Donald Trump Jr.’s Bizarre Halloween ‘Lesson’ Backfires Spectacularly

[emilynghiem]

Manafort and the Podesta brothers are kindred souls and thicker than proverbial thieves........and that trail will eventually lead to POS like the Hildebeast and John "lame" McCain...........you want ties to the Russian oligarchs that Putin has been trying to flush out that are Rothschild agents? Look no further than the puppets of the prior administration.

I swear I just read you post something that you like to educate yourself and how hard you work at learning the facts.

This post proves that's a bunch of nonsense.

Debate me........engage in an honest discussion. Let's see what ya got. I am betting that it is chock full of "nothing l

What I am saying is that the Huffingpuffingtonpost wasn't reporting news without inserting their own leftard slanted commentary. THAT is what I am saying.

"I'm still amazed that you think all the benefits of living here are free, and you don't owe your share of taxes to pay for them. Pretty childish and selfish of you"

Consumption taxes are constitutional but a tax on what I make when I barter my labor in one hour increments for paper scrip aka "Federal Reserve" debt notes isn't. Why do YOU think this corporate entity that claims to be a legitimate governmental body is entitled to 25 cents of ever FRN I make? That sounds like feudalism to me.........no? A progressive income tax is one of the planks of the communist manifesto along with a central bank....did you know that? Look it up. I don't want or expect anything from any corporate entity and I refuse to be a de-facto employee of USA.INC. I will sink or swim based on the merits of my own labor and on my terms......if it's all the same to you....capiche'?

Got it. You think banks are communist.

Is that ALL you got out of my post? You see, stupid fucks like you are nothing but entertainment because you can only spin and take one small segment of the generous information I bestow on clowns like you.

Seriously, why do I EVEN bother?!?!?!?!?!?

Spit it out. Why are taxes on labor unconstitutional? Stay on subject if you can.

Dear BULLDOG and Dale Smith
To explain in simple 8th grade history terms:
taxation is unconstitutional when it is forced without representation,
when people do not consent to the terms of the contract
of how much money or what percentage is required and where the money is spent.

The problem we face right now is parties with conflicting, opposing
beliefs on what govt should be used for
do NOT agree on what to pay for, and how much to charge which people
deemed responsible for which programs because they don't all agree.
This is especially troublesome with issues of BELIEFS that people
cannot be forced to change by govt,
or forced to fund under penalty if it's against their beliefs.

So that's why it becomes unconstitutional on multiple levels.
And once programs are in place that people contest as against their beliefs and/or consent,
removing them or changing their terms or funding
risks creating MORE costs or consequences
that other people don't agree to pay for! If the policy
doesn't represent and protect the interests/beliefs of all people
equally, but people are punished or deprived of equal rights,
that's discrimination by creed to penalize people on the basis of their beliefs being violated.

Sadly, we can't even CHANGE existing contested programs
where we can't agree what to change them to
that won't incur costs that people don't agree on either!

Back to the solution I propose:
let people choose which party to pay taxes to
on social programs or other contested policies
that not everyone beliefs in funding publicly.

so any contested programs can revert to local,
state, or private business/nonprofit networks
that can be collectively funded by party members
instead of charging all taxpayers unless this is agreed.
There must be fully informed and freely chosen representation where taxpayers
agree to invest their taxes there, so it respects consent of the governed.

Yes. There are lots of people who don't like certain taxes, or any taxes at all, and many thoughts about how to remove some of them to suit the complainers. That is not the subject here. The claim was made that taxing pay for labor is unconstitutional. While I agree that is the belief of some, the Supreme Court is the final judge of constitutionality. As a country, we can't really change our tax laws on a whim just because Joe down the street doesn't like them. Each of us is free to believe anything they want about the constitutionality of our laws; tax or otherwise, but just saying taxing labor is unconstitutional doesn't make it so. If he can convince the SC it is unconstitutional, then Dale might have a valid claim. Until then, it's just the inane whining of a lot of conspiracy theory nuts.

Yes and No BULLDOG
1. When the people agree with judges ruling then yes, this represents govt representing the people.

3. However when people contest govt laws or rulings, then it goes through the legislative or judicial process again to address the cause of objection. If people do NOT consent and are NOT represented by a law ruling or decision, then it isn't final! Thats the beauty of our democratic process so govt can be revised, reformed and refined .

3. As for ppl not wanting to pay taxes, all the ppl I ever asked preferred to pay for what they want and believe in, and objected to paying for things they object to . Like duh! It's not rocket science but human nature and common sense. They will agree to mandate taxes if it's going to agreed programs or expenses.

It just has to be set up right.

If not, if it's set up to be adversarial and coercive, then of course people aren't going to want to be forced into paying that way.

We all want our own free will and beliefs/interests to be represented by govt. But if we don't trust other people, and try to force them by law or govt authority, of course they are going to react and force their own ways on us.

So why not respect each other's rights and freedoms to begin with. If we all did that equally, nobody would have to force corrections on anyone else.

 

[Dale Smith]

Why is it constitutional? If I mow a lawn for a lady and she bestows a 12 pack of beer upon me is "da gubemrint" entitled to three of those brews or the cost thereof? Yes or no?????

That's all you got. You are saying non-constitutional. What is your constitutional theory that precludes taxes on labor? Any specific amendment or clause?

You didn't answer my very simple question.........it ain't rocket science, Bulldawg....is "da gubermint" entitled to three of the beers of the 12 pack given to me for mowing a lawn....YES....OR....NO.....which is it???

Hang on sweet lips. That's not how it works. You made the claim that it's unconstitutional to tax labor. It's your responsibility to prove that. Not mine.

