User Profile: DesertPaine

DesertPaine

Member Since: December 02, 2011

Comments

123
  • October 24, 2014 at 4:26pm

    Just think what your community would look like if SWAT teams responded every time there was an action that equally threatened the Constitution. You know, the first protection to which law enforcement is sworn. Think about what rascals in your community would be walking out with hands on their head and six laser points on their forehead.

    Just think of what your community would look like if law enforcement ignored a shooting at the local high school with the same impunity that they ignore their first sworn duty.

  • [2] October 15, 2014 at 8:10pm

    Commander,

    Fifteen years teaching US History and Con Law in 3rd, 5th and Sixth Fleets.

    Your understanding of the Constitution is right to the extent that you reason it out. FedGov does not consider the Constitution the way that you do — because they know the document better than 99.9% of Americans. Regarding the subject matter at hand Commander, USG uses one of two Art I Sec 8 cl. 3 commerce doctrines to weasel their way in. This is within bounds…but ONLY because the American people have let USG color the lines widely.

    Hence, back to my original point. I am only too happy to “throw that card.” All of the combat missions you may have flown mean nothing — NOTHING — if the Constitution was not protected with EQUAL and GREATER commitment against enemies domestic.

  • October 15, 2014 at 5:22pm

    Can’t help but to think Commander, if your belief and faith in the commitment to the Constitution were as strong as is your faith, we’d not be in these sorts of binds in the first place.

    BTW, where exactly in the Constitution is this homosexuality bar anyway?

  • October 15, 2014 at 5:17pm

    Gee Commander, if it so violates the Constitution then you’ve got work to do. You draw a handsome retainer for having made one and only one first commitment: to protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-3] October 15, 2014 at 3:45pm

    @variance — Generally, true enough, as far as your observations go. Personhood is indeed available to natural and artifice alike — and, each is free to forfeit those protections as well. No being, natural or artificial, retains rights after they voluntarily relinquish them for privileges — if those are the terms of their acceptance. 100% of IRS bennies could be offered while retaining rights. But 100% do not. If you — ‘you’ being natural or artificial — take almost any government privilege, the agreement calls for giving up rights that otherwise would have been retained. But you are correct — rights are available to all should they choose to avail them and forgo privilege.

  • [-6] October 15, 2014 at 2:11pm

    1. Religion and speech are Bill of Rights protections of natural existence.
    2. Subservient artificial existence gets govt bennies (tax exempt &c).
    3. Take their gold, be the slave and follow their rules.
    4. Refuse their gold, keep B of R protections.

    What NEVER works is churches who want to accept subservience to get goodies, then revert to God-given rights status when that is more convenient. It isn’t a hard equation to understand.

  • [1] June 26, 2014 at 8:28am

    A senior IRS official who does not even know what constitutes taxable income.

  • [4] June 10, 2014 at 1:39pm

    Can’t ait to see the day when this kind of police firepower, military tactics, and attention to facts and detail are called out when a cop shoots an unarmed WW II vet, an unarmed motorist traveling ten miles over the speed limit, a homeless man in Albuquerque, &c &c &c &c.

  • May 16, 2014 at 12:57pm

    true enough, 40! But it changes nothing, for 16A never changed the nature of the tax. After 16A, as before, the subject of the tax is privileged activity and liability is exactly the same as before. Find me the the activity taxed and your liability for it in the Code and I’ll attend whatever extensive training you have taken in the matter.

  • May 16, 2014 at 12:54pm

    WCF, you make a great point. Congress should not tax the rightful object of the tax into oblivion. Unfortunately, Marshall’s SCOTUS said they have ever right to do so.

    Still, that doesn’t impact Americans directly. Since Constitutional matters like taxation are not taught any longer (only 8% of Americans filed a return before WW II, using the same tax laws but with better education) most of the nation pays what they do not owe. Fortunately this is not a matter of public policy, out of our control. Take charge your own situation today and get a much larger paycheck tomorrow.

  • May 16, 2014 at 12:48pm

    Your facts here are right to the extent that they go. Read some more!

  • May 16, 2014 at 12:46pm

    No 40; the income tax goes back to 1862, during the Civil war.

    My research of the system covering decades can never come to a result near what your non-researched observations do not. I fully understand why you believe what you believe. I’m only saying that if you were to do the research that you suggest of others, you’d come to far different conclusions than you have. And that the result of that would vastly increase your bank account. Don’t be afraid to pursue knowledge, 40.

  • May 16, 2014 at 8:15am

    Black, your sentiment is correct. Smaller govt, better. But the truest fact here is that IRS and the income tax ARE a perfect implementation of small, limited, restricted govt. It is a large number of Americans no longer schooled in those limits that have permitted a well-considered restriction to slide out of control. The great news is that any American can re-apply those boundaries, today. And as bizarre as it sounds, govt will obey.

  • May 16, 2014 at 8:10am

    Jackact, Congress gave us a completely proper, pretty brilliant tax. It is We, the People who have twisted its application beyond recognition. Whilst Congress draws no accolades thse days, I have ZERO faith that an American population no longer schooled about Constitutional protections and limitations would understand well enough to implement a national flat tax, either.

  • May 16, 2014 at 8:04am

    A 19% flat tax without deductions taxes everyone. The current tax only taxes privileged derivations drawn from the public domain — corporations mostly, and not the earnings of the little guy. Why would you want to transfer the burden from Exxon to the guy who works hard to pick up your trash every week?

    Now, Exxon knows this. Govt knows this. We just gotta get the worker to know it.

  • [-1] May 16, 2014 at 7:59am

    No Allen. The problems will just begin. There is nothing wrong and everything right about the PROPER implementation of the income tax.

    Responses (1) +
  • May 16, 2014 at 7:56am

    Reality, I’ll call you and raise you one. Can you find what “non-profit” gains are taxed, and upon which they are made liable? If you can, you will be the first.

    The entire exemption question is completely misplaced. And if it is so because nothing for most “non profits” is taxable income so taxed, then consider that the same moot point applies to you as an individual. Consider that. Get a large pay raise for it!

  • [-2] May 16, 2014 at 7:50am

    No 40. It is because you don’t understand the tax. For once, Harry Reid is essentially right.

    Don’t ‘screw the Federal govt”. Give then what is rightfully theirs. Keep what is rightfully yours. But it will take some brushing up on your protections under the Constitution to know the difference.

    Responses (2) +
  • May 16, 2014 at 7:47am

    Earnings are a right, and not taxable. If you pay a tax on it, read up and reconsider your expensive action, as Americans in the know quietly do.

    An excise on spending? Well, OK I guess. But why on earth would you want to give up a tax whose only object and power is upon access to privilege of assets in the public domain? Why would you want to let the little guy shoulder the burden of gains upon corporate privilege?

  • May 16, 2014 at 7:43am

    LFTR -everything taxable before 16A was taxable after 16A. The amendment only ensured that an indirect excise could not be called a direct tax. See, Brushaber &c. Repeal of 16A would not do anything you desire. There was an income tax before 16A and there will continue to be income tax authority after 16A.

    Read up on the tax. You will be surprised. No, you’ll be blown away.

123