Irs

[Contumacious]

It is unethical for any man to tax another man's home to fund his social agenda. Friends don't do that, your enemies will. - John Taft

It is also criminal.

But "compassionate conservatives" like Lie-ability do not know their ass from a hole in the ground. The fuckers believe that fedgov has the authority to steal and confiscate in order to finance his pet projects.

.

Well, in fairness, it is no longer criminal as the law was changed to support it.

But the law was never changed.

But even if the Law was officially enacted , was apartheid lawful? Could South Africa lawfully incarcerate Nelson Mandela merely because he was a Negro?


Was Adolf Hitler's Die Endlösung - " Final Solution of the Jewish Question"- lawful because it was the offcicial nazi government policy being enforced by a duly elected government ?

.

 

[Liability]

It is unethical for any man to tax another man's home to fund his social agenda. Friends don't do that, your enemies will. - John Taft

It is also criminal.

But "compassionate conservatives" like Lie-ability do not know their ass from a hole in the ground. The fuckers believe that fedgov has the authority to steal and confiscate in order to finance his pet projects.

.

Zz.

The 16th Amendment, having been duly ratified, gave the Federal Government the authority.

But shitstains like Confusedatious will continue to spread their lies by denying reality, because to vermin like that lowlife smegma breath, the truth may be casually dismissed.

This is why all reasonable, fair, objective, intelligent and mature indiviudals have no use for scumbags like Confusedatious.

,


;

 

[Contumacious]

According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:

The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification.

If the Government printing office, and the congressional record records the ratification of the 16th amendment, AND the lawsuit against the person that was making the claim that it was never ratified was upheld, then it seems it WAS ratified.

The claim that it wasn't ratified puts you in the same school of thought as the twoofers....

Mr. Benson 's evidence includes CERTIFIED records from each of the fifty states showing that the Amendment was never ratified.

You have chosen to prejudge , to believe that we are being governed by angels. That puts you in the same school of thought as Howdy Doody.

.

 

[Liability]

It is also criminal.

But "compassionate conservatives" like Lie-ability do not know their ass from a hole in the ground. The fuckers believe that fedgov has the authority to steal and confiscate in order to finance his pet projects.

.

Well, in fairness, it is no longer criminal as the law was changed to support it.

But the law was never changed.

But even if the Law was officially enacted , was apartheid lawful? Could South Africa lawfully incarcerate Nelson Mandela merely because he was a Negro?


Was Adolf Hitler's Die Endlösung - " Final Solution of the Jewish Question"- lawful because it was the offcicial nazi government policy being enforced by a duly elected government ?

.

Idiots like Confusedatious either truly don't get it because of his severe retardation, or the shitstain is just lying some more.

There can be -- and sometimes there is -- a difference between that which is technically "legal" and that which is nonetheless immoral.

Apatheid was immoral, but legal.

The Nazi horrors were beyond depraved and immoral, but still technically "legal."

This is why many people have correctly noted that individuals cannot be bound to comply with immoral laws. They may be legally sanctioned for disobedience -- sadly -- and they may become martyrs in the process. But that only serves to highlight that legality is not always on the same plane as morality.

As to the "legality" of the Income Tax, that matter is resolved. The 16th Amendment empowered the Congress to create an income tax and the passage of income tax laws are thus legal.

 

[slackjawed]

It is also criminal.

But "compassionate conservatives" like Lie-ability do not know their ass from a hole in the ground. The fuckers believe that fedgov has the authority to steal and confiscate in order to finance his pet projects.

.

Well, in fairness, it is no longer criminal as the law was changed to support it.

But the law was never changed.

But even if the Law was officially enacted , was apartheid lawful? Could South Africa lawfully incarcerate Nelson Mandela merely because he was a Negro?


Was Adolf Hitler's Die Endlösung - " Final Solution of the Jewish Question"- lawful because it was the offcicial nazi government policy being enforced by a duly elected government ?

.