Answer the question and I will get to the meat of my contention and Supreme Court rulings...........is that 12 pack of beer "taxable".......yea or nay???? Why are you ducking the question???? Are you afraid????

No fear. I just see no need for diversion from your claim. First things first. Present your proof or admit you're full of shit.

United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9: "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."



Braun’s Appeal, 105 Pa. 415; People v. Davenport, 30 llun (N.Y.) 177; In re Slocum, 109 N. Y. 153, 02 N. E. 130; Waring v. Savannah, 00 Ga. 99.”Income” means that which comes in or is received from any business or investment of capital, without reference to the outgoing expenditures; while “profits” generally means the gain which is made upon any business or investment when both receipts and payments are taken into account. “Income,” when applied to the affairs of individuals,expresses the same idea that “revenue” does when applied to the affairs of a state or nation. People v. Niagara County, 4 Hill (N..Y.) 20; Bates v. Porter, 74 Cal. 224, 15 Pac.732.

 

[flacaltenn]

That didn’t go over well.

Donald Trump Jr. doesn’t seem to know how Halloween works.

The whole point of trick-or-treating, of course, is that children get candy ― free ― from friendly neighbors.

But in a tweet Tuesday, the eldest son of President Donald Trump indicated that he would take half of his daughter’s Halloween haul and give it away to teach her about socialism.

He wrote:

"I’m going to take half of Chloe’s candy tonight & give it to some kid who sat at home. It’s never to early to teach her about socialism."​

The tweet quickly backfired, with more than 30,000 comments. Many of them looked a lot like these:

More: Donald Trump Jr.'s Bizarre Halloween 'Lesson' Backfires Spectacularly

I hope he gives it to poor and disabled children who didn't have the opportunity to go trick-or-treating. Trump Jr. is a sick little puppy.

Wow man. Like every day it's some little petty item that stirs you up to post a thread. A couple days ago it was Manaforts daughter bragging about how she is smarter than her Dad -- Today you're grinching on Trump kid's Halloween. Gossip Gossip Gossip.. That's the fuel that keeps the DNC alive these days I guess.

 

[BULLDOG]

I swear I just read you post something that you like to educate yourself and how hard you work at learning the facts.

This post proves that's a bunch of nonsense.

Debate me........engage in an honest discussion. Let's see what ya got. I am betting that it is chock full of "nothing l

Got it. You think banks are communist.

Is that ALL you got out of my post? You see, stupid fucks like you are nothing but entertainment because you can only spin and take one small segment of the generous information I bestow on clowns like you.

Seriously, why do I EVEN bother?!?!?!?!?!?

Spit it out. Why are taxes on labor unconstitutional? Stay on subject if you can.

Dear BULLDOG and Dale Smith
To explain in simple 8th grade history terms:
taxation is unconstitutional when it is forced without representation,
when people do not consent to the terms of the contract
of how much money or what percentage is required and where the money is spent.

The problem we face right now is parties with conflicting, opposing
beliefs on what govt should be used for
do NOT agree on what to pay for, and how much to charge which people
deemed responsible for which programs because they don't all agree.
This is especially troublesome with issues of BELIEFS that people
cannot be forced to change by govt,
or forced to fund under penalty if it's against their beliefs.

So that's why it becomes unconstitutional on multiple levels.
And once programs are in place that people contest as against their beliefs and/or consent,
removing them or changing their terms or funding
risks creating MORE costs or consequences
that other people don't agree to pay for! If the policy
doesn't represent and protect the interests/beliefs of all people
equally, but people are punished or deprived of equal rights,
that's discrimination by creed to penalize people on the basis of their beliefs being violated.

Sadly, we can't even CHANGE existing contested programs
where we can't agree what to change them to
that won't incur costs that people don't agree on either!

Back to the solution I propose:
let people choose which party to pay taxes to
on social programs or other contested policies
that not everyone beliefs in funding publicly.

so any contested programs can revert to local,
state, or private business/nonprofit networks
that can be collectively funded by party members
instead of charging all taxpayers unless this is agreed.
There must be fully informed and freely chosen representation where taxpayers
agree to invest their taxes there, so it respects consent of the governed.

Yes. There are lots of people who don't like certain taxes, or any taxes at all, and many thoughts about how to remove some of them to suit the complainers. That is not the subject here. The claim was made that taxing pay for labor is unconstitutional. While I agree that is the belief of some, the Supreme Court is the final judge of constitutionality. As a country, we can't really change our tax laws on a whim just because Joe down the street doesn't like them. Each of us is free to believe anything they want about the constitutionality of our laws; tax or otherwise, but just saying taxing labor is unconstitutional doesn't make it so. If he can convince the SC it is unconstitutional, then Dale might have a valid claim. Until then, it's just the inane whining of a lot of conspiracy theory nuts.

Yes and No BULLDOG
1. When the people agree with judges ruling then yes, this represents govt representing the people.

3. However when people contest govt laws or rulings, then it goes through the legislative or judicial process again to address the cause of objection. If people do NOT consent and are NOT represented by a law ruling or decision, then it isn't final! Thats the beauty of our democratic process so govt can be revised, reformed and refined .

3. As for ppl not wanting to pay taxes, all the ppl I ever asked preferred to pay for what they want and believe in, and objected to paying for things they object to . Like duh! It's not rocket science but human nature and common sense. They will agree to mandate taxes if it's going to agreed programs or expenses.

It just has to be set up right.

If not, if it's set up to be adversarial and coercive, then of course people aren't going to want to be forced into paying that way.

