Ron Paul praises the criminal element...

Quote from 2cents:

not sure where your going with this...


its not about being against "them" necessarily, cause often times "them" doesn't even have a face to start with... its about making your own choices... "staying clean" means different things to different people, but to the law it doesn't...



anyway... except where people actually believe in and enforce the rule of law, its always the dumber / weaker who pays... and why should it be otherwise, let me ask you... ?
More...


Oh, im going nowhere fast, thats just me and my "alleged" decisions, i was just interested in your take on it, given your experience.

In response to your second point, also correct, faceless, no-fault policy demagogues, masquerading as "law"enforcement, though your latter point is a loaded question-and depends on what your actually talking about.

Stay clean, well-your aware new york police officers used to wear white.

Why did that change, to black ?
 
Quote from acronym:

Oh, im going nowhere fast, thats just me and my "alleged" decisions, i was just interested in your take on it, given your experience.

In response to your second point, also correct, faceless, no-fault policy demagogues, masquerading as "law"enforcement, though your latter point is a loaded question-and depends on what your actually talking about.

Stay clean, well-your aware new york police officers used to wear white.

Why did that change, to black ?
More...
whadya mean by "your "alleged" decisions"??


ps: am off for the week-end... have a good one
 
Quote from 2cents:

whadya mean by "your "alleged" decisions"??


ps: am off for the week-end... have a good one
More...

You would be amazed , as to what one can be blamed for, regardless of facts, intent, motivation or anything else at all, basically.



The presumption the average person is marginally sane, is not one i would back .


Have a good weekend yourself, weekends are good, so i gather.
 
Quote from Haroki:

See Rat, you're just confused. McFadden was making a moral arguement against the Fed, not a legal one. I skimmed his speech and I find no passages where he claims the whole 'idea' of a Fed Res bank to be ILLEGAL. If I missed it, please post it up.
More...

let me guess.... WIKIPEDIA told you so. LMAOOOOOOOO .... do you even know the first thing about wiki? not exactly a stellar source idiot. i use it all the time for reference and or non political purposes. BUT THATS ALL IT'S GOOD FOR.

other than that, it has a known bias in their editorial policies. they are known to censor what they deem politically incorrect subject matter. of course they would side with the banks in this manner. so running to wiki everytime i bring up an argument isn't research "wikihiroshi."

i haven't seen you this adamant since the PANCAKE argument... i am sure wiki agreed with the pancake theory as long as they could. those were the days huh wikihiroshi? find a 9/11 truther and run to the pancake theory.... now you have wiki.... LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

your new name shall be "Wikipancake Hiroshi."
 
Quote from ratboy88:

let me guess.... WIKIPEDIA told you so. LMAOOOOOOOO .... do you even know the first thing about wiki? not exactly a stellar source idiot. i use it all the time for reference and or non political purposes. BUT THATS ALL IT'S GOOD FOR.

other than that, it has a known bias in their editorial policies. they are known to censor what they deem politically incorrect subject matter. of course they would side with the banks in this manner. so running to wiki everytime i bring up an argument isn't research "wikihiroshi."

i haven't seen you this adamant since the PANCAKE argument... i am sure wiki agreed with the pancake theory as long as they could. those were the days huh wikihiroshi? find a 9/11 truther and run to the pancake theory.... now you have wiki.... LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

your new name shall be "Wikipancake Hiroshi."
More...

wrong again Rat. reread what i wrote. i said i skimmed through his speech. i didn't read an editorial about the guy. here is my source.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/mcfadden.html
 
Quote from Haroki:

wrong again Rat. reread what i wrote. i said i skimmed through his speech. i didn't read an editorial about the guy. here is my source.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/mcfadden.html
More...

not just mcfadden... you frequently cite wiki as your source for many things... no wonder you're a pancake boy.

ihop.jpg
 
Quote from 2cents:



anyway... except where people actually believe in and enforce the rule of law, its always the dumber / weaker who pays... and why should it be otherwise, let me ask you... ?
More...


Thanks for showing your true colors.
 
Quote from ratboy88:

not just mcfadden... you frequently cite wiki as your source for many things... no wonder you're a pancake boy.
More...

OK, so I'll go check some of your sources then.

Oops, you don't give any, other than youtube videos. LMAOOOOOOOOOOO

Hmmm, still noticed you haven't found any SC rulings that support your views yet. Or pointed out where RP believes that income taxes are illegal. Or pointed out where McFadden's speech alleges that income taxes are illegal, rather than it being just a moral arguemnet against the Fed. Or shown why the Brown's aren't criminals. Nor have you given support to your claims as to what constitutes 'income'. Nor have you given evidence to prove your nonratification of the 16thA claims.
 
Some hilarity from one of Russo's stars:

http://www.etaxes.com/tax_scams.html

In U.S. v Schiff, 85-1 USTC ¶9108 , 751 F2d 116, the second circuit court of appeals affirmed Mr. Schiff’s criminal tax evasion jury conviction. Schiff, the court noted, is the author of "How Anyone Can Stop Paying Income Taxes."

On appeal, Schiff, the self-proclaimed leading "untax expert," ditched his argument that the tax system is unconstitutional and contended that he believed, in good faith, he was not required to file tax returns. Implicit in this argument is the recognition that he had an obligation to file tax returns and pay taxes – a 180 degree reversal of what he preaches to the public!
 
let's see what one of the criminal authors of the criminal code says:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nX-03Sf1wDo"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nX-03Sf1wDo" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

sheldon cohen at the 00:06:00 mark tells us what he thinks of the supreme court !!!!!!!!! lmaoooooooooooooo eat those pancakes teriaki !!!


the head of the IRS says the supreme court is not applicable !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top