You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Ron Paul praises the criminal element...
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
Quote from Haroki:
History lesson !!! cool...
So Rat, were able to find a passage from your hero RP where he supports your views on whether or not personal income is taxable?
C'mon Rat, I know you can find it.....
Otherwise, you're gonna look pretty silly backing him.
Oops, too late.....
Its at 1:09:00 in Freedom to Fascism on page#5 of this thread.
Spells it out pretty clear.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
It is reasonable to talk about tax reform, a flat tax, closing loopholes, etc.
It is simply beyond stupid to even have a discussion about whether or not there should be federal taxes to pay for our national security, education, interstate roads, disaster relief, etc.
These poor slobs are so bloody broke that paying what little tax they probably do pay, gets them in a perpetual state of anger and resentment...
Sad, very sad, indeed...
These people who focus on issues like this, swallowing the Ron Paul doctrine like a fat man eating ice cream...are most pathetic.
Nobody is arguing against ALL tax.
Just the income tax.
The witnesses in Freedom to Fascism remark Americas legal Corporate tax covers the defense budget.
Education is covered by property tax.
Roads funded by tolls. etc.
Quote from ratboy88:
did you not watch the russo video? i even gave you the time frame to fast fwd to. damn... lay off the aluminum dude... and btw.. thanks.. i am still laughing at you for your question about what the indians have to do with the boston tea party. LMAOOOO
Yeah, 5:20 Rat, I remember that well. Do you remember what he said? he said that he can find no passage where it says that personal income can be taxed.
That DOES NOT equal a statement that he believes that personal income shouldn't be taxed. But I guess it does in your poor, sad little world, where fantasy rules...
Like I said.. Poor Ron. Doesn't know the laws. Doesn't know where the power of taxation comes from. Doesn't know how it all works. And that's who you want for Prez?
Quote from ratboy88:
did you not watch the russo video? i even gave you the time frame to fast fwd to. damn... lay off the aluminum dude... and btw.. thanks.. i am still laughing at you for your question about what the indians have to do with the boston tea party. LMAOOOO
Yeah, 5:20 Rat, I remember that well. Do you remember what he said? he said that he can find no passage where it says that personal income can be taxed.
That DOES NOT equal a statement that he believes that personal income shouldn't be taxed. But I guess it does in your poor, sad little world, where fantasy rules...
Like I said.. Poor Ron. Doesn't know the laws. Doesn't know where the power of taxation comes from. Doesn't know how it all works. And that's who you want for Prez?
Quote from Haroki:
Yeah, 5:20 Rat, I remember that well. Do you remember what he said? he said that he can find no passage where it says that personal income can be taxed.
That DOES NOT equal a statement that he believes that personal income shouldn't be taxed. But I guess it does in your poor, sad little world, where fantasy rules...
Like I said.. Poor Ron. Doesn't know the laws. Doesn't know where the power of taxation comes from. Doesn't know how it all works. And that's who you want for Prez?
did you study your tea party assignment??? LMAOOOOOO still laughing at you for that one.
he said he can find no law.. i am saying the same thing and so are the browns. all the irs has to do is show us the law. i wonder why they don't?
Correct me if Im wrong -
The US Supreme Court ruled the 16th Amendment conferred no new taxing power to Government
Congressional taxing power prior to that relied on direct and indirect tax.
Indirect Tax being an excise on consumables.
Direct Tax being a tax on ones wages as long its apportioned (equal for everyone).
The Income Tax did not satisfy either class - and therefore rendered unconstitutional - because it applies to citizens wages unequally.
The Income Tax was then said to fall under its own category. However, the Supreme Court interpretation of the 16th Amendment does not afford any new taxing power - thereby nullifying the 'third class' argument.
Further, IRS Tax Code - and its many revisions - were never ratified by Congress.
Congress, of course, being the only Governmental Body with the power and authority to enact Law.
Which is why IRS Tax "law" cannot be found -- Congress cannot delegate its sole Law making authority to another body (like the IRS). Hence, we arrive at 'Codes' that are cloaked under the color of law but were never *made* Law by Congress.
Of course, the Supreme Court overturned the 'non-delegation' imperative of Congress citing 'intelligent principle'. Conservatives reject that ruling citing original intent by the Founders.
The US Supreme Court ruled the 16th Amendment conferred no new taxing power to Government
Congressional taxing power prior to that relied on direct and indirect tax.
Indirect Tax being an excise on consumables.
Direct Tax being a tax on ones wages as long its apportioned (equal for everyone).
The Income Tax did not satisfy either class - and therefore rendered unconstitutional - because it applies to citizens wages unequally.
The Income Tax was then said to fall under its own category. However, the Supreme Court interpretation of the 16th Amendment does not afford any new taxing power - thereby nullifying the 'third class' argument.
Further, IRS Tax Code - and its many revisions - were never ratified by Congress.
Congress, of course, being the only Governmental Body with the power and authority to enact Law.
Which is why IRS Tax "law" cannot be found -- Congress cannot delegate its sole Law making authority to another body (like the IRS). Hence, we arrive at 'Codes' that are cloaked under the color of law but were never *made* Law by Congress.
Of course, the Supreme Court overturned the 'non-delegation' imperative of Congress citing 'intelligent principle'. Conservatives reject that ruling citing original intent by the Founders.
Quote from achilles28:
Correct me if Im wrong -
i think it's time for a Rat video...LOL LOL LOL:
<embed style="width:500px; height:407px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=7521758492370018023&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>
Quote from ratboy88:
i think it's time for a Rat video...LOL LOL LOL:
<embed style="width:500px; height:407px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=7521758492370018023&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed>
Thanks man. More eye candy for tonight.
these are for teriyaki:
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l_sZj8dZnJI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l_sZj8dZnJI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0hRwkyqycgU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0hRwkyqycgU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l_sZj8dZnJI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l_sZj8dZnJI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0hRwkyqycgU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0hRwkyqycgU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>