We all want our own free will and beliefs/interests to be represented by govt. But if we don't trust other people, and try to force them by law or govt authority, of course they are going to react and force their own ways on us.

So why not respect each other's rights and freedoms to begin with. If we all did that equally, nobody would have to force corrections on anyone else.

Respecting other's rights is exactly what I'm talking about. We have a constitution that defines what our rights are. If you, or anyone else disagree with that, then that is your problem. We, as a country decided to lay our rights out in the constitution, and assigned the Supreme Court the duty to determine what laws were constitutional and which weren't, a long time ago. If enough citizens disagree with their decisions, they, through their representatives can change the laws. The SC will then determine if the new laws are constitutional, and so on. That process hasn't happened. Whining about laws doesn't change them. and thinking that everyone has the right to be equally happy about our laws is really dumb. This isn't grandma's house where everybody gets the same size piece of candy. Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean it is unfair to you, no matter how much you think it is.

As far as taxation without representation, I suggest you look up who your representatives in the House and Senate are,as well as your state and local representatives. Just because they don't do exactly as you wish doesn't mean you aren't represented. That particular remark was just dumb.

 

[flacaltenn]

You people would bitch, whine and carry on if you shat pure gold BBs.

Oh, do you agree with Trump Jr's Halloween lesson to his daughter about socialism?

I would have waited a couple years, but yeah. If they are old enough to be preached to by Gay activists about their sexual orientation, a little "Comparative Political Theory" is probably healthier.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's all you got. You are saying non-constitutional. What is your constitutional theory that precludes taxes on labor? Any specific amendment or clause?

You didn't answer my very simple question.........it ain't rocket science, Bulldawg....is "da gubermint" entitled to three of the beers of the 12 pack given to me for mowing a lawn....YES....OR....NO.....which is it???

Hang on sweet lips. That's not how it works. You made the claim that it's unconstitutional to tax labor. It's your responsibility to prove that. Not mine.

Answer the question and I will get to the meat of my contention and Supreme Court rulings...........is that 12 pack of beer "taxable".......yea or nay???? Why are you ducking the question???? Are you afraid????

No fear. I just see no need for diversion from your claim. First things first. Present your proof or admit you're full of shit.

United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9: "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."



Braun’s Appeal, 105 Pa. 415; People v. Davenport, 30 llun (N.Y.) 177; In re Slocum, 109 N. Y. 153, 02 N. E. 130; Waring v. Savannah, 00 Ga. 99.”Income” means that which comes in or is received from any business or investment of capital, without reference to the outgoing expenditures; while “profits” generally means the gain which is made upon any business or investment when both receipts and payments are taken into account. “Income,” when applied to the affairs of individuals,expresses the same idea that “revenue” does when applied to the affairs of a state or nation. People v. Niagara County, 4 Hill (N..Y.) 20; Bates v. Porter, 74 Cal. 224, 15 Pac.732.

Amendment XVI Income Tax.
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.

 

[BULLDOG]

You people would bitch, whine and carry on if you shat pure gold BBs.

Oh, do you agree with Trump Jr's Halloween lesson to his daughter about socialism?

I would have waited a couple years, but yeah. If they are old enough to be preached to by Gay activists about their sexual orientation, a little "Comparative Political Theory" is probably healthier.

So when do you think Trump Jr's daughter was preached to by gay activists about her sexual orientation? Want to rethink your silly post?

 

[Dale Smith]

You didn't answer my very simple question.........it ain't rocket science, Bulldawg....is "da gubermint" entitled to three of the beers of the 12 pack given to me for mowing a lawn....YES....OR....NO.....which is it???

Hang on sweet lips. That's not how it works. You made the claim that it's unconstitutional to tax labor. It's your responsibility to prove that. Not mine.

Answer the question and I will get to the meat of my contention and Supreme Court rulings...........is that 12 pack of beer "taxable".......yea or nay???? Why are you ducking the question???? Are you afraid????

No fear. I just see no need for diversion from your claim. First things first. Present your proof or admit you're full of shit.

United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9: "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."



Braun’s Appeal, 105 Pa. 415; People v. Davenport, 30 llun (N.Y.) 177; In re Slocum, 109 N. Y. 153, 02 N. E. 130; Waring v. Savannah, 00 Ga. 99.”Income” means that which comes in or is received from any business or investment of capital, without reference to the outgoing expenditures; while “profits” generally means the gain which is made upon any business or investment when both receipts and payments are taken into account. “Income,” when applied to the affairs of individuals,expresses the same idea that “revenue” does when applied to the affairs of a state or nation. People v. Niagara County, 4 Hill (N..Y.) 20; Bates v. Porter, 74 Cal. 224, 15 Pac.732.

Amendment XVI Income Tax.
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.

The Supreme Court ruling in 1884 ruled before the 16th amendment of 1913 was declared (which never had enough states sign on to ratify it) ...which, btw, was the same year the foreign owned federal reserve central bank came into existence........coincidence? Not hardly.......

Having an unproportional tax placed on the people is unconstitutional. The good thing is that scholars and researchers have figured out ways to fight this unfair tax using the remedies provided after the Supreme Court ruled in the late 1930's that there was no consideration given to the people after their real money was confiscated due to the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of 1933 that contracted and pledged our labor as surety against the debt. The definition is one of them. The IRS is nothing but the collection arm of the International Monetary Fund ( Puerto Rico Trust #62) that took USA.INC into receivership to provide the 19 enumerated services per the corporate charter constitution via the Act of 1871.

 

[BULLDOG]

Hang on sweet lips. That's not how it works. You made the claim that it's unconstitutional to tax labor. It's your responsibility to prove that. Not mine.