The law was changed in the form of a 'progressive income tax' and the implementation thereof. Denying that does not make it so, it only serves to prove your unwillingness to acknowledge history.
Do you really want to be in the same group as terral and 911nutjob? You must, because your statements support that.
South africa had laws making it legal to imprison mandela.
hitler had laws making it legal to do what he did as well.
Do you have any clue as to the difference between 'legal' and 'moral' or 'ethical'?
hint;
Just because something is legal does not mean it is ethical, or moral. It does, however, make those things legal.

 

[slackjawed]

The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913. After a year of extensive research, Bill Benson discovered that the 16th Amendment was not ratified by the required 3/4 of the states, but nevertheless Secretary of State Philander Knox fraudulently announced ratification.

If the Government printing office, and the congressional record records the ratification of the 16th amendment, AND the lawsuit against the person that was making the claim that it was never ratified was upheld, then it seems it WAS ratified.

The claim that it wasn't ratified puts you in the same school of thought as the twoofers....

Mr. Benson 's evidence includes CERTIFIED records from each of the fifty states showing that the Amendment was never ratified.

You have chosen to prejudge , to believe that we are being governed by angels. That puts you in the same school of thought as Howdy Doody.

.

and mr benson's evidence was not acceptable to the court, does that tell you something?

 

[Contumacious]

[As to the "legality" of the Income Tax, that matter is resolved. The 16th Amendment empowered the Congress to create an income tax and the passage of income tax laws are thus legal.

Of course the scumbag fails or refuses to explain how a measure recommended by Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto - the 2nd plank -[ a heavy GRADUATED income tax ]- is lawful US Constitutional Law.

.

 

[slackjawed]

[As to the "legality" of the Income Tax, that matter is resolved. The 16th Amendment empowered the Congress to create an income tax and the passage of income tax laws are thus legal.

Of course the scumbag fails or refuses to explain how a measure recommended by Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto - the 2nd plank -[ a heavy GRADUATED income tax ]- is lawful US Constitutional Law.

.

The RATIFIED constitutional amendment is all the explanation needed.

Those that do not have facts on their side, or are intellectually inferior, resort to this type of name-calling when their arguments fail.

You have proven yourself, by your posts, to be unwilling and unable to engage in rational debate.

 

[Contumacious]

If the Government printing office, and the congressional record records the ratification of the 16th amendment, AND the lawsuit against the person that was making the claim that it was never ratified was upheld, then it seems it WAS ratified.

The claim that it wasn't ratified puts you in the same school of thought as the twoofers....

Mr. Benson 's evidence includes CERTIFIED records from each of the fifty states showing that the Amendment was never ratified.

You have chosen to prejudge , to believe that we are being governed by angels. That puts you in the same school of thought as Howdy Doody.

.

and mr benson's evidence was not acceptable to the court, does that tell you something?

Of course it does, that the "courts" are corrupt to their core.

Lawsuits are supposed to be ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS - the US Attorney is supposed to show that the evidence was insufficient. The Department of inJustice has never been able to do that. The Judge simply takes it upon himself to defend the status quo.

.

 

[slackjawed]

Mr. Benson 's evidence includes CERTIFIED records from each of the fifty states showing that the Amendment was never ratified.

You have chosen to prejudge , to believe that we are being governed by angels. That puts you in the same school of thought as Howdy Doody.

.

and mr benson's evidence was not acceptable to the court, does that tell you something?

Of course it does, that the "courts" are corrupted to their core.

Lawsuits are supposed to be ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS - the US Attorney is supposed to show that the evidence was insufficient. The Department of inJustice has never been able to do that. The Judge simply takes it upon himself to defend the status quo.

.

So the point you are making indicates that the 16th amendment was a CONSPIRACY against the American people, right?

Should we expect that you will 'rise up' as the scum that flew his plane into that building expected people to do?

The facts simply are not with you on this one. By continuing with the line of reasoning that you are on, you are certainly placing yourself in the 5% or so that identify themselves as truthers and birthers.
History has shown that that 5% number of mentally ill among the population has held steady throught every nation in history.....

 

[Contumacious]

[As to the "legality" of the Income Tax, that matter is resolved. The 16th Amendment empowered the Congress to create an income tax and the passage of income tax laws are thus legal.

