does that make sense? He didnt leave Thompson "out to dry" Thompson did stupid things before and during his trial and Bannister knew it and wanted no part of it. In fact, the prosecutors knew they had Thompson and they tried to attach bannister to Thompson as a co-defendent hoping Thompsons crimes would affect Bannister's case to get him as well, not the other way around. They didnt use Bannister as bait and reeled in Thompson, they tried the very opposite.

2.Ill try to find the one that is most credible. It seems the one I use isnt good enough to most, but Ill try. Its hard because the "official records" are at the individual states records.

3.Yes, he is in the movie America:Freedom to Fascism. In fact in that clip I posted I believe there is a brief showing of him along with some other ex-IRS agents. Hes the guy with the "porn 'stahe" LOL If you have some type of file sharing, I can send you the movie as I have it downloaded on my PC. Or I can send you a copy as I have lots of copies burnt that way you dont have to pay. In fact, Im going to watch it again. Thanks


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Heres more, I know i have no credibility but hopefully some of these people do

Woodrow Wilson, the very president that passed the Federal Reserve act. had this to say 6 years later after the act was passed.

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit.

We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority. but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

Woodrow Wilson 1919

"If you.. examined [the 16th amendment] carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of state never ratified that amendment."

US District Court Judge
James C. Fox 2003

"The power to tax is the power to destroy."

Supreme Court Chief Justice
John Marshall

"I believe that in both spirit and substance, our tax system has come to be un-American. Death and taxes may be unevitable, but unjust taxes are not."

Ex-President Ronald Reagan 
Live TV telecast 1985

Heres a page directly from the Internal revenue Code Book FROM THE IRS.

26 CFR Ch. 1 (4-1-03) edition

"...Procedures in the Internal Revenue Bulletin is to promote correct and uniform application of the tax las by Internal Revenue Service employees and to assist taxpayers in attaining maximum *VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE* by informing service personnel and the public of the internal revenue laws..."

Read the bold, VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE... you dont have to pay taxes, when you sign the 1040 you voluntarily do so.


----------



## 2keepnbeararms (Jan 4, 2008)

8o8P said:


> Heres more, I know i have no credibility but hopefully some of these people do
> 
> Woodrow Wilson, the very president that passed the Federal Reserve act. had this to say 6 years later after the act was passed.
> 
> ...


Ever hear of Louis McFadden? Congressman in the early 30s who exposed the power of the elite banks and financial institutions.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

^ No I havent, at least not in depth, but I will definately look it up.. Thanks.

I havent watched America:Freedom to Fascism for a while and I highly urge many of you to do so. A lot of your questions are answered in the film...

If you think this is some biased film, Aaron Russo gets both sides of the story, and even interviews with Sheldon Cohen, former IRS commissioner who wrote the tax code. So he gets both sides of the argument and you should see how badly Mr Cohen had to bite his tongue and give irrelevant information.. You seriously need to watch it.

*edited*

For those of you that support Ron Paul, he is one of the only congressmen to appear in this video and sits down to interview with Mr Russo. You should listen to what he has to say.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester...ation_arguments

only four states ratified the properly SPELLED and grammatically correct amendment. the other 34 were missing periods.







. benson didnt prove sh*t. look it up. DO IT!


> Benson was unsuccessful with his Sixteenth Amendment argument when he had his own legal problems. He was prosecuted for tax evasion and willful failure to file tax returns. The court rejected his Sixteenth Amendment "non-ratification" argument in United States v. Benson.[5] William J. Benson was convicted of tax evasion and willful failure to file tax returns in connection with over $100,000 of unreported income, and his conviction was upheld on appeal. He was sentenced to four years in prison and five years of probation. See United States v. Benson.[6]


hmm...better watch out for the tax man 8o8p, he's gonna come knocking on ur sh*t, like when he took down ur boy benson.











> Similar "Sixteenth Amendment arguments" have been uniformly rejected by other United States Circuit courts in other cases including Ficalora v. Commissioner;[7] Sisk v. Commissioner;[8] United States v. Sitka;[9] and United States v. Stahl.[10] The non-ratification argument has been specifically deemed legally frivolous in Brown v. Commissioner;[11] Lysiak v. Commissioner;[12] and Miller v. United States.[13]





> The argument that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified and variations of this argument have been officially identified as legally frivolous Federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).[16]


wanna talk about the 5th amendment arguments which have been overruled? the "takings" argument? involuntary servitude? TONA? sovereign individual? federal zone? definition of income? corporate profits argument?

* Cameron v. Internal Revenue Serv.;[43]
* Stoewer v. Commissioner;[44]
* Reinhart v. United States;[45]
* Fink v. Commissioner;[46]
* Flathers v. Commissioner;[47]
* Schroeder v. Commissioner;[48]
* Sherwood v. Commissioner;[49]
* Ho v. Commissioner.[50]

evans vs. gore? taxing labor or income from labor? how about the cheek case and the 16th amendment?

how about this gem? 


> Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any other Federal court has ever ruled that any Federal income tax[84] imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is unconstitutional.


for your safety, pay federal income taxes.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

r1dermon said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester...ation_arguments
> 
> only four states ratified the properly SPELLED and grammatically correct amendment. the other 34 were missing periods.
> 
> ...


Everyone wants sources and you use wikipedia...WIKIPEDIA? LMAO, anyone can go on there and write sh*t. I can go on right now and erase it and write what I want to on it... Then you even say only 4 state PROPERLY RATIFIED A16.. Uhh... isnt that what I was trying to say, it wasnt PROPERLY RATIFIED BY THE 3/4 NEEDED? You cannot count a states vote as ratified if they want wording, spelling , and grammatical errors changed as properly ratified.

Your using the Internal Revenue Code. How can you use the Internal Revenue code, of course they arent going to put something in their own code book to overwrite what they say. Do you think theyd be stupid enough to do that? LMAO.. Yeah Ill wirte a book and put incriminating evidence in it. if you can discredit the very thing that created the Federal income tax, what they wrote in THIER BOOk HAS NO MERIT!.. Ill even give you the benefit of the doubt, say it is credible, within the code book it says that paying your federal income tax is VOLUNTARY. YOU DONT HAVE TO DO IT. The method the IRS uses is "gun to head" You dont have to do it, but if you dont well raid your house, take everything you got, and through your ass in jail... Where do we live Russia?

*EDITED* I checked your "Wikipedia source" and pretty much your whole argument comes from this one page. I have cited numerous sources to provide adequate information while you provide one. And that one is on a website that is open to the public to write whatever the hell they want on it.

I am citing sources from the constitution, there isnt a bigger and more credible source than that.

Article 1 Section 9 of the CONSTITUTION

"No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

In laymans terms you cannot lay a direct tax upon someone UNLESS you use take that money and spread out to the public. (proportioned to the census) So even if your argument syas A16 can give congree the power to impose a federal tax, a direct tax, it needs to be equally divided among the states and its population which it is not. Do your tax dollars come to me and everyone else in the US, no it goes directly to the Federal Reserve. Which violates the constitution.

I dont care what some writer has to say on Wikipedia, the constitution tells me this.