Answer the question and I will get to the meat of my contention and Supreme Court rulings...........is that 12 pack of beer "taxable".......yea or nay???? Why are you ducking the question???? Are you afraid????

No fear. I just see no need for diversion from your claim. First things first. Present your proof or admit you're full of shit.

United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9: "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."



Braun’s Appeal, 105 Pa. 415; People v. Davenport, 30 llun (N.Y.) 177; In re Slocum, 109 N. Y. 153, 02 N. E. 130; Waring v. Savannah, 00 Ga. 99.”Income” means that which comes in or is received from any business or investment of capital, without reference to the outgoing expenditures; while “profits” generally means the gain which is made upon any business or investment when both receipts and payments are taken into account. “Income,” when applied to the affairs of individuals,expresses the same idea that “revenue” does when applied to the affairs of a state or nation. People v. Niagara County, 4 Hill (N..Y.) 20; Bates v. Porter, 74 Cal. 224, 15 Pac.732.

Amendment XVI Income Tax.
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.

The Supreme Court ruling in 1884 ruled before the 16th amendment of 1913 was declared (which never had enough states sign on to ratify it) ...which, btw, was the same year the foreign owned federal reserve central bank came into existence........coincidence? Not hardly.......

Having an unproportional tax placed on the people is unconstitutional. The good thing is that scholars and researchers have figured out ways to fight this unfair tax using the remedies provided after the Supreme Court ruled in the late 1930's that there was no consideration given to the people after their real money was confiscated due to the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of 1933 that contracted and pledged our labor as surety against the debt. The definition is one of them. The IRS is nothing but the collection arm of the International Monetary Fund ( Puerto Rico Trust #62) that took USA.INC into receivership to provide the 19 enumerated services per the corporate charter constitution via the Act of 1871.

Great. So when is that case going to come before the SC to end all these taxes on labor? I'm sure the government will have to scramble to make up the difference, but is it on the docket? Why not?

 

[Dale Smith]

Answer the question and I will get to the meat of my contention and Supreme Court rulings...........is that 12 pack of beer "taxable".......yea or nay???? Why are you ducking the question???? Are you afraid????

No fear. I just see no need for diversion from your claim. First things first. Present your proof or admit you're full of shit.

United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9: "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."



Braun’s Appeal, 105 Pa. 415; People v. Davenport, 30 llun (N.Y.) 177; In re Slocum, 109 N. Y. 153, 02 N. E. 130; Waring v. Savannah, 00 Ga. 99.”Income” means that which comes in or is received from any business or investment of capital, without reference to the outgoing expenditures; while “profits” generally means the gain which is made upon any business or investment when both receipts and payments are taken into account. “Income,” when applied to the affairs of individuals,expresses the same idea that “revenue” does when applied to the affairs of a state or nation. People v. Niagara County, 4 Hill (N..Y.) 20; Bates v. Porter, 74 Cal. 224, 15 Pac.732.

Amendment XVI Income Tax.
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.

The Supreme Court ruling in 1884 ruled before the 16th amendment of 1913 was declared (which never had enough states sign on to ratify it) ...which, btw, was the same year the foreign owned federal reserve central bank came into existence........coincidence? Not hardly.......

Having an unproportional tax placed on the people is unconstitutional. The good thing is that scholars and researchers have figured out ways to fight this unfair tax using the remedies provided after the Supreme Court ruled in the late 1930's that there was no consideration given to the people after their real money was confiscated due to the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of 1933 that contracted and pledged our labor as surety against the debt. The definition is one of them. The IRS is nothing but the collection arm of the International Monetary Fund ( Puerto Rico Trust #62) that took USA.INC into receivership to provide the 19 enumerated services per the corporate charter constitution via the Act of 1871.

Great. So when is that case going to come before the SC to end all these taxes on labor? I'm sure the government will have to scramble to make up the difference, but is it on the docket? Why not?

Hell, we can't even get a top to bottom audit of the Federal Reserve that has never given account in the last 104 years. Our income taxes pay the interest on "money" that the Fed bankers loaned to "da gubermint" that was created out of a few keystrokes on a computer. It is our sweat equity that moves this fiat currency that has no intrinsic value.

 

[BULLDOG]

No fear. I just see no need for diversion from your claim. First things first. Present your proof or admit you're full of shit.

United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9: "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."



Braun’s Appeal, 105 Pa. 415; People v. Davenport, 30 llun (N.Y.) 177; In re Slocum, 109 N. Y. 153, 02 N. E. 130; Waring v. Savannah, 00 Ga. 99.”Income” means that which comes in or is received from any business or investment of capital, without reference to the outgoing expenditures; while “profits” generally means the gain which is made upon any business or investment when both receipts and payments are taken into account. “Income,” when applied to the affairs of individuals,expresses the same idea that “revenue” does when applied to the affairs of a state or nation. People v. Niagara County, 4 Hill (N..Y.) 20; Bates v. Porter, 74 Cal. 224, 15 Pac.732.

Amendment XVI Income Tax.
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.

The Supreme Court ruling in 1884 ruled before the 16th amendment of 1913 was declared (which never had enough states sign on to ratify it) ...which, btw, was the same year the foreign owned federal reserve central bank came into existence........coincidence? Not hardly.......

Having an unproportional tax placed on the people is unconstitutional. The good thing is that scholars and researchers have figured out ways to fight this unfair tax using the remedies provided after the Supreme Court ruled in the late 1930's that there was no consideration given to the people after their real money was confiscated due to the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of 1933 that contracted and pledged our labor as surety against the debt. The definition is one of them. The IRS is nothing but the collection arm of the International Monetary Fund ( Puerto Rico Trust #62) that took USA.INC into receivership to provide the 19 enumerated services per the corporate charter constitution via the Act of 1871.