Of course the scumbag fails or refuses to explain how a measure recommended by Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto - the 2nd plank -[ a heavy GRADUATED income tax ]- is lawful US Constitutional Law.

.

The RATIFIED constitutional amendment is all the explanation needed.

Those that do not have facts on their side, or are intellectually inferior, resort to this type of name-calling when their arguments fail.

You have proven yourself, by your posts, to be unwilling and unable to engage in rational debate.

Those conflicted by interest, ie the parasites, take the position that Constitutional law is irrelevant so long as they get their food stamp allowance on time.

If the evidence shows that their right to receive federal largesse could be adversely affected, they will see nothing, hear nothing, speak nothing.

.

.

 

[Liability]

[As to the "legality" of the Income Tax, that matter is resolved. The 16th Amendment empowered the Congress to create an income tax and the passage of income tax laws are thus legal.

Of course the scumbag fails or refuses to explain how a measure recommended by Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto - the 2nd plank -[ a heavy GRADUATED income tax ]- is lawful US Constitutional Law.

.

It is stunning just how dishonest AND utterly stupid Confusedatious is.

Confusedatious, you retard, try to pay attention. The 16th Amendment was RATIFIED. You may not like that fact. But that's actually pretty fucking irrelevant. It is what it is.

Once it DID get ratified, there was no longer anything ILLEGAL about the passage of an Act formally creating an Income Tax.

You are arguing that an income tax is unconstitutional becvause it aligns somehow with the thinking of Karl fucking Marx. That MIGHT be a reason to oppose the Act.

It is NOT a rational basis to claim (as you nonethless stupidly do) that the Act is Unconstitutional.

I have actually seen morons like you argue that the Census is "unconstitutional." Nevermind the fact that the Constitution itself mandates that a census be taken. To goobers like those imbeciles, since they dispute the wisdom of invading our privacy, they declare it "unconstitutional."

A thing cannot be Un-Constitutional, you shitstain imbecile, if the Constitution itself either mandates it or authorizes it.

;




,

 

[Contumacious]

and mr benson's evidence was not acceptable to the court, does that tell you something?

Of course it does, that the "courts" are corrupted to their core.

Lawsuits are supposed to be ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS - the US Attorney is supposed to show that the evidence was insufficient. The Department of inJustice has never been able to do that. The Judge simply takes it upon himself to defend the status quo.

.

So the point you are making indicates that the 16th amendment was a CONSPIRACY against the American people, right?

Should we expect that you will 'rise up' as the scum that flew his plane into that building expected people to do?

The facts simply are not with you on this one. By continuing with the line of reasoning that you are on, you are certainly placing yourself in the 5% or so that identify themselves as truthers and birthers.
History has shown that that 5% number of mentally ill among the population has held steady throught every nation in history.....

Courts are supposed to be the ALTERNATIVE to violence , as the courts are systematically abolished individuals will do whatever they deem reasonable to redress their grievances.

.

 

[slackjawed]

Of course it does, that the "courts" are corrupted to their core.

Lawsuits are supposed to be ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS - the US Attorney is supposed to show that the evidence was insufficient. The Department of inJustice has never been able to do that. The Judge simply takes it upon himself to defend the status quo.

.

So the point you are making indicates that the 16th amendment was a CONSPIRACY against the American people, right?

Should we expect that you will 'rise up' as the scum that flew his plane into that building expected people to do?

The facts simply are not with you on this one. By continuing with the line of reasoning that you are on, you are certainly placing yourself in the 5% or so that identify themselves as truthers and birthers.
History has shown that that 5% number of mentally ill among the population has held steady throught every nation in history.....

Courts are supposed to be the ALTERNATIVE to violence , as the courts are systematically abolished individuals will do whatever they deem reasonable to redress their grievances.

.

In order for the system of courts to work, we all have to agree to abide by the decisions made by them. Those that resort to violence to address their grievences violate that agreement.
Are you advocating a country where "individuals will do whatever they deem reasonable to redress their grievances"?
There is name for that type of government, it's called anarchy.

