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: 14
38
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   
How is handcuffing someone when arresting him/her not violent?

Ever had handcuffs on? I did...

Be glad if your wrists stay in one piece.

And about something discussed earlier, the most successful societies in our past had a monarchy-like structure, if not all of them. Egypt, the Greek, the Aztecs, you name it. What they didn't have was hunger for money.

Which is also what this thread revolves around..




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by IsALL
 





Also, calling someone a tyrant because they feel that freeloaders should be forced to pay for that which they stole from tax payers is also pathetic.


Actually, Unstoppable did not call homeless people freeloaders, you did. Unstoppable did demand that homeless people get a job, but there are many homeless people who do have jobs. There are also plenty of homeless people who do not rely on any form of welfare and simply just struggle to get through life without a home.

Further, I called Unstoppable a tyrant because he insisted that all those who saw taxation as theft leave the country, as if agreement on taxation was a requirement to staying in the country one lives. Such an attitude is tyrannical by nature.

Even further, the term "taxpayer" is specifically defined by the tax code:


(14) Taxpayer

The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.


~26 U.S.C. Section 7701~


(b) Taxpayer

Notwithstanding section 7701 (a)(14), the term “taxpayer” means any person subject to a tax under the applicable revenue law.


~26 U.S.C. Section 1313~

Clearly by these definitions not every person is a "taxpayer" as specifically defined by the code. There is a smug sense of self serving privilege that comes from those people who declare themselves "taxpayers" that all too often ignores the rule of law, particularly that all people are equal under the law, whether they be "taxpayers" or not. "Taxpayers" do not receive any special grant of privilege for being "taxpayers". Indeed, for anyone who fully understands the tax code, "taxpayers" are people who have waived fundamental inalienable rights in order to be "taxpayers", but don't take my word for it, just take a look at the Taxpayers Bill of Rights and compare that with the actual Bill of Rights and see for yourself.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Actually, Unstoppable did not call homeless people freeloaders, you did.


I never claimed that Unst0ppable0ne called homeless people freeloaders.
What major error must have occurred in your mind to make such a statement? Maybe perhaps you do have difficulties with reading?


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Unstoppable did demand that homeless people get a job, but there are many homeless people who do have jobs.
There are also plenty of homeless people who do not rely on any form of welfare and simply just struggle to get through life without a home.


What exactly does any of that have to do with homeless people freeloading by taking advantage of services which taxpayers pay for? What does any of that have to do with anything on this topic?

If homeless people wish to use government provided services they should be taxed to help pay for those services. I think that is pretty straight forward.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Further, I called Unstoppable a tyrant because he insisted that all those who saw taxation as theft leave the country, as if agreement on taxation was a requirement to staying in the country one lives. Such an attitude is tyrannical by nature.


No. You called Unst0ppable0ne a tyrant because he doesn't agree with you, and because that word is some how an acceptable form of insult which the moderators of ATS would allow you to uncivilly attack him with without getting punished.

If I recall, Unst0ppable0ne was suggesting that if you are not happy with the way the government uses taxation to pay for public services, it's probably best you leave the land which is governed by said government, and also quit using public services provided by said government. It was a simple solution to the problem that you have created for yourself.

The main role of a government is to maintain basic security and public order. The only way for government to exist in todays world is to provide funding. You need to pay for a military, and services which provide security and order. If you wish to live within the borders of a country which is governed, you should be forced to pay (taxes) for said security within those borders. If you do not wish to pay (taxes) for said security, it is best you live outside of said borders. It is easy to understand.

This is not tyrannical by any means, it is just common sense. If you want to use the roads, if you want to enjoy the benefits of government, you should help pay for it. Period. I'm not talking legally, I'm talking morally.

The government is payed for by all the citizens. The government wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the citizens. If the citizens wanted, they could completely dismantle the government. News flash, a lot of people want the government, so good lucky trying to do that. They want security and order.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Even further, the term "taxpayer" is specifically defined by the tax code:

Clearly by these definitions not every person is a "taxpayer" as specifically defined by the code.


That was useless. You didn't have to show any legal definition of a tax payer. A tax payer is someone who pays taxes, and who funds the government. It's that simple.

If you don't want a government, go live somewhere that a government doesn't exist. Go find a government that doesn't cost any money. Good luck with that one.

How about you get on topic. The topic is about CITIZENS not paying taxes. Supposedly they were "violently threatened" which has already been proven several times to be a false statement.