Great. So when is that case going to come before the SC to end all these taxes on labor? I'm sure the government will have to scramble to make up the difference, but is it on the docket? Why not?

Hell, we can't even get a top to bottom audit of the Federal Reserve that has never given account in the last 104 years. Our income taxes pay the interest on "money" that the Fed bankers loaned to "da gubermint" that was created out of a few keystrokes on a computer. It is our sweat equity that moves this fiat currency that has no intrinsic value.

So you're just another nut whining because our laws don't suit your particular desires. Get enough people to believe your silly crap, and you can change the laws. Until then, you're just another whining conspiracy nut. You lost dummy.

 

[Dale Smith]

United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9: "No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."



Braun’s Appeal, 105 Pa. 415; People v. Davenport, 30 llun (N.Y.) 177; In re Slocum, 109 N. Y. 153, 02 N. E. 130; Waring v. Savannah, 00 Ga. 99.”Income” means that which comes in or is received from any business or investment of capital, without reference to the outgoing expenditures; while “profits” generally means the gain which is made upon any business or investment when both receipts and payments are taken into account. “Income,” when applied to the affairs of individuals,expresses the same idea that “revenue” does when applied to the affairs of a state or nation. People v. Niagara County, 4 Hill (N..Y.) 20; Bates v. Porter, 74 Cal. 224, 15 Pac.732.

Amendment XVI Income Tax.
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.

The Supreme Court ruling in 1884 ruled before the 16th amendment of 1913 was declared (which never had enough states sign on to ratify it) ...which, btw, was the same year the foreign owned federal reserve central bank came into existence........coincidence? Not hardly.......

Having an unproportional tax placed on the people is unconstitutional. The good thing is that scholars and researchers have figured out ways to fight this unfair tax using the remedies provided after the Supreme Court ruled in the late 1930's that there was no consideration given to the people after their real money was confiscated due to the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of 1933 that contracted and pledged our labor as surety against the debt. The definition is one of them. The IRS is nothing but the collection arm of the International Monetary Fund ( Puerto Rico Trust #62) that took USA.INC into receivership to provide the 19 enumerated services per the corporate charter constitution via the Act of 1871.

Great. So when is that case going to come before the SC to end all these taxes on labor? I'm sure the government will have to scramble to make up the difference, but is it on the docket? Why not?

Hell, we can't even get a top to bottom audit of the Federal Reserve that has never given account in the last 104 years. Our income taxes pay the interest on "money" that the Fed bankers loaned to "da gubermint" that was created out of a few keystrokes on a computer. It is our sweat equity that moves this fiat currency that has no intrinsic value.

So you're just another nut whining because our laws don't suit your particular desires. Get enough people to believe your silly crap, and you can change the laws. Until then, you're just another whining conspiracy nut. You lost dummy.

We don't have laws.....we have acts, statutes, codes, ordinances and public policy because your beloved "gubermint' is a corporate entity. I think it's HILARIOUS that given all the consumption taxes and other fees we pay that you believe "da gubermint" is entitled to a portion of what you get from the sweat of your brow to pay the crooks that control the monetary system. You really enjoy being a debt slave and a serf.

 

[BULLDOG]

Amendment XVI Income Tax.
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.

The Supreme Court ruling in 1884 ruled before the 16th amendment of 1913 was declared (which never had enough states sign on to ratify it) ...which, btw, was the same year the foreign owned federal reserve central bank came into existence........coincidence? Not hardly.......

Having an unproportional tax placed on the people is unconstitutional. The good thing is that scholars and researchers have figured out ways to fight this unfair tax using the remedies provided after the Supreme Court ruled in the late 1930's that there was no consideration given to the people after their real money was confiscated due to the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of 1933 that contracted and pledged our labor as surety against the debt. The definition is one of them. The IRS is nothing but the collection arm of the International Monetary Fund ( Puerto Rico Trust #62) that took USA.INC into receivership to provide the 19 enumerated services per the corporate charter constitution via the Act of 1871.

Great. So when is that case going to come before the SC to end all these taxes on labor? I'm sure the government will have to scramble to make up the difference, but is it on the docket? Why not?

Hell, we can't even get a top to bottom audit of the Federal Reserve that has never given account in the last 104 years. Our income taxes pay the interest on "money" that the Fed bankers loaned to "da gubermint" that was created out of a few keystrokes on a computer. It is our sweat equity that moves this fiat currency that has no intrinsic value.

So you're just another nut whining because our laws don't suit your particular desires. Get enough people to believe your silly crap, and you can change the laws. Until then, you're just another whining conspiracy nut. You lost dummy.

We don't have laws.....we have acts, statutes, codes, ordinances and public policy because your beloved "gubermint' is a corporate entity. I think it's HILARIOUS that given all the consumption taxes and other fees we pay that you believe "da gubermint" is entitled to a portion of what you get from the sweat of your brow to pay the crooks that control the monetary system. You really enjoy being a debt slave and a serf.

Got it. You are still a crazy conspiracy nut who doesn't believe our form of government is valid.

 

[Dale Smith]

The Supreme Court ruling in 1884 ruled before the 16th amendment of 1913 was declared (which never had enough states sign on to ratify it) ...which, btw, was the same year the foreign owned federal reserve central bank came into existence........coincidence? Not hardly.......

