Tax Protester Told to Stop Giving Advice

Associated Press ^ | Mon, Jan. 13, 2003 | MARC LEVY

[Mike4Freedom]

How about cutting the size of government and eliminating the waste and the fraud?

Yes, let us just bring the government into compliance with the constitution. That would chop off almost 2/3 of the current spending and we would no longer need the income tax or any replacement tax.

Remember Harry Browne's platform in 2000: Repeal the income tax and replace it with nothing!

[agrandis]

M4H:We, on the other hand want to stop the stupid spending. The best way to do that is starve the beast into submission.

YOU: And all those nasty second-order effects are just the price of making an omelet, eh?

It seems that you are making an argument similar to somone arguing that cutting off the drug supply to a drug addict will have such nasty effects that it is better to continue to supply drugs to him.

[Badray]

"And where exactly did I start the "guilt-by-association crap"? You've got me intrigued."

Poohbah has a habit of making things up. I think I'll give him all of the attention that I give his fellow statist, KC.

[Poohbah]

So wanting to return to a Constitutional Republic is UTOPIAN?

No, demanding that it be done by fire and blood is a sign of ideology run beyond reason.

We continue to drift ever further from those ideals, and the Constitution is routinely ignored by all.

And you choose to advocate that people volunteer for financial and legal suicide as a countermeasure.

NEWS FLASH, DIPWAD: they ain't going to do it.

We are drifting toward disaster. *I* have seen first-hand the death and misery caused by official corruption, and a populace too stupid, irreverant, selfish, and apathetic to take any stands.

The tax code is only a small part of a very deep problem. On that I suspect we agree. Everything is out of whack, not just the MEANS by which we gather revenue. The Federal Government should be operating on a revenue about 1/100000000 the size it now collects!

A government that does the job of protecting this nation--I assume that you would maintain some sort of military--on $200,000,000 a year?

Yeah, right.

[Mike4Freedom]

If you got even close to that many people willing to not pay taxes, then there'd be a sea change in Congressional politics.

I think that there are more people than you think that want lower taxes, they just have no way to express that desire. Mostly we have two candidates for each seat and no good (constitution respecting) choice.

I take a lesson from the Libertarian driven ballot initiative in Massachusetts. The state income tax just missed being repealed by the voters 45% to 55%. I am sure that a few voters, seeing how close it came are kicking themselves for not voting yes.

[Badray]

Are you drinking? Your replies are nonsensical and non-responsive.

[philman_36]

...I just played it better than you did.
As an "employee" of a "government contractor" I see how your gears rotate.
That isn't "guilt-by-association". You see government as a business.
Oh, isn't that rich! Is your whole family joined to the government teat?
No, no "vested interest" for you...
That's what you call "guilt-by-association"? So be it.
In that case...the 2nd Amendment wasn't ratified, either, by the criteria demanded by the "Law That Never Was" crowd. Hell, the entire Constitution was never ratified.
That seems to be too.
And you definitely went there with 185
Tough Shit to you too. You play a game all right, I'm just not sure you're as good at it as you think you are.

[agrandis]

Our military is doing much more than protecting our nation, and it is by no means the only thing that protects this nation. But why do I go on. Look at your words to me in your last post:

NEWS FLASH, DIPWAD: they ain't going to do it.

You've betrayed yourself as a classless nerd. Frankly, I'm disappointed. I knew I didn't agree with you much, but I didn't know Poohbah was a nerd!

[Poohbah]

It seems that you are making an argument similar to somone arguing that cutting off the drug supply to a drug addict will have such nasty effects that it is better to continue to supply drugs to him.

No, it's pointing out that at some point, your side would respond to your fellow citizens' discontent with the problems your side caused by shooting those fellow citizens.

Ideologues dislike disagreement, and they tend to be...DIRECT, shall we say?...in dealing with it.

And when votes go against you, it's so easy to decide that your opponents aren't really human.

[Poohbah]

Our military is doing much more than protecting our nation, and it is by no means the only thing that protects this nation.

Oh, you mean all those militias will buy a missile defense program?

[Poohbah]

God, you're pathetic.

Pointing out the logical problems with your argument is not in the same league as deciding to play "guilt by association."

Like I said, I hit a nerve, doing the same sort of thing you did first.

Tells me a lot about you. Too bad none of it is very nice.

[agrandis]

You are plain nuts! This is surreal!

[philman_36]

If you got even close to that many people willing to not pay taxes, then there'd be a sea change in Congressional politics.
Well, they're proposing bills to do away with the tax code!
Do you think, maybe, that something like that ought to be a real strong indicator to you?! There must be something going on to get such a rise from the living dead!

[Poohbah]

I think that there are more people than you think that want lower taxes, they just have no way to express that desire. Mostly we have two candidates for each seat and no good (constitution respecting) choice.

And you can remove non-performers from office each election until they get the hint.

Believe it or not, most people who go off to do the Potomac Two-Step don't want to go back home with a "F*** OFF" note from their electorate.

[Poohbah]

Well, they're proposing bills to do away with the tax code!

Great! That's the way it's done, not by encouraging people to do "stupid tax evader tricks" that get them un-frickin'-real tax+penalty+interest bills, and a potential jail term!

[Poohbah]

You are plain nuts! This is surreal!

Not me, good sir.

You demand change RIGHT NOW, on YOUR terms. That's how you get things like The Great Terror.

I demand that we the people own up to OUR complicity in this mess and work to turn it off.

[philman_36]

Pointing out the logical problems with your argument...
You didn't do that though, did you.
Like I said, I hit a nerve, doing the same sort of thing you did first.
As I said, you hit a nerve, but it wasn't by doing the same thing that I did first.
Tells me a lot about you. Too bad none of it is very nice.
It tells you nothing about me. If you make your determinations about people on such scanty points as that it tells me a lot about you too, and that isn't very nice either. Methinks it goes back a ways and all of our responses back and forth "in toto" are a factor.
You shouldn't try to fool others.

[Poohbah]

You didn't do that though, did you.

Go back and read post #185.

If you accept the methodology of "The Law That Never Was" crowd, you have to apply it to ALL of the Constitution, not just the parts you happen to dislike.

That is NOT a personal attack. If you can't understand that, then you really are a fool.

[philman_36]

That's the way it's done, not by encouraging people to do "stupid tax evader tricks" that get them un-frickin'-real tax+penalty+interest bills, and a potential jail term!
Who says they're "stupid tax evader tricks"?
The man was told not to give advice, he wasn't prosecuted! If he was guilty of something where is his conviction?

[philman_36]

That is NOT a personal attack.
You're right, that is guilt by association, which you started. If I think like them then I'm crazy too, right? If I think like them I'm just wrong.
If you can't understand that, then you really are a fool.
Careful who you call "fool" tool, it bites two ways.