 

[Contumacious]

You are arguing that an income tax is unconstitutional becvause it aligns somehow with the thinking of Karl fucking Marx. That MIGHT be a reason to oppose the Act.

It is NOT a rational basis to claim (as you nonethless stupidly do) that the Act is Unconstitutional.

Here we have an alleged "conservative" claiming that the Communist Manifesto can be adopted into law without interfering with our Constitutional Republic.

That is Prima Facie evidence that there is NO difference between the republicans and the Democrats.

But I am certain that if Lie-ability was to go any conservative convention claiming that the 16th Amendment if Lawful that they will make him a new asshole.

.

 

[Liability]

You are arguing that an income tax is unconstitutional becvause it aligns somehow with the thinking of Karl fucking Marx. That MIGHT be a reason to oppose the Act.

It is NOT a rational basis to claim (as you nonethless stupidly do) that the Act is Unconstitutional.

Here we have an alleged "conservative" claiming that the Communist Manifesto can be adopted into law without interfering with our Constitutional Republic.

That is Prima Facie evidence that there is NO difference between the republicans and the Democrats.

But I am certain that if Lie-ability was to go any conservative convention claiming that the 16th Amendment if Lawful that they will make him a new asshole.

.

No no, you retard. What we have here is me, a conservative, arguing with you, a complete idiot.

What I AM saying is that whether you like it or not, your CLAIM that something is "unconstitutional" is defective on its face when the very thing you CLAIM is Unconstitutional is a part OF the Constitution.

The 16th amendment is, by definition, Constitutional. You can argue for repeal, but until it gets repealed, it is part of the Constitution.

Your argument is beyond stupid and inane. And you are a babbling shitmonkey.

,


;

 

[slackjawed]

from webster's;

con·tu·ma·cious
   /ˌkɒntʊˈmeɪʃəs, -tyʊ-/ Show Spelled[kon-too-mey-shuhs, -tyoo-] Show IPA
–adjective
stubbornly perverse or rebellious; willfully and obstinately disobedient.
Use contumacious in a Sentence
See images of contumacious
Search contumacious on the Web
Origin:
1590–1600; contumacy + -ous

—Related forms
con·tu·ma·cious·ly, adverb
con·tu·ma·cious·ness, con·tu·mac·i·ty  /ˌkɒntʊˈmæsɪti, -tyʊ-/ Show Spelled[kon-too-mas-i-tee, -tyoo-] Show IPA, noun
non·con·tu·ma·cious, adjective
non·con·tu·ma·cious·ly, adverb
non·con·tu·ma·cious·ness, noun
un·con·tu·ma·cious, adjective
un·con·tu·ma·cious·ly, adverb
un·con·tu·ma·cious·ness, noun

—Synonyms
contrary, pigheaded, factious, refractory, headstrong, intractable.

 

[Liability]

from webster's;

con·tu·ma·cious
   /ˌkɒntʊˈmeɪʃəs, -tyʊ-/ Show Spelled[kon-too-mey-shuhs, -tyoo-] Show IPA
–adjective
stubbornly perverse or rebellious; willfully and obstinately disobedient.
Use contumacious in a Sentence
See images of contumacious
Search contumacious on the Web
Origin:
1590–1600; contumacy + -ous

—Related forms
con·tu·ma·cious·ly, adverb
con·tu·ma·cious·ness, con·tu·mac·i·ty  /ˌkɒntʊˈmæsɪti, -tyʊ-/ Show Spelled[kon-too-mas-i-tee, -tyoo-] Show IPA, noun
non·con·tu·ma·cious, adjective
non·con·tu·ma·cious·ly, adverb
non·con·tu·ma·cious·ness, noun
un·con·tu·ma·cious, adjective
un·con·tu·ma·cious·ly, adverb
un·con·tu·ma·cious·ness, noun

—Synonyms
contrary, pigheaded, factious, refractory, headstrong, intractable.

Maybe he meant his username to be ironic.

Nah.

He's far too dull for that kind of thing.

And he really does make idiotic arguments almost as though he takes the stupid position just for the sake of arguing.

What a tool.