Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Me and several like minded, red-blooded americans.

Man, this comments a diamond in the rough.

PPS: Shuma, please ignore me. For the love of god please put me on you're ignore list, I don't like talking to you or at you.

Then do research and know what you're talking about before posting. I don't ignore soap box crazies, I make it unfun for them to be on their box.

Modquisition on:

Halo, etc. if you put someone on your ignore list it allows you to not see the comments of those on ignore.

If Dogma puts me on ignore all he will see is my name. You can then open up the message if you want.

Frazzled wrote:
You have a fundamental misread of the American psyche. We will bow as equals to each other, but the President of the United States bows to no one except his wife. I believe the British act the same.

I don't think you can pin down an American psyche. Most of the people I know would consider propriety to be a means of communicating respect in instances where relative power can impede communication.

Frazzled wrote:
If Dogma puts me on ignore all he will see is my name. You can then open up the message if you want.

But then this place would be so much less amusing.

if the government dident have double standards, then it wouldent have standards at all.

the government is spend happy. the bushies were spend happy, the obams are spend happy. how dose the gove get money for thier spending??? tax hikes, why do they not care if they raise tax's...... because so few of them actualy pay all thier tax's.

halonachos wrote:

That were influenced greatly by the media.

There's a book about this. Obama and the Media's Slobbering Love Affair or something along those lines.

Let me get this straight, Obama gets and in its all down to the filthy liberal media . I wonder why then they declined to wield this mystical hypnotoadesque power of theirs back in 2000 and 2004?

Don't get the result you want just shout and blame the system. If you get the result you want, keep shtum. Nice trick there.

*EDIT* Incidently doesnt it strike you as odd how Fox love to bang on about this imaginary liberal media conspiricy one minute and then brag how ratings dominant they are the next? Make your minds up fellas!

dogma wrote:

I don't think you can pin down an American psyche. Most of the people I know would consider propriety to be a means of communicating respect in instances where relative power can impede communication.

I'd proffer its bad form to even think another head of state is going to bow to them. thats nuts.

Frazzled wrote:
If Dogma puts me on ignore all he will see is my name. You can then open up the message if you want.

But then this place would be so much less amusing.

Just noting as an example of how it works grandmeister D.

It's the media's falt, American votrs are stupid. Yadda yadda. Mccan was a bad canidate, and the republican party rany a crappy campain. Thier Inability to stand up to Bush and then try to heap all the blame on him only Validated what the Dems were saying. Fox is the dominate tv news, Rush is the dominate radio personality. Dems have what? they N Y times? Like I said on another thread lets argue facts. Obama mowed to a king. Bush felt up a german on International tv, Winked at the queen( who in turn gave him a withering look) and said "Good bye from the world's biggest polluters....YEAH!!!!" Everybody does something goofy sometimes. And for the record the queen touched the first lady first. In other news, taxs suck.

Frazzled wrote:
I'd proffer its bad form to even think another head of state is going to bow to them. thats nuts.

I would as well, but there is no evidence that it was a matter of expectation so much as one of deference. Humility can be a powerful weapon in the diplomatic sphere.

Just noting as an example of how it works grandmeister D.

I might have to make that my new SN.

Frazzled wrote:
respectfully,

You have a fundamental misread of the American psyche.

Quite possible. I don't really see how a quick "bow" is any worse than holding hands or dancing with them. Especially given the current delicateness in the area. Sure there might be a few crazies over there (..and elsewhere it seems) who take this as some massive triumph, but it doesn't actually change a single thing does it.

I believe the British act the same.

err.. what ? I take it you don't grasp the current line of thought with regards to Blair and his actions ?

reds8n wrote:
I don't really see how a quick "bow" is any worse than holding hands or dancing with them.

There are colleges in America where students must sign contracts which require them to abstain from both of those acts.

dogma wrote:

reds8n wrote:
I don't really see how a quick "bow" is any worse than holding hands or dancing with them.

