Thread: Government and taxes -> split from knives poll

I don't support the way we're taxed, but the Constitution does allow it and the 16th Amendment has been shown to hold water in the courts. This wikipedia page pretty well covers my view: Tax protester constitutional arguments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Instead of trying to say that it's unconstitutional, we should instead focus on electing leaders which are dedicated to tax reform.

THROW THE TEA INTO THE HARBOR I SAY!



...Oops, wrong thread.

Originally Posted by JMS

THROW THE TEA INTO THE HARBOR I SAY!



...Oops, wrong thread.

Here Here!

Viva la Revolution!


Hip Hip Huzzah!!!

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

Oooooh! Poor Bruno.... are you feeling left out?

Tsk. Moderators have to hand carve new threads out of solid rock, uphill both ways through the snow, on bare feet, and THIS is the thanks we get

Originally Posted by Bruno

...and THIS is the thanks we get

At least you get some

Originally Posted by jockeys

oh really?
Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is a part of the establishment that I despise, here are some alternative sites with articles and research from independent sources, journalists and authors.

Devvy Kidd -- Sherry Jackson convicted under what law?

The Law That Never Was -- The Fraud of Income & Social Security Tax -- Home

Home-Freedom Law School | Live Free Now | Freedom Conferences check out the $300,000 reward offer on this site!!

There is a lot of reading here and a lot of links. Look at the discrepancy between the decisions juries made in different cases with the exact same charges. Have you ever seen the actual law on paper that says you are liable to tell the government how much money you earn and to pay a portion of that to them? Doesn't that violate our fourth amendment rights to " be secure in our persons, homes, papers and effects.."? I'll leave this for you to decide for yourselves. Please tell me what you think of some or all of the reading and research material I have provided.

I believe I will take them up on their $300,000 deal. Although I feel almost positive that even if what they ask for is illustrated for them they will renege on it, it'll be a fun bit of research. I figure it's win-win. I can prove to myself once and for all that I don't have to pay taxes until my research gets out and the laws change or I can bank some much needed cash.

In fact, I think I'll start a blog on this to follow my research. Who knows, I might become a sensation!

Wikipedia is a part of the establishment that I despise, here are some alternative sites with articles and research from independent sources, journalists and authors.

C'mon now. You can't really mean that? If the fact that "established" encyclopedias, mainstream media, and academia were/are against Wikipedia doesn't convince you that it's not the "establishment", then what about the fact that those independent sources, journalists, and authors can edit the pages they wish to and defend their editing if needed? Anyone, including you and I, can edit Wikipedia so that it is unbiased and not of the "establishment". This is not to say that every article is correct and unbiased, but there are even safeguards for that. People must prove their points, otherwise it will say that the points are uncited. You can view the cited points and decide for yourself how you feel.

Contrast that with my view of the "establishment": media entities such as CNN who do not give us nearly as much news as they say they do, and certainly never the whole story; academia, which tells us things and expects us to believe it because they are the fount of knowledge; corporations in collusion with one another, such as the Big 3 in Detroit. These entities are far different than Wikipedia, if only for the fact that my version of the "establishment" gives us what it wants to give us and nothing more. To them, we're wrong to question or go against them. That, to me, is wildly different than Wikipedia.

And before I get called a thread jacker, for which I am notorious, this is spot on to the discussion of government and the establishment (what, no quotes?!).

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

C'mon now. You can't really mean that? If the fact that "established" encyclopedias, mainstream media, and academia were/are against Wikipedia doesn't convince you that it's not the "establishment", then what about the fact that those independent sources, journalists, and authors can edit the pages they wish to and defend their editing if needed? Anyone, including you and I, can edit Wikipedia so that it is unbiased and not of the "establishment". This is not to say that every article is correct and unbiased, but there are even safeguards for that. People must prove their points, otherwise it will say that the points are uncited. You can view the cited points and decide for yourself how you feel.

Contrast that with my view of the "establishment": media entities such as CNN who do not give us nearly as much news as they say they do, and certainly never the whole story; academia, which tells us things and expects us to believe it because they are the fount of knowledge; corporations in collusion with one another, such as the Big 3 in Detroit. These entities are far different than Wikipedia, if only for the fact that my version of the "establishment" gives us what it wants to give us and nothing more. To them, we're wrong to question or go against them. That, to me, is wildly different than Wikipedia.

And before I get called a thread jacker, for which I am notorious, this is spot on to the discussion of government and the establishment (what, no quotes?!).

Ok,
I withdraw my statement about wikipedia. I was just looking over the Wikimedia foundation mission and financial statements and I seem to be wrong about them. I do remember seeing something about the government falsely editing some content on the site so if I remember what that was or see it again I will post it up. Adn I don't think you have hijacked the thread at all.

Cheers,

Originally Posted by davisbonanza

Ok,
I withdraw my statement about wikipedia. I was just looking over the Wikimedia foundation mission and financial statements and I seem to be wrong about them. I do remember seeing something about the government falsely editing some content on the site so if I remember what that was or see it again I will post it up. Adn I don't think you have hijacked the thread at all.

Cheers,

all kinds of people falsely edit information on wikipedia, both corporate and governmental concerns. it usually gets reverted in a few minutes, once someone catches it. that's kind of the downside of wikis in general, but I wouldn't say that they are part of an establishment, more the opposite.

Something tells me you guys would like THIS if you haven't seen it already...It's a list of edits that came from known ip addresses and some of them are quite illuminating.

Originally Posted by jockeys

all kinds of people falsely edit information on wikipedia, both corporate and governmental concerns. it usually gets reverted in a few minutes, once someone catches it. that's kind of the downside of wikis in general, but I wouldn't say that they are part of an establishment, more the opposite.