|
|
Post by sagas4 on Dec 2, 2004 18:55:28 GMT -5
Fact is your both right.
Go cook your noodles on that one for a while and see if you get an answer.
But that just my Opinion. heh heh ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Rizzotherat on Dec 2, 2004 19:08:11 GMT -5
I always have. Tho I tend not too confuse my own opinions about others with facts. As far as what "seems" to be the case and what you "feel" ... well, that's just more speculation and opinion on your part. As a friend would say, "that is what you say." By the way, in this particular instance, I am right, and you are wrong. Not all those patriots and or others who "seem" to be con artists are. They just seem to be, to some. You, for example. Gossip can be as bad as a con, or perhaps worse. Be nice. I knew it I knew it! You have the "I have to be right" disease. I know from experience that following and accepting "patriot" type advice is dangerous and costly. I feel bad for those who accept it blindly. Many are honest in heart who just took "patriot" bad advice. Other are deliberate and are out for your money. Neo, please don't argue with me anymore. I feeling you will because, well, you have to be right. You be nice too!  |
|
|
|
Post by Neo on Dec 2, 2004 22:38:04 GMT -5
I'm neither a patriot nor would I recommend anyone listen to them. I do maintain, however, many so-called con-artists are not. They just don't realize their premise, that the constitution is a good thing, is sadly mistaken.
Was never arguing with you, nor responding to you, per se. It's primarily for the benefit of others to read what I wrote that I responded at all -- because I could see, early on, that you are, well ... I'd rather not say here. It wouldn't matter anyway. I will henceforth ignore all your posts, including any final reply, to this one, to demonstrate no need to "argue."
|
|
|
|
Post by FlunkyNoMo on Dec 3, 2004 1:44:53 GMT -5
Since when did being a patriot become a bad thing??
If you're refering to the scam artist, take your money and run types, I believe the proper spelling is "PAY-triots".
I'm a this, You're a that....this is the root of the divide......as in "divide and conquer"
Some do rely on others to handle their affairs, and part with big $$. Following blindly may work for a while, much like cheating on your homework. In the end there will be a final exam, will YOU be prepared??
FNM
|
|
|
|
Post by sagas4 on Dec 3, 2004 2:30:57 GMT -5
FNM
you make a good point. It might be the definition - If patriot is the, "well the system just needs some fixin type", or obey the law blah blah
The problem with that is in the flaw of the system itself. One can't choose if they want Uncle Sam, Warren Buffett, or Self to manage the surplus fruits of their labor for future use. One must participate with U.S. whether one wants to or not cause your forced to.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neo on Dec 3, 2004 2:34:05 GMT -5
FNM, I was referring to people who think they can reform the system by filing "good" lawsuits, e.g., Shultz's We the People organization, Larry Becraft, etc.. I was saying I'm not one of them because I think the system is inheirently evil.
I do believe being a patriot is a good thing if it's defined as love of family, community, etc.., assuming one's family and community are worth preserving, which is another issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rizzotherat on Dec 3, 2004 7:13:16 GMT -5
I'm neither a patriot nor would I recommend anyone listen to them. I do maintain, however, many so-called con-artists are not. They just don't realize their premise, that the constitution is a good thing, is sadly mistaken. Was never arguing with you, nor responding to you, per se. It's primarily for the benefit of others to read what I wrote that I responded at all -- because I could see, early on, that you are, well ... I'd rather not say here. It wouldn't matter anyway. I will henceforth ignore all your posts, including any final reply, to this one, to demonstrate no need to "argue." Once again..... Say what you will, I can see through it. If you want to disparage me, go ahead. If you don't want to say it here, then where? You last post proves you have hidden irritation with me. You do want to argue, you want to be right. I just pointed it out and it bothers you. You just want to look like the all wise and all knowing. Maybe trying to steal the limelight from Mr. Stevens? Wanting a ride on the coat tails of his success? Just an observation, glad you are not going to respond. |
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Dec 3, 2004 9:44:16 GMT -5
No personal attacks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neo on Dec 3, 2004 11:00:22 GMT -5
Thanks Marc, whatever you were referring to ... skipped it.
Is there anyone out there who actually has anything related to the subject "love, sex, and freedom"? If not, please start your own thread on a different subject. Thanks. This will make it easier for newcomers to find what they're looking for in addition to shortening the length of threads.
|
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Dec 3, 2004 14:39:56 GMT -5
In response to why you started this thread, my wife is great. We don't see eye to eye on everything, we love and support each other though.  |
|
|
|
Post by Neo on Dec 23, 2004 12:10:12 GMT -5
FlunkyNoMore,
If you see this, I finally responded to your Instant Message message, at long last. Sorry for the delay.
Neo
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Dec 23, 2004 14:51:40 GMT -5
Like I've said on numerous radio shows, I am a rational adult who believes all human interaction should be voluntary. That is libertarianism, voluntaryist. Okay, I think that is settled now. ;D With the above in mind (BTW I am very impressed with how brief your words are!) I have to ask the question nobody else has really asked: Which method of responding to the alleged tax obligation do you believe is the most in harmony with rational libertarian volunaryism? Being a Canadian, I can only try making sense of what others have said, but it seems like the options include... a. file as all "citizens" do and lose a good chunk of your personal property without any chance of conflict b. file as all "citizens" do, but add a disclaimer like "under diress" or "UCC 1-207" etc. c. file with "0.00" under "gross income" due to the Tax Code's own description of how to determine gross income (i.e. it has to do with foreign transactions or something) d. file but attach a statement (or request, as suggested earlier) instead of filling out the form e. do not file Also, I would think that it seems only "d" and "e" would likely result in the opportunity to do some boxing-in/impeaching-the-witness steps, for the public record (presuming a court reporter is allowed;)) whereas the rest will encourage the system to go on as it has for way too long (i.e. endorsing the existence of the so-called "State" etc)... Just curious, this is by no means a request for full disclosure of everything you do in your personal life, or as anybody asking for legal advice, etc. <--disclaimer just in case I am misunderstood. |
|
|
|
Post by marc stevens on Dec 23, 2004 19:05:12 GMT -5
This is actually addressed on a different thread, but, that had to do with doing things south of Canada.
I write I would be happy to pay, I am not a lawyer and I don't understand this legal stuff though. Could you please provide me the facts your opinion I have an obligation is based on? Basically, what facts do you rely on to prove an obligation was created?
|
|
|
|
Post by Harry on Dec 23, 2004 19:35:31 GMT -5
Well, now I understand what the whole "To Marc Stevens" thread was about.
|
|
|
|
Post by Neo on Dec 23, 2004 21:27:20 GMT -5
Please explain it to me then, offline, via IM (instant messenger), because I don't.
|
|
