If "Our Creator" endowed us with rights...

Thus is the word of the atheist lord thy god and state

You have posted NO evidence the 16th was legally ratified.
Please stop back when you have some evidence.

 

You are fully aware that I posted the vote tallies of the ratification, showing full constitutional compliance.


you are trolling.

 

and you are fully aware that does NOT prove it was ratified legally, please stop by when you have evidence

 

It literally and unequivocally proves it was ratified legally.

you are trolling

 

false you provide no evidence what so ever any of that is true.

I know exactly what you are promoting, Our state who art in heaven hallowed be thy glorious name.......

please stop by when you have EVIDENCE and stop trolling me.

 

You are fully aware that I posted the vote tallies of the ratification, showing full constitutional compliance.


you are trolling.

 

you are very aware thats not evidence of constitutional compliance you are trolling, please stop.

Worshiping the atheist false god, 'da gubmint', the last resort for someone with no evidence, no rebuttal and no answers.

 

This OP should be moved to a conspiracy forum.

 

Try Legal, maybe it might attract the attention of someone with historical and legal knowledge that actually understands the matter so we can have a reasonable debate, rather than people simply parroting one claim to prove another.

Hell I posted a court case proving my point and you dissed it.

 

You have refuted nothing, rahl. Your opinions and bias confirmation does not cover facts presented. Ignoring the objections made by judges, lawyers, historians, paralegals, civil libertarians, and other researchers does not refute a position... PERIOD. It simply delays the inevitable.

 

It has been explained to you why your information is a non-sequitir.

 

If the critics looked at the link I provided, MANY legal cites are also included.

 

rahl, YOU are the one trolling. Your links carry no more weight (actually they are less authoritative) as those you are trying to ignore in favor of your own personal bias.

 

A good reason for you to abandon ad hom - in addition to board rules.

Tariffs? That is not even going to come CLOSE to working. Do the math. Consider the impact on our standard of living. Consider the outcome of allowing all other nations to play together - we're not even 5% of this world.

If you want to reduce government spending, start a thread. That's an interesting topic.

FairTax has never been "on the table".

I agree that immigration is a major issue. It wa #2 on Obama's agenda, with only healthcare above that. The result during that administration was that Republicans and Democrats came together with the bipartisan immigration reform act of 2013. It passed the Senate and would have passed the House had Republican Speaker Boehner not blocked it from the floor.

Today, Trump treats immigation related issues as no more than campaign tools for rousing his white supremicist right. He's celearly uninterested in a solution - which again is a different topic.

Not THAT again! The fact that we are a repubic says NOTHING about how we make federal level decisions. How decisions are made is not a feature of "republic". Rome was a republic. They didin't choose leaders or make policy decisions like we do. Trump didn't inherit his position. Trump isn't above the law. Simply being a Republic doesn't say anything about what powers states might or might not have.

We make thost decisions through representative democracy. Period. We don't have a king. We don't have a dictator. We don't have a national religion that makes our government decisions. We have representative democracy.

And, you would have to totally trash our constitution to move away from our democracy.

If you think I misinterpreted something you said, then rather than spewing more ad hom you should explain where I am mistaken.

That's a board fundamental.

 

You claimed income tax is illegal.

But, this has been adjudicated in our highest courts.

Beyond that, it's a ridiculous issue to argue. Win or lose, the USA is not going to just cease and desist. We're not going to abandon funding our federal government. NOBODY is in favor of that, and for profoundly solid reason.

The idea of income tax being illegal could not be more irrelevant, more moot, more ridiculous to argue.

 

Well, that's not you, my friend.

 

You wouldnt make it past 2 rounds against me in court.

 

I don't agree that the reason for our current gigantic income disparity is purely taxation. Again, the US has a plethora of programs to assure that Americans have a minimum income.

We could increase these programs substantially, of course.

But, let's also remember that our income disparity has been getting worse and worse over a long period of time.