[edit on 26-8-2010 by IsALL]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by IsALL
 


Just my two cents about part of what you are saying:

Many homeless people have paid into the system for a very long time before they fell upon bad times.

Many homeless people suffer illnesses which preclude them from being able to contribute.

While I am sure that there are homeless people who are just plain lazy, we cannot lump all people who are down on their luck into one blanket category or one blanket label.

Doing so does a great disservice to them and to us.

[edit on 8/26/10 by Hefficide]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
Many homelss people have paid into the system for a very long time before they fell upon bad times.


Yes I know. Good for them. They are the few that actually earned their use of public services.


Originally posted by Hefficide
Many homeless people suffer illnesses which preclude them from being able to contribute.


Yes I know. It is a sad affair. Unfortunately, this doesn't help society, and they are still technically freeloading. I am glad that tax payers like myself care enough about them to actually allow them to take advantage of public services that I help pay for, at no cost.

Most of the anti-tax payers would say something cruel such as "what business is it of mine to pay taxes so that the homeless can benefit?". It's cruel really. Everyone deserves access to these public services, which is why it is important to pay taxes so that these services exist for ALL.


Originally posted by Hefficide
While I am sure that there are homeless people who are just plain lazy, we cannot lump all people who are down on their luck into one blanket category or one blanket label.

Doing so does a great disservice to them and to us.


If they are not paying for the services, then they are freeloading. It's the reality of the situation.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by IsALL
 





I never claimed that Unst0ppable0ne called homeless people freeloaders. What major error must have occurred in your mind to make such a statement? Maybe perhaps you do have difficulties with reading?


Uh-huh. There is an old saying that thieves always lock their doors, and the principle behind that thought is that people tend to project their own flaws on others. Here is what you did say:




Also, calling someone a tyrant because they feel that freeloaders should be forced to pay for that which they stole from tax payers is also pathetic.


I, of course, did not call you a tyrant, I called Unstoppable one. Can you read your own words above?




What exactly does any of that have to do with homeless people freeloading by taking advantage of services which taxpayers pay for? What does any of that have to do with anything on this topic?


These questions only underscore my suggestion that it is you and not I who has a problem reading since your questions are in response to this that I said:




Unstoppable did demand that homeless people get a job, but there are many homeless people who do have jobs. There are also plenty of homeless people who do not rely on any form of welfare and simply just struggle to get through life without a home.


What does my claim that there are plenty of homeless people who do not rely on any form of welfare have to do with your assertions that homeless people are freeloaders, you ask? Are you serious?




If homeless people wish to use government provided services they should be taxed to help pay for those services. I think that is pretty straight forward.


Taxation is not a pay to play form of revenue, and government is not owned by "taxpayers". That is straight forward.




No. You called Unst0ppable0ne a tyrant because he doesn't agree with you, and because that word is some how an acceptable form of insult which the moderators of ATS would allow you to uncivilly attack him with without getting punished.


You don't agree with me, and yet I haven't called you a tyrant. How do you explain that?




If I recall, Unst0ppable0ne was suggesting that if you are not happy with the way the government uses taxation to pay for public services, it's probably best you leave the land which is governed by said government, and also quit using public services provided by said government. It was a simple solution to the problem that you have created for yourself.


There is what you "recall", and there is what was actually said by Unstoppable:




If you don't want to pay, then get the hell out of the country, and drop your citizenship. I suggest paying what you owe first before doing so.


So much for your recall. What Unstoppable suggested was that "you" pay what "you" owe before leaving the country he demanded "you" "get the hell out of".




The main role of a government is to maintain basic security and public order.


I have all ready quoted the Preamble to the Constitution for the United States in this thread, and while you seem to parrot Unstoppable's claims of what the main role of government is, you and Unstoppable both invent your language of what the government's purpose is. Government is certainly tasked with providing for the common defense, and ensuring Domestic Tranquility, but as I have all ready stated, Domestic Tranquility and public order are not necessarily the same thing, particularly when people who generalize and declare all homeless people are freeloaders, or declare that all people must pay to play in the country they live, the term public order becomes a chilling remark that should be closely scrutinized.




You need to pay for a military, and services which provide security and order.


The need for a military should only exist when a nation is under attack. There is certainly no need for a military industrial complex that engages in empire building, and any claims that such an "order" brings security are dubious at best.




If you wish to live within the borders of a country which is governed, you should be forced to pay (taxes) for said security within those borders.


