Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
51
Discussions; Public Archive / AR
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 27, 2023, 08:29:36 AM »
Quote from: 25 August 13:22
Love the Constitution!
Quote from: 25 August 14:10
You don't know what you don't know. This book would NEVER be on your high-school required reading list. Read it and find out why.
https://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm#no.6
Quote from: 25 August 15:18
I'm going to forgive you presuming my classical education.
Quote from: 26 August 09:23
I am going to forgive your brainwashed willful ignorance.
Also, as a public service announcement, you need to tag the person you’re responding to. Like I did with you. I found your post by accident, because you did not tag me.
Quote from: 26 August 10:02
Hey, WM, this guy called me brainwashed and willfully ignorant. I'm loving it. It's been a good laugh on a very cruel morning
Quote from: 26 August 10:26
Are you for liberty or slavery?
Quote from: 26 August 11:47
I don't believe in slavery in any form at all. I am an Objectivist.
Quote from: 26 August 12:57
Well then. My apology. I didn't catch your vocal inflection the signified you were making a sarcastic comment liking the CONstitution. Here. Take mine. I can make more...


Quote from: 26 August 17:03
Anarchy is not better than democracy
Quote from: 26 August 17:21
oh, did I forget my sarcmarc? Here ya go.


Quote from: 27 August 11:35
Now is your opportunity to prove that I am logically handicapped and can't think clearly.

I am going to assume that you are capable of reasonable articulate conversation about our differing ideology(ies). But (erases what I just wrote) I've had too many discussions... er... attempted discussions with folks who will argue with me that 1 + 1 = 99... So no insult intended, I will be very meticulous about my words and verifying your words.

Failure to deny will be deemed as admission. Numbered to keep track.

These are your words:
Love the Constitution!
1. Admit or deny.

These are your words:
I don't believe in slavery in any form at all.
2. Admit or deny.

A slave is a human whose free will is over-ruled by a slave-master.
3. Admit or deny.

A slave-master is a person who has a right-to-rule another human.
4. Admit or deny.

These words are contained in the U.S. Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
5. Admit or deny?

"Created equal" means no human was created owning another human.
6. Admit or deny?

"Created equal" means no human was created owning a right-to-rule another human.
7. Admit or deny?

A human with no right-to-rule can NOT delegate a right-to-rule to a third human.
8. Admit or deny?

The words of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution are:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
9. Admit or deny?

The Constitution alleges its authority came from "We the People."
10. Admit or deny?

The words of Article 1 Section 1 are:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,
11. Admit or deny?

The words of Article 1 Section 8 are:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
12. Admit or deny?

The legislative branch makes all laws, declares war, regulates interstate and foreign commerce and controls taxing and spending policies.
13. Admit or deny?

Title 26 USC §7203 states:
Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
14. Admit or deny?

The Federal Government will fine $25,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
15. Admit or deny?

Government will harm you if you don't pay it.
16. Admit or deny?

Government forces people to pay it taxes.
17. Admit or deny?

Taking 100% of someone's labor and free will is slavery.
18. Admit or deny.

Taking 1% of someone's labor and free will is slavery.
19. Admit or deny.

These are your words:
Anarchy is not better than democracy
20. Admit or deny.

The true meaning of anarchy is No Rulers.
21. Admit or deny.

Democracy can be proven as Tyranny of the majority.
22. Admit or deny.
Quote from: 27 August 16:29
I never made those assertions. You did of me. You've proved the assertions you made of me, in complete ignorance of me at all, to actually be projection. Don't worry. I only minored in psych. I was unwilling to put the work in for a double major in manipulating people.
Quote from: 27 August 17:33
What we obviously have here is a failure to communicate.

These are your words:
Love the Constitution!
1. Admit or deny.

These are your words:
I don't believe in slavery in any form at all.
2. Admit or deny.
Quote from: 27 August 17:33
I had already stated those facts. Who the fuck are you to demand I do to suit you?
Was I unclear? Did I make a typo? WTF do you not get about statements of fact?
Do you need a priest, short bus or medication?
Quote from: 27 August 20:54
Now that the communication channel has no static...