Im sure you can find cases about tax evasion and unwilling to file. Theres probably millions of people charged with this. But like I said earlier, there is a right way and a wrong way to do something. in the cases you provide, did they take the time to properly do it and get indicted? You dont know. But in the cases I provide, i know for a fact they did it the right way, thus, acquittal.


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

check wikipedia again. Everything on that wikipedia article is sourced.


----------



## baddfish (Feb 7, 2003)

A little "SERIOUS" humor.

http://www.filecabi.net/video/Top_Ten_Signs_Fascist.html


----------



## louass (Jan 6, 2008)

I just joined here and came into the lounge forums to see what this was, and I see more people slamming Bush. Now I am not 100% for how Bush is doing this war, but I sure as hell am for it. Everyone seems to forget what happened six and a half years ago, we were attacked on our own territory with our own airplanes! I love how everyone says "OH BUSH CAME IN JUST TO START A WAR AND IT WAS ALL A PLOT TO CASH IN HAHAHA." He was in office for a very short time when this happened. This war is keeping those Arabs on the defensive, on their land, right now we are on the offensive, not to mention we've already foiled several terrorist attacks.

As far as the democrats go, your savior Hillary Rodham Clinton voted for this war, she was for it. Now you have people on here saying they will vote democrat not caring who the nominee is, that is just sad. Hillary has come out and said "I can't gurantee i'll pull out so soon because I don't know what I am inheriting." She's proposing this health care, and five thousand dollar baby bonds. Where do you think this money is coming from? Your pockets. She flip flops like mad, Ive heard her say shes for giving illeagals drivers licenses, then not even a minute later shes aginst it.

I heard something on Obama last night that if he wins you will have another president like Jimmy Carter because he lacks so much experience. That sounds fantastic, 17% interest rates! Obama is a Muslim, why in all that is holy would you want a president that is Muslim? All that guy is going to do is coddle the blacks, give them more welfare so they can sit on their ass, raise our taxes, and tell blacks they deserve it. I'm for helping people, but not for just giving money because people are lazy. I am sure this guy, who is a Muslim, middle name is Hussein, will abandon Isreal our only ally in the middle east, to calm these extremests down.

The best guy running up there is Ron Paul. He seems to be an all around good guy, for getting rid of the IRS, lowering taxes, better boarder control, pro life. He wants to pull out of Iraq. Get this national debt under control. I hope to God he takes NH.


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

Um, I don't know where you find your "facts", but Obama is not a Muslim.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

louass said:


> I heard something on Obama last night that if he or Huckabee wins it wont matter they are both to inexperienced and you will have another presidnet like Jimmy Carter. That sounds fantastic, 17% interest rates! *Obama is a muslim*, why in all that is holy would you want a president that is muslim, black? All that guy is going to do is coddle the blacks, give them more welfare so they can sit on their ass, raise our taxes, and tell blacks they deserve it. Im for helping people, but not for just giving because people are lazy. I am sure this guy, who is muslim, will abandon Isreal our only ally in the middle east, to calm these extremests down.


Uh, no he's not a muslim, he is a christian and you just completely discredited yourself with that bit of ignorance


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

louass said:


> I just joined here and came into the lounge forums to see what this was, and I see more people slamming Bush. Now I am not 100% for how Bush is doing this war, but I sure as hell am for it. Everyone seems to forget what happened six and a half years ago, we were attacked on our own territory with our own airplanes! I love how everyone says "OH BUSH CAME IN JUST TO START A WAR AND IT WAS ALL A PLOT TO CASH IN HAHAHA." He was in office for a very short time when this happened. This war is keeping those Arabs on the defensive, on their land, right now we are on the offensive, not to mention we've already foiled several terrorist attacks.
> 
> As far as the democrats go, your savior Hillary Rodham Clinton voted for this war, she was for it. Now you have people on here saying they will vote democrat not caring who the nominee is, that is just sad. Hillary has come out and said "I cant gurantee ill pull out so soon because I don't know what I am inheriting."
> 
> ...


if you really are a new member and this is your first post, i hope the rest of them will make a little more sense. but i doubt you'll post here long.


----------



## louass (Jan 6, 2008)

He's definetly a Muslim, hes just not coming out saying it. Why do you think Hillary is trying to spread that to all the christians in the swing state Ohio?


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

louass said:


> He's definetly a Muslim, hes just not coming out saying it. Why do you think Hillary is trying to spread that to all the christians in the swing state Ohio?


Got any actual proof of this?

And Hillary's camp trying to smear him doesn't count as proof...


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

louass said:


> He's definetly a Muslim, hes just not coming out saying it. Why do you think Hillary is trying to spread that to all the christians in the swing state Ohio?


you're trying to tell us that he's muslim because hillary says so? seriously man WTF? and so what if he is muslim? not ALL muslims want jihad.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

louass said:


> He's definetly a Muslim, hes just not coming out saying it. Why do you think Hillary is trying to spread that to all the christians in the swing state Ohio?


Hmm.. that's sort of like saying that Mitt Romney is definitely a goat molester, he's just not coming out saying it.


----------



## louass (Jan 6, 2008)

"When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced and his father returned to Kenya. His mother married Lolo Soetoro -- a Muslim -- moving to Jakarta with Obama when he was six years old. Within six months he had learned to speak the Indonesian language. Obama spent "two years in a Muslim school, then two more in a Catholic school" in Jakarta. Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim while admitting that he was once a Muslim, mitigating that damning information by saying that, for two years, he also attended a Catholic school."

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_b...bama_muslim.htm

Thats proof enough I am not just pulling this out of my ass.

Mitt Romney is a piece of sh*t RINO.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

louass said:


> "When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced and his father returned to Kenya. His mother married Lolo Soetoro -- a Muslim -- moving to Jakarta with Obama when he was six years old. Within six months he had learned to speak the Indonesian language. Obama spent "two years in a Muslim school, then two more in a Catholic school" in Jakarta. Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim while admitting that he was once a Muslim, mitigating that damning information by saying that, for two years, he also attended a Catholic school."
> 
> http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_b...bama_muslim.htm
> 
> Mitt Romney is a piece of sh*t RINO.


You just posted a link to a page that disproves the very rumour you're trying to present as true

From you own source:

Description: Email rumor
Circulating since: January 2007
*Status: False*


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

8o8P said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester...ation_arguments
> 
> only four states ratified the properly SPELLED and grammatically correct amendment. the other 34 were missing periods.
> 
> ...


Everyone wants sources and you use wikipedia...WIKIPEDIA? LMAO, anyone can go on there and write sh*t. I can go on right now and erase it and write what I want to on it... Then you even say only 4 state PROPERLY RATIFIED A16.. Uhh... isnt that what I was trying to say, it wasnt PROPERLY RATIFIED BY THE 3/4 NEEDED? You cannot count a states vote as ratified if they want wording, spelling , and grammatical errors changed as properly ratified.