Now I will call you a tyrant. Government revenue need not happen through forced taxation and the vast majority of indirect taxes are voluntary taxes as they are taxes laid upon taxed events. What makes a taxed event voluntary is that people have the option not to engage in the activity taxed in order to avoid paying the tax. This is what is known as a defeatable tax. The only forms of taxes not defeatable are capitation taxes, and property taxes, or direct taxation. Congress has never passed a capitation tax in the entire history of their existence. Congress rarely legislates direct taxes due to the rule of apportionment, but this is a matter of law, something you could care less about.




If you do not wish to pay (taxes) for said security, it is best you live outside of said borders. It is easy to understand.


Sure, if you are a tyrant, a bully, a thug, who enjoys forcing others to things against their will, then it is very easy to understand your logic.




This is not tyrannical by any means, it is just common sense.


It is the common ideology of tyrants and their sycophants, but not at all common sense. Indeed, this nation began its Revolution for Independence, in a large part, inspired by the words of Thomas Paine's seminal book Common Sense, which is a far cry from what you declare to be "common sense". Consider these words by Paine:


In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.





If you want to use the roads, if you want to enjoy the benefits of government, you should help pay for it. Period. I'm not talking legally, I'm talking morally.


Of course you are not talking legally, you have demonstrated a profound disregard for the law and only hope to hide behind the shroud of "morality", but offer no real morality and instead offer subservience to the state without regard for the rule of law.




The government is payed for by all the citizens.


This is demonstrably false, and again, government is not a pay to play scenario.




The government wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the citizens.


Government exists by grant of the people. Citizenship is a privilege granted people by government, thus, citizens did not create that government, the people did. Citizenship is a privilege not a right. Life, liberty, and pursuit of property are rights.




If the citizens wanted, they could completely dismantle the government.


It does not take citizenship to dismantle government, it requires the agreement of the people.




News flash, a lot of people want the government, so good lucky trying to do that. They want security and order.


News flash, a lot more people want good government, and by good government they mean that government which governs least, and what they want is Freedom and Tranquility.




That was useless. You didn't have to show any legal definition of a tax payer. A tax payer is someone who pays taxes, and who funds the government. It's that simple.


That's right, pay no attention to the law, just pretend you are the great and powerful Oz, and when the little dog Toto reveals your scam, you will huff and you will puff and you will plead: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."




If you don't want a government, go live somewhere that a government doesn't exist. Go find a government that doesn't cost any money. Good luck with that one.


I want good government, not the tyranny you advocate but good government that governs least.




How about you get on topic. The topic is about CITIZENS not paying taxes. Supposedly they were "violently threatened" which has already been proven several times to be a false statement.


I would be willing to bet the O.P. does not find my posts off topic in the least.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I remember seeing a man from Main get arrested on TV. He was being violently thrown in a police car as he resisted and ranted about how taxes were not part of the law. So what if the law does not support taxes. We the people want him arrested because we decided to pay into the system and he should not get a free ride. We get violent over the injustice.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
*dp*

[edit on 26-8-2010 by earthdude]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Also, calling someone a tyrant because they feel that freeloaders should be forced to pay for that which they stole from tax payers is also pathetic.


I, of course, did not call you a tyrant, I called Unstoppable one. Can you read your own words above?



I never claimed that you called me a tyrant.
CAN YOU READ?!?!

You again fail to understand (read) that my quote above was my opinion as to why you called Unst0ppable0ne a tyrant.

You just proved that I was NOT projecting my own flaws but simply noting yours.

The rest of your post is not even worth replying to because it is just one huge struggle of you and reading comprehension and semantics. It's actually hilarious how you try so hard yet fail so badly.

I will however comment on these two hilarious quotes which further prove that replying to you is a waste of time;


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The need for a military should only exist when a nation is under attack.


Do you even have the ability to fathom the idiocy of the above statement?

Do you suggest that the United States completely dismantle it's military until it is being attacked? Then when it is attacked, do you suggest that the United States magically instantly train hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and instantly purchase and or create ships, jets, tanks, and all the other military equipment, and build it back up after it has been attacked?

You must be joking right? I hope you are joking because you made me laugh, and what you said reads like a joke.

Basically what you said is like saying "The need for a weapon should only exist when you are under attack".
When you are under attack, it's a little too late to "need" a weapon. By the time you are attacked, you should already have a weapon, not be in need of one.

Now for the next hilarious quotes from you;


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Now I will call you a tyrant.




Lets go back a bit...


