It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

7000 Citizens Violently Threatened By The State Of Indiana

page: 10
38
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.




posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne
 


I take it you like seeing Afghani children blown to bits.

Typically liberals argue against militarism.

Then again, war is the health of the State.

Given that we have 65 million gun owners (far more than the Taliban), yet the Taliban has managed to wage a 10 year war against the full force of the US military, I don't think any country could invade us and dominate us even if we didn't have a military.

Ironically, the Taliban and the Viet Cong proved this much.

The Taliban is about to win because the bond market is set to implode.

Coincidentally, we faced the same issue with the VC. We had to go off the gold backed dollar system after the Viet Nam war.




[edit on 25-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lightrule
Look at how fearful you are, you actually believe if there are no police things are going to go to hell in a hand basket and fast... Yet the police are hours away here, and people are having no problem governing themselves, WITHOUT violence and theft... is the sky falling? No, you are just a scared little lamb that doesn't know it is being lead to slaughter. Wake up.

-Lightrule


This right here is proof that you are clueless and confused, and have ZERO grip on reality.

If we didn't have laws, and police to enforce them, the world would be one big wild west. People would be taking the law into their own hands and the ish will hit the fan instantly. You have absolutly no grip on reality.

You live in a town with 202 people.... get a CLUE!!!!!!!! You can't compare that with a city with 3 and 3/4 million people!!!

Someone must have dropped you on your head as a child! Or you still are one!

[edit on 25-8-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne
 


The wild west was actually tame.

I thought I explained this already.

Because there was no law and everyone was armed, there was almost zero crime.

The amount of total crime that took place during the entire westward expansion of America is comparable to the crime that takes place in one major urban city today over the course of a year.

Here's a nice book on the subject.

www.amazon.com...


[edit on 25-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


...what you fail to understand is that when there was crime in the wild west, it was the worst crimes you can imagine. Entire citys were burned down by outlaws, and the women and children raped and sold as slaves, and everyone else murdered.

You have to be a complete fool to think without laws and police officers the world would be any better.

You must be on drugs! Lay of the meth!

I'm done talking to you unenlightend kids.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne
 


how about you leave.

I'd settle for just one anarchist US state.

Give us New Jersey or something.

We'll see who prospers more.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


...what you fail to understand is that when there was crime in the wild west, it was the worst crimes you can imagine. Entire citys were burned down by outlaws, and the women and children raped and sold as slaves, and everyone else murdered.

You have to be a complete fool to think without laws and police officers the world would be any better.

You must be on drugs! Lay of the meth!


Well, considering I have numerous books, journal articles, and lectures on the subject by professional historians that say otherwise, you'll have to forgive me if I don't believe you.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne
 


how about you leave.

I'd settle for just one anarchist US state.

Give us New Jersey or something.

We'll see who prospers more.



Why would I leave? I am not a bitter unhappy nutjob like you who thinks there is some evil monster trying to rule over him.

Your anarchist state would be over run by criminals in a blink of an eye. Criminals would rule over you knowing they have no laws to stop them. All it would take is one good orgainized mafia to bring you to your knees.

Why do you think humans evolved laws and police? You think it was just for control? Get a clue. It was to make the world a better place.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Well you just proved you can't learn common sense in a book, from journalists, or from lectures and proffesionals.

Good job at failing common sense.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne
 


The current US government is run by criminal looters, so I don't really see any difference.

If someone told me I could move to a State where there was no police and absolutely zero taxes - I'd be there in two seconds flat.

As we can see by Coke opening up a bottling plant in Somalia, businesses would move there too if they felt the environment was stable. (Which it obviously would be if it was New Jersey or some other US state).

Anarchy means you have a stable business environment with rules that do not change. Since there is no government, you are free to conduct business as you see fit without interference from the State - and you get to keep all the profits for yourself.

Are you really that greedy that you need all 50 states for your socialist agenda of looting?


[edit on 25-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If someone told me I could move to a State where there was no police and absolutely zero taxes - I'd be there in two seconds flat.


Yeah, you, and all the other criminals would flock there too.

I wonder who is going to pay for your roads? There is no taxes.. so no money to pay for the roads. Are you going to pay for the roads?

If there are no police, who is going to enforce your rules? I guess murder is allowed?


Originally posted by mnemeth1
Anarchy means you have a stable business environment with rules that do not change. Since there is no government, you are free to conduct business as you see fit without interference from the State - and you get to keep all the profits for yourself.


So who enforces the rules??? How do you have rules if they are not enforced? You actually believe everyone will just obey rules?



THINK!! Use your brain!!



Originally posted by mnemeth1
Are you really that greedy that you need all 50 states for your socialist agenda of looting?