Having an unproportional tax placed on the people is unconstitutional. The good thing is that scholars and researchers have figured out ways to fight this unfair tax using the remedies provided after the Supreme Court ruled in the late 1930's that there was no consideration given to the people after their real money was confiscated due to the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of 1933 that contracted and pledged our labor as surety against the debt. The definition is one of them. The IRS is nothing but the collection arm of the International Monetary Fund ( Puerto Rico Trust #62) that took USA.INC into receivership to provide the 19 enumerated services per the corporate charter constitution via the Act of 1871.

Great. So when is that case going to come before the SC to end all these taxes on labor? I'm sure the government will have to scramble to make up the difference, but is it on the docket? Why not?

Hell, we can't even get a top to bottom audit of the Federal Reserve that has never given account in the last 104 years. Our income taxes pay the interest on "money" that the Fed bankers loaned to "da gubermint" that was created out of a few keystrokes on a computer. It is our sweat equity that moves this fiat currency that has no intrinsic value.

So you're just another nut whining because our laws don't suit your particular desires. Get enough people to believe your silly crap, and you can change the laws. Until then, you're just another whining conspiracy nut. You lost dummy.

We don't have laws.....we have acts, statutes, codes, ordinances and public policy because your beloved "gubermint' is a corporate entity. I think it's HILARIOUS that given all the consumption taxes and other fees we pay that you believe "da gubermint" is entitled to a portion of what you get from the sweat of your brow to pay the crooks that control the monetary system. You really enjoy being a debt slave and a serf.

Got it. You are still a crazy conspiracy nut who doesn't believe our form of government is valid.

Nope, I am simply someone that understands the scam because I have dedicated myself on learning how this debt slavery works. You are simply pissed that me and millions like me have awoken to the deception and refuse to participate in it.

 

[emilynghiem]

I remember one Halloween my sister had the measles. I gave her half my candy. I called it "sharing" not freeloading

EXACTLY rightwinger BINGO!
You GAVE it to her by choosing
to share freely by your own volition.

You weren't required by law
or forced to by a parental or other third party or overseeing authority!!!

Can you see where this analogy works, where we all agree it runs on voluntary giving and sharing. Not forced by a central authority dictating that for the people, but they are all participating and distributing freely on their own.

If we can make Halloween sharing and distribution work by voluntary participation , sharing and giving,
Can we set up Health Care to work sustainably by CHOOSING the best ways to invest, give and share resources instead of imposing a process "under penalty of law" through centralized federal govt that tries to regulate it all the same for all people, instead of empowering and entrusting states districts and people to implement and practice what works for their family households communities and cooperative organizations.

 

[emilynghiem]

Debate me........engage in an honest discussion. Let's see what ya got. I am betting that it is chock full of "nothing l
Is that ALL you got out of my post? You see, stupid fucks like you are nothing but entertainment because you can only spin and take one small segment of the generous information I bestow on clowns like you.

Seriously, why do I EVEN bother?!?!?!?!?!?

Spit it out. Why are taxes on labor unconstitutional? Stay on subject if you can.

Dear BULLDOG and Dale Smith
To explain in simple 8th grade history terms:
taxation is unconstitutional when it is forced without representation,
when people do not consent to the terms of the contract
of how much money or what percentage is required and where the money is spent.

The problem we face right now is parties with conflicting, opposing
beliefs on what govt should be used for
do NOT agree on what to pay for, and how much to charge which people
deemed responsible for which programs because they don't all agree.
This is especially troublesome with issues of BELIEFS that people
cannot be forced to change by govt,
or forced to fund under penalty if it's against their beliefs.

So that's why it becomes unconstitutional on multiple levels.
And once programs are in place that people contest as against their beliefs and/or consent,
removing them or changing their terms or funding
risks creating MORE costs or consequences
that other people don't agree to pay for! If the policy
doesn't represent and protect the interests/beliefs of all people
equally, but people are punished or deprived of equal rights,
that's discrimination by creed to penalize people on the basis of their beliefs being violated.

Sadly, we can't even CHANGE existing contested programs
where we can't agree what to change them to
that won't incur costs that people don't agree on either!

Back to the solution I propose:
let people choose which party to pay taxes to
on social programs or other contested policies
that not everyone beliefs in funding publicly.

so any contested programs can revert to local,
state, or private business/nonprofit networks
that can be collectively funded by party members
instead of charging all taxpayers unless this is agreed.
There must be fully informed and freely chosen representation where taxpayers
agree to invest their taxes there, so it respects consent of the governed.

Yes. There are lots of people who don't like certain taxes, or any taxes at all, and many thoughts about how to remove some of them to suit the complainers. That is not the subject here. The claim was made that taxing pay for labor is unconstitutional. While I agree that is the belief of some, the Supreme Court is the final judge of constitutionality. As a country, we can't really change our tax laws on a whim just because Joe down the street doesn't like them. Each of us is free to believe anything they want about the constitutionality of our laws; tax or otherwise, but just saying taxing labor is unconstitutional doesn't make it so. If he can convince the SC it is unconstitutional, then Dale might have a valid claim. Until then, it's just the inane whining of a lot of conspiracy theory nuts.

Yes and No BULLDOG
1. When the people agree with judges ruling then yes, this represents govt representing the people.

3. However when people contest govt laws or rulings, then it goes through the legislative or judicial process again to address the cause of objection. If people do NOT consent and are NOT represented by a law ruling or decision, then it isn't final! Thats the beauty of our democratic process so govt can be revised, reformed and refined .

3. As for ppl not wanting to pay taxes, all the ppl I ever asked preferred to pay for what they want and believe in, and objected to paying for things they object to . Like duh! It's not rocket science but human nature and common sense. They will agree to mandate taxes if it's going to agreed programs or expenses.

It just has to be set up right.