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You don't agree with me, and yet I haven't called you a tyrant. How do you explain that?


It's explained by your pathetic attempt at acting civil and smart. Since you fail at both, it was only a matter of time that you called me a tyrant because I don't agree with you.

You are going on ignore. You are a waste time.







[edit on 26-8-2010 by IsALL]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthdude
I remember seeing a man from Main get arrested on TV. He was being violently thrown in a police car as he resisted and ranted about how taxes were not part of the law. So what if the law does not support taxes. We the people want him arrested because we decided to pay into the system and he should not get a free ride. We get violent over the injustice.


If you walked into a restaurant and ordered a small fries, but the manager brings you a steak instead - and then forces you to pay for the steak.

Would you be upset about this?

Should you be forced to pay for the steak?



[edit on 26-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Should you be forced to pay for the steak?


Did you accept the steak?

Did you eat the steak?



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsALL

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Should you be forced to pay for the steak?


Did you accept the steak?

Did you eat the steak?


The manager didn't give you a choice.

He rammed the steak down your throat.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Oh really? So leaving the restaurant was not an option?

I find that hard to believe.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

As far as legitimate taxes go, income is not the subject of any legitimate tax. People do not pay taxes on their income, and if you as a tax collector are acting in legitimate manner, are not collecting taxes on income as property, but are using income as a measurement to gauge how much is owed on specific taxed events.

There is no legitimate tax on income as property, at least not legislated by Congress. If there were a legitimate tax on property, it would be apportioned among the several states. This is the first clue that the so called "Personal Income Tax" is not a direct tax on property, nor is it a capitation tax, but is an indirect tax on some specific activity.


I couldn't care less what some people believe are "legitimate" taxes." This thread is titled in such a way that legitimacy is irrelevant.

NO ONE is being "threatened with violence."

End of story.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 

They specifically say the people turned up to avoid arrest for not paying state taxes.
This is explicit in the article.
Now the article might be wrong, but my statements based on what is written in that article are not.


"They" and you are wrong. Do you always take what someone else says as fact without question? Of course not; you wouldn't ignore my requests for proof of your assertions if you did.

No one is being evicted for income tax, no one is rendered homeless either.

These are unfounded, false assertions.

Satisfaction of a tax warrant lien is never carried out with force.

When the property subject to the lien is transferred or put into the possession of a third-party, it may be seized or garnished, as with any other debt.

No personal contact is EVER required to enforce a lien, nor is it necessary. Child support is a perfect example. The Secretary of State (or other appropriate authority) is able to garnish a portion of wages without ever seeing you or your employer or banker.

The title and premise of this thread are completely baseless and without merit. Unjustified persistence in such delusional thinking is mystifying.

deny ignorance

jw



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




The manager didn't give you a choice.

He rammed the steak down your throat.


Then in this case, you not only get a free steak, but you also could probably have the restaurant owner arrested for assault, and sue him for everything he has.

Yea, that analogy doesn't fly at all.

Fact is, this thread is yet another of your pointless fear mongering tax rant threads.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by IsALL
 





I never claimed that you called me a tyrant. CAN YOU READ?!?!


Of course I can read and have demonstrated my ability to do so in this thread. You, on the other hand, not only seem to have a deficiency in reading but also, by your own claim...




You again fail to understand (read) that my quote above was my opinion as to why you called Unst0ppable0ne a tyrant.


...demonstrate your deficiency in communication skills. You presumed to know what Unstoppable was feeling. Of course, there are so many similarities, not just in language but in the tone of both of your posts that perhaps you know precisely how Unstoppable felt because you are both one in the same. After all, Unstoppable declared he was leaving this thread, and given I suggested that if he couldn't say what he means, why should anyone believe he means what he says, it would be pretty foolish for him to return so soon and argue the point, wouldn't it? Fortunately for him he has you to duplicate his ideology, cadence and tone.




You just proved that I was NOT projecting my own flaws but simply noting yours.


Uh-huh. When is it you are going to start screaming that you're rubber and I am glue and whatever I say bounces off of you and sticks to me, I wonder?




The rest of your post is not even worth replying to because it is just one huge struggle of you and reading comprehension and semantics. It's actually hilarious how you try so hard yet fail so badly.


And yet, you continue to reply to my post anyway. You're not really one who is inclined to say what you mean and mean what you say, are you?




Do you even have the ability to fathom the idiocy of the above statement?


Do you have the ability to fathom anything at all?