Are you really that stupid to not understand taxes and their purpose?

Call it looting all you want... but someone has to pay for these services that we all asked for and all use.


Ok, this is it now. I can't talk to brick walls this long.





[edit on 25-8-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne
 


I know this may come as a shock, but 99.9% of people are not rapists, murders, arsonists, or violent looters.

Police would be replaced with private security guards.

In fact, because there is no welfare, we know that everyone who would be living in such a state would have to be employed.

This cuts out the entire underclass of scumbags responsible for 99% of crime anyways.

I'd say the anarchist state would most likely be 10 times safer than your average state.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


The State of Indiana took the unusual step of issuing 7,000 violent threats of arrest against its citizens in a single day for failing to pay their taxes (protection money).

[emphasis added]

Absolutely false!

I cannot believe (OK, yes I can) that we are 10 pages into this thread and no one has looked at what a "Tax Warrant" really is!

The OP has either intentionally misrepresented the facts and the law, or he has proven that most people do not know, do not understand, or do not care what the truth is.

There are different kinds of "Warrant" issued by government and businesses.

Not all warrants are "arrest" warrants.

A Tax Warrant authorizes the sheriff to seize PROPERTY to satisfy a tax lien, nothing more. With a warrant, the Sheriff can garnish bank accounts and wages; conduct auctions of real and personal property. He CANNOT take anyone into custody!

It is a "civil" matter, not criminal.

Did none of you realize that there is no such thing as "debtor's prison" in Indiana, or the United States?

Why have all of you wasted 10 pages with vitriol, ignorance and misrepresentations, when all you had to do was 'Google' "Indiana tax warrant?"

Here's a summary from the 'net:

The issuance of a tax warrant is a serious matter. The Indiana Department of Revenue (IDOR) issues tax warrants for delinquent taxes owed. The state requires that Indiana county sheriffs collect these taxes, once a warrant is issued.

1. Delinquent taxes may be individual income, sales, withholding or corporate liability taxes. The issuing of a warrant constitutes IDOR filing a lien against a taxpayer's property or assets with the corresponding county clerk's office. The taxpayer may then establish a payment plan for satisfying the debt.

2. If a taxpayer fails in tax payments after the lien is issued, his wages could be garnished or property could be seized and sold to satisfy the debt.

3. IDOR assures that, before issuing a warrant, the taxpayer is first given a late notice. If no payment or protest occurs after 45 days, a "Demand Notice" is issued by IDOR, informing the taxpayer that he must pay or protest within 10 days. The notice also informs of the date that a tax warrant will be issued if compliance is neglected.

www.ehow.co.uk...

Want the State's position?


7. Warrants for Collection of Tax
If we do not receive a response to the Demand Notice, a warrant for the collection of tax will be issued. When a tax warrant is filed with your county clerk, it becomes a judgment (lien) against all your property within the county.

8. Judgment Liens Against Property
When a warrant is filed with your county clerk, it becomes a judgment lien or levy against your property in that county and a public record. The sheriff is responsible for collecting on a judgment lien. ... The sheriff may sell your property, garnish your wages or levy bank accounts, in order to collect the amount due.

Indiana Taxpayer Bill of Rights

Are you just looking to vent, or doesn't anyone care what the truth really is?

Deny ignorance!

jw

[edit on 25-8-2010 by jdub297]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I dont for the life of me understand how one can prefer a situation where property is confiscated under duress and threat of imprisonment or murder over a situation that does not.

Is it as simple as "greater good" concern? The "greater good" of global military bases and bombs dropped on villages and mandated purchasing of products and of handing trillions to bankers and CEO's who should have been fired and propping up foreign governments and protecting CIA drug smuggling lanes etc...

It's perfectly acceptable to send in armored vehicles and troops and helicopters to collect a fraction of that expense from an elderly couple in the middle of nowhere. Explain that to me. It cost more to collect than the debt was worth. Explain that. How does that make sense? It is perfectly acceptable to let these people rot in prison until they die. That also costs more than the debt was worth. Explain that.

Explain why a man who never leaves his property, never purchases goods or services of any kind, has no connection to public roads or water or any utility line of any kind has to pay up for 'services' the government claims he makes use of.

In the latter case at least stop claiming it is a fee for 'services' because clearly it is not. Be honest about the manufactured debt of the federal reserve. Be honest and say it's perfectly fine to beat, rob, steal and kill to hand privately held property over to a tiny oligarchy for no other reason than the oligarchy is right and you are wrong.

Winters coming. Should I pay my tax bill or fill the oil tank? Maybe it wont be so cold this year and I should just bundle up? As long as the oligarchs get their money.