Your using the Internal Revenue Code. How can you use the Internal Revenue code, of course they arent going to put something in their own code book to overwrite what they say. Do you think theyd be stupid enough to do that? LMAO.. Yeah Ill wirte a book and put incriminating evidence in it. if you can discredit the very thing that created the Federal income tax, what they wrote in THIER BOOk HAS NO MERIT!.. Ill even give you the benefit of the doubt, say it is credible, within the code book it says that paying your federal income tax is VOLUNTARY. YOU DONT HAVE TO DO IT. The method the IRS uses is "gun to head" You dont have to do it, but if you dont well raid your house, take everything you got, and through your ass in jail... Where do we live Russia?

*EDITED* I checked your "Wikipedia source" and pretty much your whole argument comes from this one page. I have cited numerous sources to provide adequate information while you provide one. And that one is on a website that is open to the public to write whatever the hell they want on it.

I am citing sources from the constitution, there isnt a bigger and more credible source than that.

Article 1 Section 9 of the CONSTITUTION

"No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

In laymans terms you cannot lay a direct tax upon someone UNLESS you use take that money and spread out to the public. (proportioned to the census) So even if your argument syas A16 can give congree the power to impose a federal tax, a direct tax, it needs to be equally divided among the states and its population which it is not. Do your tax dollars come to me and everyone else in the US, no it goes directly to the Federal Reserve. Which violates the constitution.

I dont care what some writer has to say on Wikipedia, the constitution tells me this.

Im sure you can find cases about tax evasion and unwilling to file. Theres probably millions of people charged with this. But like I said earlier, there is a right way and a wrong way to do something. in the cases you provide, did they take the time to properly do it and get indicted? You dont know. But in the cases I provide, i know for a fact they did it the right way, thus, acquittal.
[/quote]

hey, did your boy Benson spend 4 years in jail for tax evasion or did he not? thus your argument is moot, because even if you are right somehow, he still went to jail for 4 years. therefore, he lost. period. second of all, the argument over syntax is rediculous. it's LITERALLY capitalised letters which were not capitalised in the original proposition. states may have voted yes on the proposition, but you anarchists argue that it was a different proposition altogether? as if somehow it meant something different because States was spelled States in 4 of the copies, and spelled "states" in the other 44.

"I threw a baseball over the hill"
"i threw a baseball over the hill"

what's the difference?


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

> Several mechanisms are in place to help Wikipedia members carry out the important work of crafting a high-quality resource while maintaining civility. Editors are able to watch pages and techies can write editing programs to keep track of or rectify bad edits. Over 1,000 administrators with special powers ensure that behavior conforms to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. When a few situations are still unresolved after all other consensus remedies have failed, a judicial committee steps in and decides to withdraw or restrict editing privileges or to take other corrective measures.


by the way, the myth that wikipedia is largely inaccurate is just that...a myth. it's quite closely monitored for vandalism and non-factual edits in the articles, and edited by thousands of people on a daily basis. not only that, every case they cite, is referenced at the bottom of the wiki-article, every tidbit of information is sourced (per wikipedia guidelines). are you saying those sources are also not-credible? it's largely unbelievable that there's a loophole which affords people the luxury of not having to pay federal income taxes, or else surely by now it would've been exposed for everyone in america to enjoy. of course, if only a select few lawyers can get you through the loophole, then is it really a loophole? i mean, it's kind of like when OJ killed two people and got off...yeah, he got off, but because of our poor legal system (which is still the best in the history of the world), not because he was innocent. if you have a high priced lawyer with enough connections, im sure you could convince some judge that you shouldn't have to pay taxes. as for the rest of us, staying out of jail is motivation enough for me, i can't speak for anyone else, but im confident their rationalle falls under the same principle.

(oh yeah) and you can't erase anything on wikipedia. you can simply add your "facts" which will be checked by 90,000 other people who know what the hell their talking about. and if your facts are wrong, then your source is wrong, because you're required to cite your edits.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

8o8p, anything to ad? im seriously interested in what possible way you're doing this...


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

is it a coincidence that the chenny and the bush senior cabinnet had very integral part of establishing outsourced military operations like balck water and haliburton then with in years of gettign in control created one of the biggest war industries the world has ever seen then fights for the funding for all of these companies? they pay companies like black water more per person to fight and do the jobs that our marines and army should be doing, if they would put as much effort into reorganising the military as they did in privitising it then our soldiers wouldnt be getting screwed when they come home ..


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

r1dermon said:


> 8o8p, anything to ad? im seriously interested in what possible way you're doing this...


No, i bow down to your superior intellect. I mean I should believe you over tax lawyers, ex-IRS agents, Supreme court justices, ex-presidents, presidential candidates and above all the Constitution. You sir, are gods gift to the world, and your word must be law. Thanks for clarifying it for me.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

8o8P said:


> 8o8p, anything to ad? im seriously interested in what possible way you're doing this...


No, i bow down to your superior intellect. I mean I should believe you over tax lawyers, ex-IRS agents, Supreme court justices, ex-presidents, presidential candidates and above all the Constitution. You sir, are gods gift to the world, and your word must be law. Thanks for clarifying it for me.
[/quote]

and so now in your ignorance you have to retort to mockery? funny thing is, tax lawyers, ex-IRS agents, Supreme court justices, and above all, the constitution, still say you have to pay taxes. i asked you a legitimate question which you are unwilling to answer. anyone who is unwilling to support their argument, indeed doesn't have a valuable argument in the first place. therefore you are not to be taken serious. not because i've refused to take you seriously, but because you've refused to back up your claims.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

r1dermon said:


> 8o8p, anything to ad? im seriously interested in what possible way you're doing this...


No, i bow down to your superior intellect. I mean I should believe you over tax lawyers, ex-IRS agents, Supreme court justices, ex-presidents, presidential candidates and above all the Constitution. You sir, are gods gift to the world, and your word must be law. Thanks for clarifying it for me.
[/quote]

and so now in your ignorance you have to retort to mockery? funny thing is, tax lawyers, ex-IRS agents, Supreme court justices, and above all, the constitution, still say you have to pay taxes. i asked you a legitimate question which you are unwilling to answer. anyone who is unwilling to support their argument, indeed doesn't have a valuable argument in the first place. therefore you are not to be taken serious. not because i've refused to take you seriously, but because you've refused to back up your claims.
[/quote]

What do you want?, I provide pages upon pages of support for my argument. You provide support for your argument and I guess we just have to agree to disagree. Im not going to argue with you, you have your facts and I have mine. You dont want to listen to mine well I have the same right to not listen to you. Like I said many times, believe me or not I dont care. If paying your taxes will keep you safe in your mind then by all means pay them. I am not holding a gun to you or anyone else's head in this forum and forcing you not to pay taxes. As for me, I would rather fight for what I believe is my rights.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

8o8P just let it go, hes a stubborn ass hat you could have GWB sit down infront o him with every other living ex president and the entire congress CIA and FBI and tehy could provide detailed evidence and proof either for or against what ever he wants to discuss and he still will not accept the answers and come up with some assanine reason of why hes right wether it makes sense or not..

debating or discussing things with rider is like arguing with a chick all rational logical thought is suddenly useless


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

nismo driver said:


> 8o8P just let it go, hes a stubborn ass hat you could have GWB sit down infront o him with every other living ex president and the entire congress CIA and FBI and tehy could provide detailed evidence and proof either for or against what ever he wants to discuss and he still will not accept the answers and come up with some assanine reason of why hes right wether it makes sense or not..
> 
> *debating or discussing things with rider is like arguing with a chick all rational logical thought is suddenly useless*


LMAO, gotta love that one...