If not, if it's set up to be adversarial and coercive, then of course people aren't going to want to be forced into paying that way.

We all want our own free will and beliefs/interests to be represented by govt. But if we don't trust other people, and try to force them by law or govt authority, of course they are going to react and force their own ways on us.

So why not respect each other's rights and freedoms to begin with. If we all did that equally, nobody would have to force corrections on anyone else.

Respecting other's rights is exactly what I'm talking about. We have a constitution that defines what our rights are. If you, or anyone else disagree with that, then that is your problem. We, as a country decided to lay our rights out in the constitution, and assigned the Supreme Court the duty to determine what laws were constitutional and which weren't, a long time ago. If enough citizens disagree with their decisions, they, through their representatives can change the laws. The SC will then determine if the new laws are constitutional, and so on. That process hasn't happened. Whining about laws doesn't change them. and thinking that everyone has the right to be equally happy about our laws is really dumb. This isn't grandma's house where everybody gets the same size piece of candy. Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean it is unfair to you, no matter how much you think it is.

As far as taxation without representation, I suggest you look up who your representatives in the House and Senate are,as well as your state and local representatives. Just because they don't do exactly as you wish doesn't mean you aren't represented. That particular remark was just dumb.

Hi BULLDOG
1. The argument I make is that not treating right to life equally as right to health care amounts to discrimination by Creed.

NOTE: this particular argument was not yet made in court. It is arguing that Constitutional beliefs and other political beliefs are part of religious freedom and should be treated equally.

As I also posted to danielpalos
I will post the same to you:
Even if you are right, that still doesn't override govt responsibility to defend due process of laws
And NOT depriving people of liberty or "free choice" unless first convicted of crime or violation that calls for losing civil liberty as punishment.

This can be overridden where there is compelling interest by govt, but in cases of health care, this can be paid for by compelling those who believe in right to health care to pay to support that belief fir themselves and others who agree -- similarly to requiring right to life advocates to fund their own beliefs and practices .
Otherwise if cases of right to health care are treated as a compelling interest to save lives, at the expense of due process and free choice , why not compel govt to impose in the case of right to life arguments ?

2. As for the issue of taxation and representation, it takes more than just voting in officials and offices .

In this case BULLDOG
I'm actually in process of proposing legislation and tax reform I may have to write myself!

My point is to demand equal choice fir people and parties to direct their taxes to pay for the policies that respect their political beliefs, equally as we would call fir separation of religious beliefs from mandatory public policy.

So if right to universal care advicates want equal choice to defund the death penalty and pay for health care facilities and programs instead, let right to life advicates defund Planned Parenthood and run free market coops for Vets and other people who register fir their party platform and programs.

I haven't found reps from either party proposing tax separation to offer equal choices to Taxpayers to decide which party proposals they want to manage their health care and benefits under.

But it makes sense to me to separate them so everyone can focus and fund the beliefs and programs they believe in investing and developing resources to support .

I believe that respects equal representation and protections of all beliefs instead of imposing one group on another. What do you think of re organizing that way?

Thanks BULLDOG
You can have your beliefs as long as you fund them yourself . But we can't expect to make other ppl fund them who have beliefs you and I don't agree to fund either! It's only fair.

 

[emilynghiem]

How would giving it to actual needy people provide a lesson about socialism?

bripat9643 When this decision is made freely by individuals and community members voluntarily on a local basis, instead of dictated by centralized federal authority trying to regulate and manage one mandatory process for every state across the entire country .

 

[Dale Smith]

How would giving it to actual needy people provide a lesson about socialism?

bripat9643 When this decision is made freely by individuals and community members voluntarily on a local basis, instead of dictated by centralized federal authority trying to regulate and manage one mandatory process for every state across the entire country .

Just wanted you to know that I am a huge fan and supporter of the information that you lay out here. Good on ya.

 

[rightwinger]

I remember one Halloween my sister had the measles. I gave her half my candy. I called it "sharing" not freeloading

EXACTLY rightwinger BINGO!
You GAVE it to her by choosing
to share freely by your own volition.

You weren't required by law
or forced to by a parental or other third party or overseeing authority!!!

Can you see where this analogy works, where we all agree it runs on voluntary giving and sharing. Not forced by a central authority dictating that for the people, but they are all participating and distributing freely on their own.

If we can make Halloween sharing and distribution work by voluntary participation , sharing and giving,
Can we set up Health Care to work sustainably by CHOOSING the best ways to invest, give and share resources instead of imposing a process "under penalty of law" through centralized federal govt that tries to regulate it all the same for all people, instead of empowering and entrusting states districts and people to implement and practice what works for their family households communities and cooperative organizations.

You make Halloween too hard

It is not work....it is FUN
There are no children who willingly sit home and expect someone to give them candy

Lil Donnie exploited his daughter for Conservative propaganda

 

[BULLDOG]

Spit it out. Why are taxes on labor unconstitutional? Stay on subject if you can.

Dear BULLDOG and Dale Smith
To explain in simple 8th grade history terms:
taxation is unconstitutional when it is forced without representation,
when people do not consent to the terms of the contract
of how much money or what percentage is required and where the money is spent.

The problem we face right now is parties with conflicting, opposing
beliefs on what govt should be used for
do NOT agree on what to pay for, and how much to charge which people
deemed responsible for which programs because they don't all agree.
This is especially troublesome with issues of BELIEFS that people
cannot be forced to change by govt,
or forced to fund under penalty if it's against their beliefs.