Come Spring they may not be ready to kick in my door and haul me off to prison but my tax bill will have doubled. How will I pay that?

It's always so horrible when those evil banks pile on the fees and interest and make phone calls requesting you pay. We have to all band together and fight that. But when the government does it we get "just pay your damn taxes" from the peanut gallery of slaves.

I've tried to understand you pro-tax big-gov people. I've looked at it from a value position just in hard numbers and it still doesnt make any sense. There is no return on the investment. You dont even break-even. It's as if we're all being forced to buy shares of Enron at gunpoint. And this is acceptable why? I want a real answer. Not some tripe about duty or neo-con garbage about patriotism or even lefty crap about welfare and equality. Because when you look at the numbers it's obviously not about what you would call "social justice" at all.

What's the real reason you support this system?


Most people LOVE their chains and wouldn't trade them for anything! I'm fine with paying a certain amount of taxes, but when it becomes excessive and our labor is taxed as well as the land we live on, there really is no freedom to own anything.

Banks charge exorbitant fees and consumers pay their small pittance on principle, while the rest goes to interest and the Federal Reserve pockets the interest, and most people think this is acceptable.

Unbelievable!



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I know this may come as a shock, but 99.9% of people are not rapists, murders, arsonists, or violent looters.


Yeah that is a shock to me... because you made that up!

It's a complete fabrication on your behalf. You are a liar now.

Did you know that 100% of everyone in the world will commit some type of crime in their life? Yup, it's true. Research that and you will find a lot of supporting evidence.

Nobody is 100% innocent. There is your life lesson for the day!

Did you know a good percentage of the populace is mentally ill? Some have criminal tendancies, and or violent outbursts. They are mentally unstable, and some don't even know it yet! How do you account for those people?


Originally posted by mnemeth1
Police would be replaced with private security guards.


Do you not even understand that dangers of that? Think, think, think...

Who owns the private security guards? Is the owner above the "law"? Who makes sure the security guards are not criminals?

What do the security guards do??? If there is no laws, how do they decided what is good and bad? You have to give the security guards a set of instructions to follow so they know what is good and bad, those are called laws/rules. Who decides what is good and bad? Do you have a judge and a court system??

Your ideas are fantasies dude... They are not well thought out what-so-ever.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
In fact, because there is no welfare, we know that everyone who would be living in such a state would have to be employed.


You mean everyone would have to be a slave in your world?

Even people who become disabled? Even people who get fired from their jobs? How do you make sure these jobs pay enough for them to live off of? What about the elderly that can't work, do they have social security, and retierment funds?



Stupid ideas dude.... really stupid.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
This cuts out the entire underclass of scumbags responsible for 99% of crime anyways.


Most criminals have jobs, however their jobs don't pay enough so they are forced to do crimes.

Once again I will state 100% of ALL PEOPLE will commit a crime in their life. Nobody is perfect.


Originally posted by mnemeth1
I'd say the anarchist state would most likely be 10 times safer than your average state.


Keep dreaming...



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I really don't know where to begin... Calling me heartless... Now considering all I have done for you that is pretty cold. You might not see it yet but you just enslaved yourself.

I had mentioned that I'm glad you did not pass on in your accident and I am, truly glad you seem to be alright. MILLIONS of people are treated much worse than you and I on a daily basis and I also cannot be bothered to pat all these people on the back and tell them it would be alright. Did your accident affect me in any way what-so-ever? No, that is why it does not concern me. I would rather concern myself with things that matter, like attempting too get you to understand it was the situation I don't care about, not you. Now I am having to defend myself for what purpose?

I've dealt with my fair share of car accidents as well on the FD, I have held death in my arms, I've also kept it at bay. You don't get to call me heartless you SoB.

Also FYI I was born in and resided for 23 years in one of Canada's biggest Metropolitan areas. I have spent time in Vancouver, Montreal, New York and have visited, Washington DC, London, Paris and Rome. Those are some pretty big cities, all with the problems you say they have, however I don't believe for one second we need the type of criminal control you are defending. Government is NOT the only way to deal with over passes, schools, police, fire fighting services, etc. can I ask why you think these magical things called taxes save us from Armageddon?

I understand you were ALWAYS TAUGHT it is our taxes that keep the government and in extension the country running. But I'm sorry to say you have been lied to. I also understand unlearning is one of the hardest things you will ever do. So that when you do finally open your mind to the things being said, you will see that its absolutely unreasonable to spend 700 billion dollars of OUR tax money to bail out "to big to fail" banks... When things like schools and hospitals are hurting. Add on the some of the biggest spending (at least in the US) on the military and you will see red! (not just in the balance sheets, haha)

So that brings up another question, you are screaming bloody murder about military and spending money on it to protect us... How exactly is threatening small middle eastern countries protecting you? Who is attacking you? The US is always the ones picking the fight in every single conflict they have been in since WW2. Wouldn't it be more prudent to say... I dunno limit the military to OUR OWN BORDERS if it is for our protection?