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

I feel like its the other way around.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

8o8P said:


> 8o8p, anything to ad? im seriously interested in what possible way you're doing this...


No, i bow down to your superior intellect. I mean I should believe you over tax lawyers, ex-IRS agents, Supreme court justices, ex-presidents, presidential candidates and above all the Constitution. You sir, are gods gift to the world, and your word must be law. Thanks for clarifying it for me.
[/quote]

and so now in your ignorance you have to retort to mockery? funny thing is, tax lawyers, ex-IRS agents, Supreme court justices, and above all, the constitution, still say you have to pay taxes. i asked you a legitimate question which you are unwilling to answer. anyone who is unwilling to support their argument, indeed doesn't have a valuable argument in the first place. therefore you are not to be taken serious. not because i've refused to take you seriously, but because you've refused to back up your claims.
[/quote]

What do you want?, I provide pages upon pages of support for my argument. You provide support for your argument and I guess we just have to agree to disagree. Im not going to argue with you, you have your facts and I have mine. *You dont want to listen to mine* well I have the same right to not listen to you. Like I said many times, believe me or not I dont care. If paying your taxes will keep you safe in your mind then by all means pay them. I am not holding a gun to you or anyone else's head in this forum and forcing you not to pay taxes. As for me, I would rather fight for what I believe is my rights.
[/quote]

umm, i've read and examined what you've said. basically here's my paraphrase of your entire argument.

"there's this guy i know, a lawyer, who makes it so i dont have to pay federal income tax, because federal income tax is illegal"

i've disputed this by discrediting your sources who in-fact HAVE gone to jail for YEARS for tax-evasion. i've also proven based on the numerous trials of the past in the US supreme court, and the court of appeals, which have overruled any attempt at "exposing" A16 as being unconstitutional, that the argument of loopholes in the tax law, or illegal ratification, is at best, a mediocre essay topic, and nothing to be taken seriously.

if the tax law was unconstitutional, how in the hell could anyone ever go to jail for conspiracy to commit tax fraud, tax-evasion, or any other kind of crime against the IRS involving federal income tax? they WOULDN'T because they wouldn't be able to prove anything in court against a defendant to a judge who is there to UPHOLD the law, not to make new ones.

you say there's a loophole...where is it? i've disputed every possible loophole you've talked about! you say there's a company that can get you off the hook? who is it? PM it to me...

until then, pay your taxes.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Lowporkwa said:


> I feel like its the other way around.


it might be but i like to bust riders sack, ive gotten pretty frustrate with him in the past and hes a self proclaimed supporter of conspirocy theories


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

nismo driver said:


> I feel like its the other way around.


it might be but i like to bust riders sack, ive gotten pretty frustrate with him in the past and hes a self proclaimed supporter of conspirocy theories
[/quote]

only one...and it gets clearer and clearer every day.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

r1dermon said:


> I feel like its the other way around.


it might be but i like to bust riders sack, ive gotten pretty frustrate with him in the past and hes a self proclaimed supporter of conspirocy theories
[/quote]

only one...and it gets clearer and clearer every day.
[/quote]

its alot easier for people to make things into something they are not retrospectively.. like for example aminineijihadinddad making claims the holocaust never happened, we all now hes a nut but when half of his followers werent alive and none of them were remotely close when it was happening its alot easier to gain followers and belivers of his assanine ideas much like your belife that 9/11 was cooked up and carried out by the govt.. im not saying it isnt possible the govt allowed it to happen on some level but there was definately not military planes used or explosives at any location


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

im seeing the topic of this thread about to change dramatically and heat up again









*sits back and waits*


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

r1dermon said:


> 8o8p, anything to ad? im seriously interested in what possible way you're doing this...


No, i bow down to your superior intellect. I mean I should believe you over tax lawyers, ex-IRS agents, Supreme court justices, ex-presidents, presidential candidates and above all the Constitution. You sir, are gods gift to the world, and your word must be law. Thanks for clarifying it for me.
[/quote]

and so now in your ignorance you have to retort to mockery? funny thing is, tax lawyers, ex-IRS agents, Supreme court justices, and above all, the constitution, still say you have to pay taxes. i asked you a legitimate question which you are unwilling to answer. anyone who is unwilling to support their argument, indeed doesn't have a valuable argument in the first place. therefore you are not to be taken serious. not because i've refused to take you seriously, but because you've refused to back up your claims.
[/quote]

What do you want?, I provide pages upon pages of support for my argument. You provide support for your argument and I guess we just have to agree to disagree. Im not going to argue with you, you have your facts and I have mine. *You dont want to listen to mine* well I have the same right to not listen to you. Like I said many times, believe me or not I dont care. If paying your taxes will keep you safe in your mind then by all means pay them. I am not holding a gun to you or anyone else's head in this forum and forcing you not to pay taxes. As for me, I would rather fight for what I believe is my rights.
[/quote]

umm, i've read and examined what you've said. basically here's my paraphrase of your entire argument.

"there's this guy i know, a lawyer, who makes it so i dont have to pay federal income tax, because federal income tax is illegal"

i've disputed this by discrediting your sources who in-fact HAVE gone to jail for YEARS for tax-evasion. i've also proven based on the numerous trials of the past in the US supreme court, and the court of appeals, which have overruled any attempt at "exposing" A16 as being unconstitutional, that the argument of loopholes in the tax law, or illegal ratification, is at best, a mediocre essay topic, and nothing to be taken seriously.

if the tax law was unconstitutional, how in the hell could anyone ever go to jail for conspiracy to commit tax fraud, tax-evasion, or any other kind of crime against the IRS involving federal income tax? they WOULDN'T because they wouldn't be able to prove anything in court against a defendant to a judge who is there to UPHOLD the law, not to make new ones.

you say there's a loophole...where is it? i've disputed every possible loophole you've talked about! you say there's a company that can get you off the hook? who is it? PM it to me...

until then, pay your taxes.
[/quote]

First off, Benson is not my source. Did I say I went to Benson and he told me not to pay taxes? No I didnt. I already wrote how I did it before. This is my first post from earlier in the thread.

Yes, there is a right way to get this done. I went through a company that is comprised of lawyers and former IRS agents. I DO NOT encourage you to just stop paying your taxes, you will definately go to jail. I will explain it to you in a simplified manner.

When you decided to work, you filled out a W2 form. This form is then turned into the IRS and a IMF is created. A IMF is a Individual Master file. What is in that file is your entire work history, it states all the jobs you had, time started, time ended, the amount of money earned, collected, and money returned via tax returns or money owed. You can request this file from the IRS via a Freedom of Information act. Upon getting this file, majority of the info is written in code via numbers. (That is why you need the company I went through, as tax lawyers and IRS agents can decipher them)

This is the illegal part, the IRS puts on record that you are a foreigner working in the US and therefore you can be taxed. According to my IMF, I was a resident of the Bahamas and a cigarette salesman. How does this benefit you? If I am a resident of the Bahamas, I apply to THEIR laws for income tax and THEIR laws is NOT applicable in the USA. Therefore, I will agree with what is on my IMF and put it in public records so that anyone who wants to investigate me may do so. From there, all US laws for income tax do not apply to me as I am a resident of the Bahamas as stated by the IRS in my IMF. In conclusion, I pay no taxes.