There are colleges in America where students must sign contracts which require them to abstain from both of those acts.

Really? That's pretty interesting, I'd never heard about that before. Which colleges do that? Do you have any links about it?

Hordini wrote:
Really? That's pretty interesting, I'd never heard about that before. Which colleges do that? Do you have any links about it?

No links, well, not without some application of google-fu. But the places that I know of that require this sort of thing are:

Wheaton College (Illinois)
Northwestern Minnesota
Principia College
Crown College

Those last two also do not allow their football players to be treated by athletic trainers. They're Christian Scientists, so when a player is injured they circle around him and pray.

Do you know why they make their students sign a contract to....

Wait, what are the two things they can't do? Bow, hold hands, or dance? Reading it again, I take it it's the latter?


I'm assuming these are all Christian schools, and that has something to do with it?

dogma wrote:

Hordini wrote:
Really? That's pretty interesting, I'd never heard about that before. Which colleges do that? Do you have any links about it?

No links, well, not without some application of google-fu. But the places that I know of that require this sort of thing are:

Wheaton College (Illinois)
Northwestern Minnesota
Principia College
Crown College

Those last two also do not allow their football players to be treated by athletic trainers. They're Christian Scientists, so when a player is injured they circle around him and pray.

I would rather not have our country be judged by the standards of the insane. Rain dance college of north dakota represents me about as well as that saudi king.

Hordini wrote:Do you know why they make their students sign a contract to....

Wait, what are the two things they can't do? Bow, hold hands, or dance? Reading it again, I take it it's the latter?


I'm assuming these are all Christian schools, and that has something to do with it?

Yeah, they sign contracts that require them to abstain from a certain set of acts (I was referencing holding hands and dancing, but there are others) under threat of expulsion. To my knowledge they're all Christian schools. There could be others, but I don't see what possible motivation there could be outside of a committment to faith.

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:


Quite possible. I don't really see how a quick "bow" is any worse than holding hands or dancing with them. Especially given the current delicateness in the area. Sure there might be a few crazies over there (..and elsewhere it seems) who take this as some massive triumph, but it doesn't actually change a single thing does it.

Massive difference. You bow to a superior. This nation was built by men and women from many nations who left because they would bow to no man. We fought three direct wars so that we would bow to no man (Revolution, 1812, Civil War freeing the slaves). Thats a big difference and a key underpinning of the American Psyche.

Weren't we the last nation to free our slaves in the western world? I'm not sure fighting over something like that is a sign of strength or a particularly good attribute. Everyone else just realized they were in error. We had to kill our own for a while.

halonachos wrote:It is confusing, a friend of mine who is a libertarian says that most taxes is voluntary and that when tax officials are asked where it says we have to pay taxes they say that we just have to.

There are tax codes, but in some cases no laws saying that we have to follow them.

I could go all conspiracy by saying that politicians don't pay taxes because they know they don't have to and they only "punish" some of them to make it look like we all have to.

I just noticed this, but what you are saying is both incorrect and harmful. First off, the US Code makes it clear where tax is imposed:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html

Taxable income is defined here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000063----000-.html

Gross income is defined, broadly, here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000061----000-.html

There are no magical words for saying "you need to pay a pay a tax," but the Code is section one does make it pretty clear by the following language:

"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:"

Add to that a stack of federal cases that back it up, and the following statute:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/7201.html

Which makes tax evasion a felony, and telling people they don't have to pay taxes is like telling people there is no law against sexual harassment, assault and battery, or copyright infringement.

Finally, in case you think that Congress doesn't have the power to impose the tax, check this out:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html#16

I hate to get on a soap box, but whatever your personal politics or policy views are regarding the Federal Income Tax, it's Federal Law. This stuff is voted on by congress, signed by the president, and upheld by the federal judiciary. It is the law of the land, and if civil disobedience is your thing, that's fine, but be prepared for civil and criminal penalties for doing so.

I love stuff like this. There is also the people who think they can't be tried because the case paper says DEFENDANT and they argue that their name is Defendant.