There are reasons for that other than our system of taxes. Those at the bottom haven't been taxed by income tax. Income tax isn't the reason that our average incomes have been going up, but incomes at the bottom have NOT gone up for decades. No income tax system could accomplish that without taxing those at the bottom.

There ARE other reasons that those at the bottom are excluded from the trend of rising incomes in America - reasons that can be resolved without increasing how much federal support is handed to those that we pay so poorly.

In the US, medical expenses are increasing far faster than are wages in the middle and lower percentiles of income. Then, we have a president who uses threats of denial of healthcare as a weapon to force workers to work in dangerous COVID infected working conditions - with even state governors referring to wage earners as "them" as if they were a separate population.

In the US, workers in the middle and lower percentiles have essentially zero power in negotiating compensation, work conditions, hours of work (such as stable hours that allow for personal schedules of child care, etc.), etc.

In our elections, we make it harder for those in lower income brackets to simply vote while we declare that the gigantic dollars of corporations may be used to sway outcomes - the result being that the issues of the half of America that doesn't pay income tax are invisible to those making legislation.

Wages would increase if these and related issues were resolved.

Moving to a fixed "minimum income" might be good, but it is not a valid alternative to recognition of the work that these people are doing. And, federal support allowing corporatins to treat low income employees like CRAP is also NOT why we have a taxation system.

Yet, today we have a president who declared meat packing plants to be CRITICAL, eliminated all requirements for protection of workers, and then threatened workers with ending their healthcare if they didn't go to work in those conditions!!

How can someone's work be so critical, yet the lives and health of these individuals be of zero consequence?

How can our federal governemtn interdicte deliveries of personal protection equipment to hospitals and ignore offers by corporations to provide more of same when healthcare workers are dying of exposure while treating their patients?

This isn't a tax issue (certainly not JUST a tax issue) - it's an attitude toward workers issue.

 

I think you are delusional. You know that I won't respond to shotgun fallacies. Every objection you've raised has been been shot down (pardon the pun.) You put the Fair Tax on the table when you lied and said nobody out there offered an alternative. Since it is still an active proposal to do away with the IRS, it simply refuted your position. When I mentioned it, you pretended that I was selling it. How disingenuous of you! And yet you maintain that it is an "ad hominem" to call you out on your deliberate misrepresentations. That, in addition to multiple straw man arguments that you've made do not merit any kind of response.

I produced a response that refutes all the bandwidth you've posted on this board yet you insist upon ignoring the response and just continuing on to make up crap as you go along. Your posts are nothing more than those of someone who realizes he lives on fluff, bluff and the continued support of people who are equally uninformed as you. You don't want a civil or honest discussion for IF you did, you would carefully consider those responses that decimate the pathetic opinions you come here with. You attack me via straw man arguments, false allegations, and pretending that I support positions just because I bring it to your attention. You can't tell the difference between a Republic and a Democracy; can't explain how the United States went for over a century and a half without an income tax - and was prospering quite nicely... factually, better than any other country at the time.

Point by point, my links have proven that what you post is rubbish from a factual POV. The fact that you continue to ignore that information and marginalize and trivialize it by making straw man arguments is proof enough that you are lying by accusing me of any "ad hominem." If anything, my posts prove you don't even know what the term means. By posting information from judges, lawyers, paralegals, political leaders, historians, civil libertarians, etc. about the issue at hand, it does not attack you personally - other than showing that you think you have some special status on this board and if we disagree with you, it's a personal attack. Insofar as starting a new thread, you should have been required many posts ago to have started new threads. You have initiated no less than half a dozen side arguments that have NOTHING to do with this topic. With nothing but false allegations you now want new threads? Why don't you just get over yourself and back to the original topic? The real reason? You were losing that argument to Kokomojojo.

 

Being "on the table" means being seriously considered by those in a position to act. You and I can discuss FairTax, but that doesn't mean it is "on the table" as far as America is concerned.