The IRS knows EXACTLY what Im doing as I had to work with them and had to do a lot of paperwork that went through their office. I will admit that they have threatened me with prison but in the long run they have done nothing. If what I am doing is illegal why wouldnt they be on my ass as soon as the paperwork was done? After all they knew what I was doing.

Read it carefully, *I WORKED WITH THE IRS OFFICE *to get this done. How can you argue that fact? The very entity that you are trying to protect allowed me to do this. This is the only thing that I stated as to my sources and how I did it.


----------



## Guest (Jan 9, 2008)

> Read it carefully, I WORKED WITH THE IRS OFFICE to get this done. How can you argue that fact?


I visited the moon.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

8o8P said:


> 8o8p, anything to ad? im seriously interested in what possible way you're doing this...


No, i bow down to your superior intellect. I mean I should believe you over tax lawyers, ex-IRS agents, Supreme court justices, ex-presidents, presidential candidates and above all the Constitution. You sir, are gods gift to the world, and your word must be law. Thanks for clarifying it for me.
[/quote]

and so now in your ignorance you have to retort to mockery? funny thing is, tax lawyers, ex-IRS agents, Supreme court justices, and above all, the constitution, still say you have to pay taxes. i asked you a legitimate question which you are unwilling to answer. anyone who is unwilling to support their argument, indeed doesn't have a valuable argument in the first place. therefore you are not to be taken serious. not because i've refused to take you seriously, but because you've refused to back up your claims.
[/quote]

What do you want?, I provide pages upon pages of support for my argument. You provide support for your argument and I guess we just have to agree to disagree. Im not going to argue with you, you have your facts and I have mine. *You dont want to listen to mine* well I have the same right to not listen to you. Like I said many times, believe me or not I dont care. If paying your taxes will keep you safe in your mind then by all means pay them. I am not holding a gun to you or anyone else's head in this forum and forcing you not to pay taxes. As for me, I would rather fight for what I believe is my rights.
[/quote]

umm, i've read and examined what you've said. basically here's my paraphrase of your entire argument.

"there's this guy i know, a lawyer, who makes it so i dont have to pay federal income tax, because federal income tax is illegal"

i've disputed this by discrediting your sources who in-fact HAVE gone to jail for YEARS for tax-evasion. i've also proven based on the numerous trials of the past in the US supreme court, and the court of appeals, which have overruled any attempt at "exposing" A16 as being unconstitutional, that the argument of loopholes in the tax law, or illegal ratification, is at best, a mediocre essay topic, and nothing to be taken seriously.

if the tax law was unconstitutional, how in the hell could anyone ever go to jail for conspiracy to commit tax fraud, tax-evasion, or any other kind of crime against the IRS involving federal income tax? they WOULDN'T because they wouldn't be able to prove anything in court against a defendant to a judge who is there to UPHOLD the law, not to make new ones.

you say there's a loophole...where is it? i've disputed every possible loophole you've talked about! you say there's a company that can get you off the hook? who is it? PM it to me...

until then, pay your taxes.
[/quote]

First off, Benson is not my source. Did I say I went to Benson and he told me not to pay taxes? No I didnt. I already wrote how I did it before. This is my first post from earlier in the thread.

Yes, there is a right way to get this done. I went through a company that is comprised of lawyers and former IRS agents. I DO NOT encourage you to just stop paying your taxes, you will definately go to jail. I will explain it to you in a simplified manner.

*When you decided to work, you filled out a W2 form. This form is then turned into the IRS and a IMF is created. A IMF is a Individual Master file. What is in that file is your entire work history, it states all the jobs you had, time started, time ended, the amount of money earned, collected, and money returned via tax returns or money owed. You can request this file from the IRS via a Freedom of Information act. Upon getting this file, majority of the info is written in code via numbers. (That is why you need the company I went through, as tax lawyers and IRS agents can decipher them)*

*This is the illegal part, the IRS puts on record that you are a foreigner working in the US and therefore you can be taxed. According to my IMF, I was a resident of the Bahamas and a cigarette salesman. How does this benefit you? If I am a resident of the Bahamas, I apply to THEIR laws for income tax and THEIR laws is NOT applicable in the USA. Therefore, I will agree with what is on my IMF and put it in public records so that anyone who wants to investigate me may do so. From there, all US laws for income tax do not apply to me as I am a resident of the Bahamas as stated by the IRS in my IMF. In conclusion, I pay no taxes.*

The IRS knows EXACTLY what Im doing as I had to work with them and had to do a lot of paperwork that went through their office. I will admit that they have threatened me with prison but in the long run they have done nothing. If what I am doing is illegal why wouldnt they be on my ass as soon as the paperwork was done? After all they knew what I was doing.

Read it carefully, *I WORKED WITH THE IRS OFFICE *to get this done. How can you argue that fact? The very entity that you are trying to protect allowed me to do this. This is the only thing that I stated as to my sources and how I did it.
[/quote]

uhh...so the IRS creates false identities for 200+million tax payers?

if you're a foreigner working in the US, you pay taxes to the US.

who says you're in the bahamas? the IRS? or you? im confused now. they create an IMF that says that you're in the bahamas selling cigarettes? any audit will figure out what you really do, where you really work, and how much you really make. have you been audited?


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

r1dermon said:


> 8o8p, anything to ad? im seriously interested in what possible way you're doing this...


No, i bow down to your superior intellect. I mean I should believe you over tax lawyers, ex-IRS agents, Supreme court justices, ex-presidents, presidential candidates and above all the Constitution. You sir, are gods gift to the world, and your word must be law. Thanks for clarifying it for me.
[/quote]

and so now in your ignorance you have to retort to mockery? funny thing is, tax lawyers, ex-IRS agents, Supreme court justices, and above all, the constitution, still say you have to pay taxes. i asked you a legitimate question which you are unwilling to answer. anyone who is unwilling to support their argument, indeed doesn't have a valuable argument in the first place. therefore you are not to be taken serious. not because i've refused to take you seriously, but because you've refused to back up your claims.
[/quote]

What do you want?, I provide pages upon pages of support for my argument. You provide support for your argument and I guess we just have to agree to disagree. Im not going to argue with you, you have your facts and I have mine. *You dont want to listen to mine* well I have the same right to not listen to you. Like I said many times, believe me or not I dont care. If paying your taxes will keep you safe in your mind then by all means pay them. I am not holding a gun to you or anyone else's head in this forum and forcing you not to pay taxes. As for me, I would rather fight for what I believe is my rights.
[/quote]

umm, i've read and examined what you've said. basically here's my paraphrase of your entire argument.