So....if you changed your name to "case dismissed" or "mistrial" then...

I was just using a generic place holder becuase the name is unimportant. I should have used JOE SMITH. They argue that JOE SMITH is not a real person and that they are a real person named Joe Smith.

Polonius wrote:

halonachos wrote:It is confusing, a friend of mine who is a libertarian says that most taxes is voluntary and that when tax officials are asked where it says we have to pay taxes they say that we just have to.

There are tax codes, but in some cases no laws saying that we have to follow them.

I could go all conspiracy by saying that politicians don't pay taxes because they know they don't have to and they only "punish" some of them to make it look like we all have to.

I just noticed this, but what you are saying is both incorrect and harmful. First off, the US Code makes it clear where tax is imposed:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html

Taxable income is defined here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000063----000-.html

Gross income is defined, broadly, here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000061----000-.html

There are no magical words for saying "you need to pay a pay a tax," but the Code is section one does make it pretty clear by the following language:

"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:"

Add to that a stack of federal cases that back it up, and the following statute:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/7201.html

Which makes tax evasion a felony, and telling people they don't have to pay taxes is like telling people there is no law against sexual harassment, assault and battery, or copyright infringement.

Finally, in case you think that Congress doesn't have the power to impose the tax, check this out:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html#16

I hate to get on a soap box, but whatever your personal politics or policy views are regarding the Federal Income Tax, it's Federal Law. This stuff is voted on by congress, signed by the president, and upheld by the federal judiciary. It is the law of the land, and if civil disobedience is your thing, that's fine, but be prepared for civil and criminal penalties for doing so.

You're arguing facts and cases. Thats never gonna fly

I think the argument is that Congress did not have the power to levy income taxes in the first place. The second part of the argument is that courts are irrelevant because they will side with the federal government-being part of government.m Sort of a who watches the watchers sort of thing. I think. Its one of those things you don't think about too deeply because they could be right. After all there is an entire theory on philosophy of law that is the view that the law is nothing more than a tool by those in power to retain power.

My query into this realm of thought stopped at the initial point where I noticed the federal government has tanks and Joe militia nut doesn't. After all, Caesar's legions make the law legal and all else is irrelevant.

God, isn't that confusing.

That was only confusing because it was two blowhards arguing, neither of which has the slightest clue what they were saying.

We have a self reported system here, not a voluntary one. We also vote in all taxes through our representatives, they aren't implemented by bureaucrats or the executive branch. Senator Reid was simply being misleading or obtuse.

What I would contend is that the constitution (the contract between the people and the government) allows for income tax, and it's simply a political, not a legal or a moral, argument to be hashed out.

@ Frazz: There is actually a pretty solid legal argument that the 16th amendment was redundant, in that the courts of the late 19th century mistakenly catagorized income taxes as direct taxes. Current legal thought is that direct taxes (taxes on things) can only apply to property or head taxes, while indirect taxes (taxes on transfers or privileges) would include income. Keep in mind that the US had an income tax during the Civil War, which was 50 years before the 16th amendment.

Anybody that thinks the courts always side with the government simply hasn't spent a lot of time studying Federal Jurisprudence. Why would Federal Judges, men and women with lifetime appointments, care what the Government thinks?

You raise a good point with the reality of the situation though: taxes must be paid, or you go to jail or pay fines. It's no different than any other law.

There are a ton of tax protestor theories, and none of them work. Many are built on the mistaken premise that law is like the GW's RAW: if you find a single tiny error, you can break the system. In both theory and practice, that doesn't work in the American Legal system. There is one argument based on the idea that a single provision of the tax code states that only foriegn income is taxed, not domestic. That provision only applies to that subchapter, and ignores the immortal and beloved Section 61 as interpreted in Glenshaw Glass. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissioner_v._Glenshaw_Glass_Co.

The point being, laws don't exist in a vacuum, and it's pretty safe to argue that Congress intended to tax all income. Arguing otherwise is flawed, and if I had my way should lead to sanctions up to and including disbarment of any attorney who advised a client to make such arguments.