If you propose an idea (like FairTax) then yes, I see it as you supporting that idea. I don't see any logic in you proposing solutions that you oppose.

I seriously considered FairTax. I just did that a long time ago, so I didn't have to do that here. If you disagree with my analysis of FairTax, then you should point out the specific items you disagree with - otherwise, it is't a discussion.

Over and over and over you claim I'm making false statements, yet you still don't say what they might be!! Thus, they are left to being empty ad hom.

Kokomo? We don't disagree on everything. He has a style, alright. But, be careful of thinking that when he disagrees with various posters he is agreeing with you.

 

what a pile!

 

I don't and did not presume that Kokomojojo agreed with me. He was kicking your butt from pillar to post and you thought I'd be an easier target. You couldn't extrapolate the meaning behind my words there either. You'd learn a lot IF you would quit presuming and learn how to ask questions. It would help prevent the fact that you look silly in these exchanges.

Just because YOU did not want to consider the Fair Tax does not mean it's not on the table. In your initial posting you were referring to anyone in general never having put forth a proposal to end the IRS and the income tax. You were proven wrong. It's time for you to put on your big boy pants and accept what went down. Then you continue to LIE. Do you understand the word LIE? Just because someone ACKNOWLEDGES that a position exists DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, FASHION, OR FORM ENDORSE IT. I never proposed the Fair Tax. I exposed the FACT that you were ignorant that the idea existed. You most likely never heard of it before now - you really need to get off this board once in a while and read. What I endorsed THREE TIMES was to go back to the time before the income tax existed and fund government the way it was funded for over 150 years. THAT was my proposal. The Fair Tax is a bill, written by then Conressman John Linder. It is still being lobbied for and I don't have to endorse nor defend it nor can you force me to. And pretending through some straw man argument that I have to defend every fact that I find is ludicrous. You're being dishonest and you got butt hurt. You said nothing existed on the subject and you were wrong. That is the truth. For you to pretend that my bringing that to your attention is an endorsement and I'm obligated to debate it with you is idiocy at its best. I don't know enough about it since I didn't write it nor ever lobby for it. I do see it as a path to discuss other alternative ideas not on the table. Then again, you are about to play stupid and pretend you don't understand what I just said.

I'm being very specific as to how you're lying about me. It is in simple English. If you don't understand that, I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you. What you're doing IS an ad hominem. You are deliberately and maliciously making false accusations against me and then demand I debate you on stands I have not taken. It is a personal attack shrouded in shotgun fallacies, misrepresentations, straw man arguments, and repetitive attempts to provoke me. You're showing a lack of maturity and ethical standards. That is fact and the truth is NEVER an ad hominem. Look the word up before you bandy it about.

 

I considered FairTax - And, I told you about that.

Linder was a Representative NINE YEARS ago!! LOL!!! FairTax is NOT on ANY table. Now, you say even YOU don't like it!

The next time you propose something, how about pointing out that YOU oppose YOUR proposal.

Or, just don't propose PURE CRAP!

So, we're back to you having no proposal - as even YOU don't like "FairTax" and your "fund the government with tariffs" idea is obviousy ridiculous.

 

1) I've made NO statement about the Fair Tax other than to say it is on the table. It exists. What defines it as "on the table" is that people are still lobbying for its passage and politicians sometimes claim they are for it

2) I've not said one way or another that I like or dislike the idea. I simply have an idea of my own, but it is NOT on the table because no organization or politician is considering it. How do those simple facts fly over your head?

3) Instead of trying to CYA by playing games, I'd have more respect for you if you could admit you started this whizzing contest because you spend way too much time here and not researching what goes on in political campaigns across the country AND don't know what in the Hell you're talking about.

 

I showed you exactly how and why your silly moronic conspiracy theory is absolutely batshit crazy. The amendment was fully ratified in full compliance with the constitution.