"there's this guy i know, a lawyer, who makes it so i dont have to pay federal income tax, because federal income tax is illegal"

i've disputed this by discrediting your sources who in-fact HAVE gone to jail for YEARS for tax-evasion. i've also proven based on the numerous trials of the past in the US supreme court, and the court of appeals, which have overruled any attempt at "exposing" A16 as being unconstitutional, that the argument of loopholes in the tax law, or illegal ratification, is at best, a mediocre essay topic, and nothing to be taken seriously.

if the tax law was unconstitutional, how in the hell could anyone ever go to jail for conspiracy to commit tax fraud, tax-evasion, or any other kind of crime against the IRS involving federal income tax? they WOULDN'T because they wouldn't be able to prove anything in court against a defendant to a judge who is there to UPHOLD the law, not to make new ones.

you say there's a loophole...where is it? i've disputed every possible loophole you've talked about! you say there's a company that can get you off the hook? who is it? PM it to me...

until then, pay your taxes.
[/quote]

First off, Benson is not my source. Did I say I went to Benson and he told me not to pay taxes? No I didnt. I already wrote how I did it before. This is my first post from earlier in the thread.

Yes, there is a right way to get this done. I went through a company that is comprised of lawyers and former IRS agents. I DO NOT encourage you to just stop paying your taxes, you will definately go to jail. I will explain it to you in a simplified manner.

*When you decided to work, you filled out a W2 form. This form is then turned into the IRS and a IMF is created. A IMF is a Individual Master file. What is in that file is your entire work history, it states all the jobs you had, time started, time ended, the amount of money earned, collected, and money returned via tax returns or money owed. You can request this file from the IRS via a Freedom of Information act. Upon getting this file, majority of the info is written in code via numbers. (That is why you need the company I went through, as tax lawyers and IRS agents can decipher them)*

*This is the illegal part, the IRS puts on record that you are a foreigner working in the US and therefore you can be taxed. According to my IMF, I was a resident of the Bahamas and a cigarette salesman. How does this benefit you? If I am a resident of the Bahamas, I apply to THEIR laws for income tax and THEIR laws is NOT applicable in the USA. Therefore, I will agree with what is on my IMF and put it in public records so that anyone who wants to investigate me may do so. From there, all US laws for income tax do not apply to me as I am a resident of the Bahamas as stated by the IRS in my IMF. In conclusion, I pay no taxes.*

The IRS knows EXACTLY what Im doing as I had to work with them and had to do a lot of paperwork that went through their office. I will admit that they have threatened me with prison but in the long run they have done nothing. If what I am doing is illegal why wouldnt they be on my ass as soon as the paperwork was done? After all they knew what I was doing.

Read it carefully, *I WORKED WITH THE IRS OFFICE *to get this done. How can you argue that fact? The very entity that you are trying to protect allowed me to do this. This is the only thing that I stated as to my sources and how I did it.
[/quote]

uhh...so the IRS creates false identities for 200+million tax payers?

if you're a foreigner working in the US, you pay taxes to the US.

who says you're in the bahamas? the IRS? or you? im confused now. they create an IMF that says that you're in the bahamas selling cigarettes? any audit will figure out what you really do, where you really work, and how much you really make. have you been audited?
[/quote]

Yes the IRS makes false identities. They do this because like you said above, a foreigner working in the US must pay taxes. My father was a resident of another country. You can find out about your IMF simply by getting your IMF through the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) and if you know how to decipher it you can figure out what you do and where you are a resident of. Look for the closest IRS office to you and send in a FOIA requesting your IMF.

The IRS is the ones that put me in the Bahamas not me. It is written in my IMF. No, I havent been audited because up until I decided to do this I never did file a false tax return. Why would the IRS audit me? All the info I give them is accurate, what they provide in my IMF is inaccurate. It is not me who is lying in my IMF it is the IRS. That is why once you figure out where you are a resident of you put it into the open public for everyone to see. I had to file all my paper work with the local library so if anyone wants to investigate me they are free to do so. I have nothing to hide, everything is there in public records in black and white which states that the IRS acknowledges I am a resident of another country. With that said, I am applicable to that countrys laws and not the US as far as taxation goes.

I attached one page from my IMF to show you what it looks like. The blacked out parts are either my name, social, or my income. Some of the letters and numbers is what the company I went through put on my IMF to denote any misinformation/errors on the IRS's part.

The other attachment is certified mail receipts and a signature confirmation to prove that I indeed get it form the IRS's disclosure office. Disclosure office 13 in Laguna, California and the disclosure office in Covington, kentucky.. If you look at the signature confirmation it will show RECEIVED FEB 27, 2006 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

Now that jus doesnt make any sense.

If the IRS knew about all of this, and knew residents of the Bahamas dont have to pay these taxes, why would they make you appear to be a citizen from there?

It seems if this was all true, they would pick a country that has to pay the taxes, just incase this was ever found out dont you think? I really dont understand the logic in it, or i'm missing something.

And also, if everything is in codes, why do you believe what whoever is deciphering the codes isnt lying to you? Is this company not profiting from doing all of this themselves?


----------



## Hater (Apr 21, 2006)

Lowporkwa said:


> Now that jus doesnt make any sense.
> 
> If the IRS knew about all of this, and knew residents of the Bahamas dont have to pay these taxes, why would they make you appear to be a citizen from there?
> 
> ...


There is just no winning.

The man has backed up everything he said with sources, facts and even some personal information and this is what he gets back.

Why don't you PM him, get the information of the company that helped him and find out for yourself.

8o8P you are just wasting your time. Once you answer this question, then they are going ask you for all the codes the IRS uses, then what are the tax laws in the Bahamas, then who is the president in the Bahamas and it will just keep going on and on.

Some people live in a black and white world and they have a hard time believing that, there just might be a little gray in there.

Want an example:



> I visited the moon.


Need I say more?

Hater


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Hater said:


> Now that jus doesnt make any sense.
> 
> If the IRS knew about all of this, and knew residents of the Bahamas dont have to pay these taxes, why would they make you appear to be a citizen from there?
> 
> ...


There is just no winning.

The man has backed up everything he said with sources, facts and even some personal information and this is what he gets back.

Why don't you PM him, get the information of the company that helped him and find out for yourself.

8o8P you are just wasting your time. Once you answer this question, then they are going ask you for all the codes the IRS uses, then what are the tax laws in the Bahamas, then who is the president in the Bahamas and it will just keep going on and on.

Some people live in a black and white world and they have a hard time believing that, there just might be a little gray in there.

Want an example:



> I visited the moon.


Need I say more?

Hater
[/quote]

where is natalie halloways body?


----------



## Hater (Apr 21, 2006)

> where is natalie halloways body?


LMAO.

Good sh*t Nismo.

Hater


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Lowporkwa said:


> Now that jus doesnt make any sense.
> 
> If the IRS knew about all of this, and knew residents of the Bahamas dont have to pay these taxes, why would they make you appear to be a citizen from there?
> 
> ...