So that's why it becomes unconstitutional on multiple levels.
And once programs are in place that people contest as against their beliefs and/or consent,
removing them or changing their terms or funding
risks creating MORE costs or consequences
that other people don't agree to pay for! If the policy
doesn't represent and protect the interests/beliefs of all people
equally, but people are punished or deprived of equal rights,
that's discrimination by creed to penalize people on the basis of their beliefs being violated.

Sadly, we can't even CHANGE existing contested programs
where we can't agree what to change them to
that won't incur costs that people don't agree on either!

Back to the solution I propose:
let people choose which party to pay taxes to
on social programs or other contested policies
that not everyone beliefs in funding publicly.

so any contested programs can revert to local,
state, or private business/nonprofit networks
that can be collectively funded by party members
instead of charging all taxpayers unless this is agreed.
There must be fully informed and freely chosen representation where taxpayers
agree to invest their taxes there, so it respects consent of the governed.

Yes. There are lots of people who don't like certain taxes, or any taxes at all, and many thoughts about how to remove some of them to suit the complainers. That is not the subject here. The claim was made that taxing pay for labor is unconstitutional. While I agree that is the belief of some, the Supreme Court is the final judge of constitutionality. As a country, we can't really change our tax laws on a whim just because Joe down the street doesn't like them. Each of us is free to believe anything they want about the constitutionality of our laws; tax or otherwise, but just saying taxing labor is unconstitutional doesn't make it so. If he can convince the SC it is unconstitutional, then Dale might have a valid claim. Until then, it's just the inane whining of a lot of conspiracy theory nuts.

Yes and No BULLDOG
1. When the people agree with judges ruling then yes, this represents govt representing the people.

3. However when people contest govt laws or rulings, then it goes through the legislative or judicial process again to address the cause of objection. If people do NOT consent and are NOT represented by a law ruling or decision, then it isn't final! Thats the beauty of our democratic process so govt can be revised, reformed and refined .

3. As for ppl not wanting to pay taxes, all the ppl I ever asked preferred to pay for what they want and believe in, and objected to paying for things they object to . Like duh! It's not rocket science but human nature and common sense. They will agree to mandate taxes if it's going to agreed programs or expenses.

It just has to be set up right.

If not, if it's set up to be adversarial and coercive, then of course people aren't going to want to be forced into paying that way.

We all want our own free will and beliefs/interests to be represented by govt. But if we don't trust other people, and try to force them by law or govt authority, of course they are going to react and force their own ways on us.

So why not respect each other's rights and freedoms to begin with. If we all did that equally, nobody would have to force corrections on anyone else.

Respecting other's rights is exactly what I'm talking about. We have a constitution that defines what our rights are. If you, or anyone else disagree with that, then that is your problem. We, as a country decided to lay our rights out in the constitution, and assigned the Supreme Court the duty to determine what laws were constitutional and which weren't, a long time ago. If enough citizens disagree with their decisions, they, through their representatives can change the laws. The SC will then determine if the new laws are constitutional, and so on. That process hasn't happened. Whining about laws doesn't change them. and thinking that everyone has the right to be equally happy about our laws is really dumb. This isn't grandma's house where everybody gets the same size piece of candy. Just because you don't like a law doesn't mean it is unfair to you, no matter how much you think it is.

As far as taxation without representation, I suggest you look up who your representatives in the House and Senate are,as well as your state and local representatives. Just because they don't do exactly as you wish doesn't mean you aren't represented. That particular remark was just dumb.

Hi BULLDOG
1. The argument I make is that not treating right to life equally as right to health care amounts to discrimination by Creed.

NOTE: this particular argument was not yet made in court. It is arguing that Constitutional beliefs and other political beliefs are part of religious freedom and should be treated equally.

As I also posted to danielpalos
I will post the same to you:
Even if you are right, that still doesn't override govt responsibility to defend due process of laws
And NOT depriving people of liberty or "free choice" unless first convicted of crime or violation that calls for losing civil liberty as punishment.

This can be overridden where there is compelling interest by govt, but in cases of health care, this can be paid for by compelling those who believe in right to health care to pay to support that belief fir themselves and others who agree -- similarly to requiring right to life advocates to fund their own beliefs and practices .
Otherwise if cases of right to health care are treated as a compelling interest to save lives, at the expense of due process and free choice , why not compel govt to impose in the case of right to life arguments ?

2. As for the issue of taxation and representation, it takes more than just voting in officials and offices .

In this case BULLDOG
I'm actually in process of proposing legislation and tax reform I may have to write myself!

My point is to demand equal choice fir people and parties to direct their taxes to pay for the policies that respect their political beliefs, equally as we would call fir separation of religious beliefs from mandatory public policy.

So if right to universal care advicates want equal choice to defund the death penalty and pay for health care facilities and programs instead, let right to life advicates defund Planned Parenthood and run free market coops for Vets and other people who register fir their party platform and programs.

I haven't found reps from either party proposing tax separation to offer equal choices to Taxpayers to decide which party proposals they want to manage their health care and benefits under.

But it makes sense to me to separate them so everyone can focus and fund the beliefs and programs they believe in investing and developing resources to support .

I believe that respects equal representation and protections of all beliefs instead of imposing one group on another. What do you think of re organizing that way?

Thanks BULLDOG
You can have your beliefs as long as you fund them yourself . But we can't expect to make other ppl fund them who have beliefs you and I don't agree to fund either! It's only fair.

Wow. You think your religious beliefs give you the right to deny other's rights? The government quit funding abortions decades ago. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. Nobody will force you. I have no desire to discuss such a wide range of subjects all at once. Pick one aspect and go with that. Plenty of time to get to all of them but not all at the same time.

With 320 million Americans, it's not possible to assign each person their own individualized tax obligations. Surely, you understand that.