This is like me shooting you in the face and then telling the cops...

"Well officer I told him to play with me and follow my rules but he refused. So I didn't want him to make up his own game with his own rules for his own benefit, so I shot him in the face to protect myself from him. Can't be too careful now can we? After all what if his rules say he can come and rape my wife?"

Officer - "HAHA! Good on you sonny! That is really taking the bull by the horns and preemptively defending yourself. You are right, he might at some point have done something to hurt you, better to off him now."

Do you see my point yet?

-Lightrule



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 



Warrants were issued for 7,000 taxpayers, and many of them showed up at the same time, eager to set up payments on overdue state taxes to avoid arrest.


This isn't about property taxes.

Not that it matters.

Either way, violence or the threat of violence is used.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I know this may come as a shock, but 99.9% of people are not rapists, murders, arsonists, or violent looters.


Yeah that is a shock to me... because you made that up!

It's a complete fabrication on your behalf. You are a liar now.

Did you know that 100% of everyone in the world will commit some type of crime in their life? Yup, it's true. Research that and you will find a lot of supporting evidence.

Nobody is 100% innocent. There is your life lesson for the day!


That is because there are over 60,000,000 laws on the record in the United States alone you idiot! (Canada has just as many if not more) Of course everyone is going to be "breaking the law" IT IS DESIGNED THAT WAY.

Also please go back and re-read the legal definition of CRIME. I posted it a few pages back. Crime can only happen if there is a injured party! There is no injured party in not paying taxes!

-Lightrule



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unst0ppable0ne

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne




Why would I leave? I am not a bitter unhappy nutjob like you who thinks there is some evil monster trying to rule over him.

Your anarchist state would be over run by criminals in a blink of an eye. Criminals would rule over you knowing they have no laws to stop them. All it would take is one good orgainized mafia to bring you to your knees.

Why do you think humans evolved laws and police? You think it was just for control? Get a clue. It was to make the world a better place.


Unstoppable, you're showing similar signals to that which I've seen for years. Eventually the content will be reduced to very emotive expressions filled with personal attacks, name calling, and simple quips.

If I may- What I believe is the fundamental difference between your thoughts and those of mnemeth is clear.

1. personal/communal responsibility.
2. the nature of man.

Please forgive my presumptions, but that's how I see it. You and Mne differ in that he and you will always disagree about responsibility. To you, laws and enforcers help to keep the community within check, and to mne he only needs his own whits.

I believe it will be impossible for you to accept the sole responsibility for yourself and totally allow others to be responsible for themselves. Similarly, there is no way you're going to get Mne to bend his knee and assume the mantle of the community's responsibility.

Obviously, you two are both individual people, living within communities, and will make personal choices- but I'm speaking about the intrinsic responsibility you/he may feel.

2. The nature of men. Laws, like locks, are to keep an honest man honest. I'm certain you'd agree with that. Without order, some large external threat would arrive, like Caesar in Gaul, to put it all back in place. Mne may feel very different about that than you. He possibly sees no difference between the external Caesar and the local one. The laws that are limiting and defining in ways that are an affront to his intellect, his decision making, and ultimately used by some Caesar to force his bent knee.

-Like I said guys, forgive my presumptions. I may not be exact, but I believe I'm getting the gist.

This is quite a dichotomy though, no? Two impossible ideas being forced to cooperate. One demanding shared responsibility, and the other demanding everyone shoulder their own.

This dilemma was almost solved once. The eternal struggle between collectivists and individualists. Who can win? It nearly was solved within a document widely recognized even today: the Declaration of Independence.

Unfortunately the cycles of civilization has us back around on the tyrant's phase, and we're going to go through it again (as i believe we did in 1860, 1933).

Mne's suggestion of "give us a place" is very well the best solution. A voluntary segregation if you will. Personally, I don't believe it needs to be geographic per se, but that would be better than nothing. The only way you're going to destroy the free spirit in a purposeful man is in some gas chamber or police dungeon. The only way a free man can regain his freedom is to continually challenge the tyrant's credibility, resource and strength (leads to war).

In an effort of "land of the free and home of the brave" I think Mne's idea is probably one of the best going 'round for a peaceable non-violent solution. Anyway, more of the state-governments are leaving the collectivist camp at the vociferous cries of the individuals, and sooner or later there's going to be more than just the Republic of New Jersey on the offering plate ;-)



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join