Do you suggest that the United States completely dismantle it's military until it is being attacked? Then when it is attacked, do you suggest that the United States magically instantly train hundreds of thousands of soldiers, and instantly purchase and or create ships, jets, tanks, and all the other military equipment, and build it back up after it has been attacked?


Yes, this is precisely what I suggest, with the exception of naval forces, of which the Constitution grants Congress the authority to "provide and maintain". When it comes to standing armies, the Constitution grants Congress the power to "raise and support armies". This power is not a one shot deal where Congress can raise an army and then support it in perpetuity. Congress has the power to raise armies whenever necessary. In a time of peace there is no need for Congress to raise armies, nor support them. In regards to the raising and support of armies, the Constitution also mandates that ''no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.''




Basically what you said is like saying "The need for a weapon should only exist when you are under attack".


No, this is not "basically" what I am saying, it is basically what you said, and placing quotation marks around the words does not change the fact that it is you who said it, not I. It is self evident that bullies, thugs, and tyrants need weapons in order to attack, and this is why all people have the right to keep and bear arms, because bullies, thugs and tyrants keep weapons in order to attack people.

The 2nd Amendment makes perfectly clear why the people have a right to keep and bear arms, and it is because a well regulate militia is necessary to a free state. Well regulate militias are not standing armies, and standing armies are the province of tyrants and empire builders. Militias are the people, armed and ready to defend their liberty and rights.




When you are under attack, it's a little too late to "need" a weapon.


Many bullies, thugs and tyrants have thought the same thing, only to discover the folly of their erroneous assumption when they attack someone who is armed and prepared to defend themselves. Indeed, a martial artist, often times, needs no weapon other than their hands and feet to neutralize a foolish bully, thug, or tyrant.




By the time you are attacked, you should already have a weapon, not be in need of one.


Which is precisely why the people have the right to keep and bear arms. A standing army is not necessary when the people are well armed.




It's explained by your pathetic attempt at acting civil and smart. Since you fail at both, it was only a matter of time that you called me a tyrant because I don't agree with you.


I not only quoted your assertion that compelled me to call you a tyrant, I bolded those words that illustrate your tyranny. I understand you are deficient in reading, but for the sake of patience and in an effort to help you understand the difference between disagreement, and violent tyranny, I will quote you again:




If you wish to live within the borders of a country which is governed, you should be forced to pay (taxes) for said security within those borders.


Your advocacy of force to make people do something against their will is what makes you a tyrant, not your disagreement with me.




You are going on ignore. You are a waste time.


Well, you'll certainly save me some time by placing me on ignore. Hopefully with your last remark, you have said what you mean, and mean what you say.



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

If the person they are claiming is liable for a tax, disputes that claim, that person has as much right to a redress of grievances as any other person does. This is the rule of law.


Absolutely! And when they fail to challenge the tax or assessment, or lose on appeal, then they must accept responsibility. As you say, "This is the rule of law."

In most states, you must pay a license fee or excise tax to maintain your vehicle registration. If you borrowed money to purchase the vehicle, the lender has a lien against it. "This is the rule of law."

You may challenge it. But if you refuse to pay, there is no "right" to drive that prevents the lender or the licensing authority from "peacefully" collecting the debt. "This is the rule of law."

If you do not like the law, change it. Or, do not participate. No one says you must own taxable property, or earn state-taxable income. You can always "opt out."

However, if you "opt in," you've accepted the premises and the responsibility that accompany them. "This is the rule of law."


[edit on 26-8-2010 by jdub297]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mnemeth1
 




The manager didn't give you a choice.

He rammed the steak down your throat.


Then in this case, you not only get a free steak, but you also could probably have the restaurant owner arrested for assault, and sue him for everything he has.

Yea, that analogy doesn't fly at all.

Fact is, this thread is yet another of your pointless fear mongering tax rant threads.


Yeah, he should be happy about having a steak rammed down his throat that he didn't order.

That uncomfortable feeling you have right now is called cognitive dissonance.

You know it's wrong to violently loot people and force things upon them, yet you need to justify this to yourself as being good.

It's not good.

It's wrong.


[edit on 26-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 





I couldn't care less what some people believe are "legitimate" taxes."


This is all too often the attitude of tax collectors in The United States. Fortunately for the people, there are clear rules and principles of Constitutional taxation that demand that tax collectors abide by those rules and principles. That you "couldn't care less" matters not, all that matters is that if and when you are operating outside of the scope of your jurisdiction that the people have a right for a redress of grievance.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join