They put you there because like I said a foreigner working in the US needs to pay taxes. If they make you a resident of the US they cannot tax you. No one questions what they write in your IMF, most people dont even know they have one. Let me ask you this, did you even know you had a IMF? Who would think to question the IRS? Did you ever question them? If you havent, how many more millions of Americans havent? Like I said, people have been living their lives in fear of every questioning what the IRS is doing due to their "gun to head" tactics. If you didnt have fear of losing your house, income, and sent to prison would you question where your money is going? Of course you would, why wouldnt you if you knew there was no repercussions?

Why do I believe the company? Because I worked with the IRS to do this. If the IRS had no part in this process and I was doing this in "the shadows" or by the word of the company, yeah I wouldn't trust that company. Who would? But for the company to work with the IRS, and if the IRS says what Im doing is legit why would I question the company? Yes the company profits from this, they have to put in the time to do the work dont they? This is a year long process that requires tons of paperwork. You think anybody is going to offer you a service for free? Just like when you file your tax return, if you go to HR Block dont you pay for their services? If you do, there in for a profit. So by your logic, how can you trust them?


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Hater said:


> Now that jus doesnt make any sense.
> 
> If the IRS knew about all of this, and knew residents of the Bahamas dont have to pay these taxes, why would they make you appear to be a citizen from there?
> 
> ...


There is just no winning.

The man has backed up everything he said with sources, facts and even some personal information and this is what he gets back.

Why don't you PM him, get the information of the company that helped him and find out for yourself.

8o8P you are just wasting your time. Once you answer this question, then they are going ask you for all the codes the IRS uses, then what are the tax laws in the Bahamas, then who is the president in the Bahamas and it will just keep going on and on.

Some people live in a black and white world and they have a hard time believing that, there just might be a little gray in there.

Want an example:



> I visited the moon.


Need I say more?

Hater
[/quote]

Yeah, I shouldve took your advice and left this thread a long time ago. I just hate when people accuse me of lying. Right now I feel that my integrity is on the line and I am guilty until proven innocent. I have the need to prove that I am not ignorant, gullible or a liar and what Ive been telling is the truth.

I guess proof that I worked with the IRS is not enough for some people. What more can I offer? I release personal info, proof that I worked with the IRS, if thats not enough then I concede. I am done with this thread because like Hater said, I cannot win, your minds are set and I need to accept that fact.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

MDRS, I have answered your PM. If you need any more information about the company feel free to pm me. I can access their website farther in depth than a visitor can. Thanks.


----------



## boiler149 (Oct 31, 2007)

thx gosh i didnt vote for him!!!!!!!!


----------



## Lowporkwa (Mar 24, 2007)

could you please pm me the company too?


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

And myself as well, thank you


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

nobody called you a liar (i didn't at least), i just disputed what you were saying because i believe (and still do) that if you get audited you're going to get penalized. but i'll look into the IMF thing more in-depth.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Hater, Enriqo, Badfish pm sent. If you need any more help let me know.. Thanks.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

Lowporkwa said:


> could you please pm me the company too?


So after all the crap youve been giving in this thread and the childish comments you make you expect me to help you? All you ever did in this thread is belittle me, criticize me, and even told me to leave the country. I hate to say it, but I really dont like you personally. I will not give you this information as I feel it is a privilege and you dont deserve it and I could care less what you think of me for holding it from you. At least the others that questioned me had some type of legitimate argument, you use childish remarks like, "I visited the moon." Well, good for you, while your there bring me back some moon rocks then maybe Ill give you the info. Till then pay your taxes like you argued so much in favor for.


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

r1dermon said:


> nobody called you a liar (i didn't at least), i just disputed what you were saying because i believe (and still do) that if you get audited you're going to get penalized. but i'll look into the IMF thing more in-depth.


Hey its all good, my post was not aimed at any one person its just in general. I understand you are skeptical, I was. Infact I give you credit for researching this for yourself and giving your facts to support your ideas, thats more than a lot of these other people can say. Instead they'd rather blindly attack me.

However, to answer your question, I will not get audited. I do not get money from illegal activity and all my income info still goes to the IRS. Let me explain, Since I pay no taxes, I do not file a federal tax return. Instead, every three years, the IRS sends me a paper that I need to fill out and send it back. On that paper it shows my income (they still get it due to my employer filing it) which I acknowledge being correct (now this is what could be used to audit me, but like I said, I do not engage in anything illegal and the money I spend reflects the money earned) I note that nothing in my IMF has changed and that i acknowledge what is written on my IMF remains the same and it is still in public records for everyone to see. I send it back and Im done in fact I just did mine and if I had known earlier I couldve scanned it before I sent it back.

If you want to research the company, pm me and Ill send the info.


----------



## armac (Nov 28, 2002)

a fellow non tax payer, maybe you guys can room together soon.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PEO...EMPLATE=DEFAULT


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

WTF does this have to do with anything Im doing? Like I said before, thousands of people have been imprisoned for not filing, theres a right way and a wrong way. Not filing, filing false returns and paying with fraud checks is the wrong way. Where is there anything mentioning his IMF? Where is it that he worked with the IRS and got a response?

Another meaningless post by you about something you know nothing about.


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

armac said:


> a fellow non tax payer, maybe you guys can room together soon.
> 
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PEO...EMPLATE=DEFAULT


no surprise here. another meaning less post by this guy..lol


----------



## armac (Nov 28, 2002)

face2006 said:


> a fellow non tax payer, maybe you guys can room together soon.
> 
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PEO...EMPLATE=DEFAULT


no surprise here. another meaning less post by this guy..lol
[/quote]

CM misses you Face, somebody may be having a birthday, they need you to post a thread about it


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

i just read the last 5 or so pages.

that is some crazy sh*t...no income tax? that would be awesome!


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

armac said:


> a fellow non tax payer, maybe you guys can room together soon.
> 
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PEO...EMPLATE=DEFAULT


no surprise here. another meaning less post by this guy..lol
[/quote]

CM misses you Face, somebody may be having a birthday, they need you to post a thread about it








[/quote]

lol you are too funny.. How old are you again?...as a matter a fact I am logged onto both sites as we speak. I seen allot of spelling corrections that need to be corrected in this post. Starting with mine, since you got no life, probably don't know what a woman likes,(leading up to) spend about 18 hours on the net, and love guys(sorry buddy, I love women).







stop derailing the thread. I unlike you will enjoy the 3 day weekend, I'm out!


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

Derailing a thread to attack another user and then telling them to stop derailing is an interesting idea...


----------



## armac (Nov 28, 2002)

ChilDawg said:


> Derailing a thread to attack another user and then telling them to stop derailing is an interesting idea...


Face is a cool guy, just ask him.................................

A three day weekend? Is Target closed this weekend. Cleanup on aisle three, Mr. Face bring a mop.........


----------



## armac (Nov 28, 2002)

Seeing as Mr. Face has not posted, he must use only his employer's internet access................

Home internet access is affordable for everyone now, Mr. Face

See you on Tuesday Mr. Face.

How was Target over the weekend?


----------



## 8o8P (Jan 13, 2007)

So childish. Its like you have no life and need to come on here posting random sh*t about people.


----------



## armac (Nov 28, 2002)

8o8P said:


> So childish. Its like you have no life and need to come on here posting random *sh*t *about people.