Polonius wrote:The point being, laws don't exist in a vacuum, and it's pretty safe to argue that Congress intended to tax all income. Arguing otherwise is flawed, and if I had my way should lead to sanctions up to and including disbarment of any attorney who advised a client to make such arguments.

Most of them are already classified as frivolous and they can indeed be fined for trying to use them.

Polonius wrote:That was only confusing because it was two blowhards arguing, neither of which has the slightest clue what they were saying.

We have a self reported system here, not a voluntary one. We also vote in all taxes through our representatives, they aren't implemented by bureaucrats or the executive branch. Senator Reid was simply being misleading or obtuse.

What I would contend is that the constitution (the contract between the people and the government) allows for income tax, and it's simply a political, not a legal or a moral, argument to be hashed out.

@ Frazz: There is actually a pretty solid legal argument that the 16th amendment was redundant, in that the courts of the late 19th century mistakenly catagorized income taxes as direct taxes. Current legal thought is that direct taxes (taxes on things) can only apply to property or head taxes, while indirect taxes (taxes on transfers or privileges) would include income. Keep in mind that the US had an income tax during the Civil War, which was 50 years before the 16th amendment.

Anybody that thinks the courts always side with the government simply hasn't spent a lot of time studying Federal Jurisprudence. Why would Federal Judges, men and women with lifetime appointments, care what the Government thinks?

You raise a good point with the reality of the situation though: taxes must be paid, or you go to jail or pay fines. It's no different than any other law.

To be clear, I'm not espousing the viewpoint that they are right on income taxes. I've never explored it because right or wrong the Fed government has the guns. We Southerners have learned that little lesson from a legal dispute awhile back.

Put in the camp that the justices generally side with the government when it comes to power though. After the decisions involving eminent domain by SCOTUS, yea I'm there.

Frazzled wrote:
To be clear, I'm not espousing the viewpoint that they are right on income taxes. I've never explored it because right or wrong the Fed government has the guns. We Southerners have learned that little lesson from a legal dispute awhile back.

Put in the camp that the justices generally side with the government when it comes to power though. After the decisions involving eminent domain by SCOTUS, yea I'm there.

Are you talking about Kelo v. New Haven? That case worries me a lot too, if only because legally it makes all the sense in the world, but from a natural rights standpoint, it's staggeringly powerful. I think that it'll be the high water mark for Takings law, though, as it's the first major Takings case that involved middle class people. Nobody cared when slums or farms get bought out for interstates and the like, but the combination of a charming middle class neighborhood and the fact that it was going to be a private enterprise is disconcerting.

On the other hand the Court is beginning to show some backbone to governments at all levels. Kylo (not allowing heat imaging of houses without a warrant), striking down the DC gun ban, and other cases. The courts also get tagged as "activist" when they interfere with governmental action, meaing they're either viewed as "making up law" or "siding with the government."

One of the things I always point out about income taxes is that the single biggest line item isn't welfare, or foreign aid, or even paying down debt: it's defense spending and veterans benefits.

Polonius wrote:One of the things I always point out about income taxes is that the single biggest line item isn't welfare, or foreign aid, or even paying down debt: it's defense spending and veterans benefits.

Yeah, and I'd like to see someone try and push a reduction of spending on THOSE items through; I'd like to see a political career crash-and-burn that spectacularly.

lord_sutekh wrote:

Polonius wrote:One of the things I always point out about income taxes is that the single biggest line item isn't welfare, or foreign aid, or even paying down debt: it's defense spending and veterans benefits.

Yeah, and I'd like to see someone try and push a reduction of spending on THOSE items through; I'd like to see a political career crash-and-burn that spectacularly.

Well... if you listen to the conservitives in washington, Obama is drastically cutting defense spending... except of course that he raised it 4% on this current budget.

It is like they live in their own little pretend world. We have institutions where we lock people away for that you know.