Nothing random there, all very deliberate.

Profanity does not help when an educated person is trying to make a point.

Just thought I would point that out.

Trying to protect your future fellow tax absconder?

On Tuesday when he gets back on his employer's internet connection, he can protect himself.


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

8o8P said:


> So childish. Its like you have no life and need to come on here posting random sh*t about people.


Its ok he is 42 years OLD, suffering from little man syndrome. Like I stated before he probably spends all day on the internet and then wonder's why his wife is sleeping with the gardener(that's if he even got one!). Loll I posted in CM (as he put's it) that I had gotten a seasonal job. I quit last week, being it served its purpose. Either way I don't down anybody because of where they work. I make TIME for my family and if I could do two things at once, then I will. Get a life before you even try to criticize mine.

*Trying to protect your future fellow tax absconder?*

I pay taxes every year and served this country?

*On Tuesday when he gets back on his employer's internet connection, he can protect himself. *








that's funny. Protect what? WTF are you on? It's a fish site, the internet.














oh man, fellow tax absconder







. Armac just pm me, who you trying to impress? The cyber ladies? ewwwwwwwwwwwww he just owned him!,,,get the F outta here.


----------



## armac (Nov 28, 2002)

face2006 said:


> So childish. Its like you have no life and need to come on here posting random sh*t about people.


Its ok he is 42 years OLD, suffering from little man syndrome. Like I stated before he probably spends all day on the internet and then wonder's why his wife is sleeping with the gardener(that's if he even got one!). Loll I posted in CM (as he put's it) that I had gotten a seasonal job. I quit last week, being it served its purpose. Either way I don't down anybody because of where they work. I make TIME for my family and if I could do two things at once, then I will. Get a life before you even try to criticize mine.

*Trying to protect your future fellow tax absconder?*

I pay taxes every year and served this country?

*On Tuesday when he gets back on his employer's internet connection, he can protect himself. *

:laugh: that's funny. Protect what? WTF are you on? It's a fish site, the internet.














oh man, fellow tax absconder







. Armac just pm me, who you trying to impress? The cyber ladies? ewwwwwwwwwwwww he just owned him!,,,get the F outta here.
[/quote]

Good comeback Face, you are cool.

I hope you gave them a two week notice at Target, may be the best job you ever had.

Still got your red shirt?

Welcome back on Tuesday, just made it onto the employers internet connection..........just like I said.


----------



## face2006 (Feb 17, 2006)

armac said:


> So childish. Its like you have no life and need to come on here posting random sh*t about people.


Its ok he is 42 years OLD, suffering from little man syndrome. Like I stated before he probably spends all day on the internet and then wonder's why his wife is sleeping with the gardener(that's if he even got one!). Loll I posted in CM (as he put's it) that I had gotten a seasonal job. I quit last week, being it served its purpose. Either way I don't down anybody because of where they work. I make TIME for my family and if I could do two things at once, then I will. Get a life before you even try to criticize mine.

*Trying to protect your future fellow tax absconder?*

I pay taxes every year and served this country?

*On Tuesday when he gets back on his employer's internet connection, he can protect himself. *

:laugh: that's funny. Protect what? WTF are you on? It's a fish site, the internet.














oh man, fellow tax absconder







. Armac just pm me, who you trying to impress? The cyber ladies? ewwwwwwwwwwwww he just owned him!,,,get the F outta here.
[/quote]

Good comeback Face, you are cool.

I hope you gave them a two week notice at Target, may be the best job you ever had.

Still got your red shirt?

Welcome back on Tuesday, just made it onto the employers internet connection..........just like I said.








[/quote]

good to see you are still a child at heart!







you actually have to buy your own red shirts and keep them too. Man that was a horrible comeback. Best I will ever have, I guess this office job and college courses I'm taking are waste of time. I should just stop everything and stay on p-fury all day.







I guess my PC at home is only supposed to be used to log on to p-fury and prove you wrong, damn what was I thinking?







Tell you what, how about we both stop derailing this thread and pm each other. Hey you could even say that your balls are bigger and you won.


----------



## latinoheat (Jan 26, 2006)

armac said:


> So childish. Its like you have no life and need to come on here posting random sh*t about people.


Its ok he is 42 years OLD, suffering from little man syndrome. Like I stated before he probably spends all day on the internet and then wonder's why his wife is sleeping with the gardener(that's if he even got one!). Loll I posted in CM (as he put's it) that I had gotten a seasonal job. I quit last week, being it served its purpose. Either way I don't down anybody because of where they work. I make TIME for my family and if I could do two things at once, then I will. Get a life before you even try to criticize mine.

*Trying to protect your future fellow tax absconder?*

I pay taxes every year and served this country?

*On Tuesday when he gets back on his employer's internet connection, he can protect himself. *

:laugh: that's funny. Protect what? WTF are you on? It's a fish site, the internet.














oh man, fellow tax absconder







. Armac just pm me, who you trying to impress? The cyber ladies? ewwwwwwwwwwwww he just owned him!,,,get the F outta here.
[/quote]

Good comeback Face, you are cool.

I hope you gave them a two week notice at Target, may be the best job you ever had.

Still got your red shirt?

Welcome back on Tuesday, just made it onto the employers internet connection..........just like I said.








[/quote]
Its Revege of the Nerds part 20. You just like all other nerds on here also use the employers internet. How do I know causr most of you say it right out that you do nothing at work but use the computer. Me I can't get on at work I have a real job that and since I do work for the goverment aka United states AirForce they block worhless sites that people get on all day. Yes this has become a worhtless site cause all that happens is the nerds which is all of you gang up on other members and begin to cyber attack. I'm pretty sure someone will attack this with bold letters and cook smileys. So decepticons attack


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

can we just lock this thread please? there is no civil conversation in here anymore and it's just allowing an argument that would better be served by PMs.


----------



## armac (Nov 28, 2002)

Ok Mr Face, college course guy, you seem to harp on things you infer about me, I notice repitition..............

"*spend about 18 hours on the net,"*

"*Like I stated before he probably spends all day on the internet *"

Now we will do some MATH, have you taken that course yet Mr. Face? This is called division.........

I have been on this board for five (5) years, you have been on the board two (2) years, following me?

I have 1534 posts in five (5) years, you have 1426 posts in 2 years, you still with me?

1534/5=*305 post pers year *+/- (that is me)

1426/2=*723 posts per year *(that is you)

Now logic (have you had that course?) would lead one to believe that YOU, Mr. Face, are on the net more than me. Plus if you factor in your 5 day posting week, since you utilize your employer's internet, against my 7 day posting week (I have internet at home and work), that would even increase your time on the net.

The lesson for today is, do not argue argue with people that are smarter than you. In this case you utilized bad data in concert with the fact that you are not the smartest person in Chicago, a bad combination.

See you Mr. Face

School is adjourned for the day.

You FAIL>>>>>>>>>>>>>


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

mdrs said:


> can we just lock this thread please? there is no civil conversation in here anymore and it's just allowing an argument that would better be served by PMs.


GOOD NIGHT NOW !!!!!!!!


----------