A slave is a human whose free will is over-ruled by a slave-master.
3. Admit or deny.

A slave-master is a person who has a right-to-rule another human.
4. Admit or deny.
Quote from: 27 August 22:27
You obviously don't comprehend English too well. What language do you speak better? I know many and can probably relay my arguments well in French, Italian, German, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese and Texan. I also know about seven other languages but I am not fluent. Please let me know and I will tell you how I don't need to prove anything to you as I've already stated my stances on them in plain English.

If you're in need of medication or psychological counseling, you're on your own.
Quote from: 28 August 10:33
What language do you speak better?

Thank you for asking. I speak Liberty and Freedom. Two languages pro-CONstitutionalist slaves have trouble understanding. I'm happy to help you understand what you don't understand.

as I've already stated my stances on them in plain English.

Yes. You did make two claims.
Love the Constitution!
I don't believe in slavery in any form at all.

With those two claims, you have contradicted yourself.

I have proven the fact that you have contradicted yourself with my first 19 admit or deny questions.

I prefaced those questions stating:
Now is your opportunity to prove that I am logically handicapped and can't think clearly.

You have FAILED to prove that I am logically handicapped and can't think clearly.
Instead of posting logic and fact, you went the emotional route... TWICE.

I suggest you take your knowledge of your minor in psych and apply it to examining yourself. You are not the first person I have triggered cognitive dissonance in by posting facts contradicting their beliefs.

I also wrote:
I am going to assume that you are capable of reasonable articulate conversation about our differing ideology(ies).

You have proven you are NOT capable of reasonable articulate conversation about our differing ideology(ies). You have proven my assumption incorrect.

Your turn.
Quote from: 28 August 15:30
YO! Dipshit. I already answered your questions. Seriously, are you mentally retarded or done hard time? WTF is wrong with you. The only reason you remain with psyche intact is because you appear to be a friend of Wes. However, my patience is at it's end. SCROLL THE FUCK BACK TROGLODYTE.
Quote from: 28 August 18:43
YO! Dipshit. I already answered your questions.

No. You did not. If you were not lying to yourself, answers to my NUMBERED questions would have taken the format of:
1. Admit
2. Admit
3. Admit
Etc.
x. Deny.

WTF is wrong with you.

You have proven you are NOT capable of reasonable articulate conversation about our differing ideology(ies).

What institute of higher education did you attend that offered a class on name calling 101?
52
Discussions; Public Archive / WM
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 26, 2023, 12:28:52 PM »
Quote from: 26 August 13:20
Oh I am VERY pro Constitution….I think it’s one of the greatest documents in human history. The only CON I see is this bullshit notion that anarchism is in any way feasible lol
Quote from: 26 August 13:29
Well then, I sure mis-read your posts.

This is something I've been working on because of... Never mind why.

Failure to deny is taken as admission.
Denials must be backed by facts... So denials will be examined and questioned.

Dear Elected Politician, {and your followers}

I have some questions I would like you to answer.

As an officeholder in a government office, you get the authority to do governmental things.
1. Admit or deny?

One of those governmental things is the authority to "govern."
2. Admit or deny?

"Authority to govern" is a "right-to-govern."
3. Admit or deny?

"To govern" is "to control."
3. Admit or deny?

"To control" is "to rule."
4. Admit or deny?

"Authority to govern" is a "right-to-rule."
5. Admit or deny?

The government office you hold delegates to you, a "right-to-govern", a "right-to-control", and a "right-to-rule".
6. Admit or deny?

That office was delegated the rights to govern, control, and rule.
7. Admit or deny?

The words of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution are:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
8. Admit or deny?

The Constitution alleges its authority came from "We the People."
9. Admit or deny?

The identified group called "We the People" can ONLY include all the people then living at the time of the ordination and establishment (September 17, 1787).
10. Admit or deny?

All government office rights to govern, control, and rule, was delegated from "We the People" existing in September 1787 by means of the United State's Constitution.
11. Admit or deny?

These words are contained in the U.S. Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
12. Admit or deny?

"Created equal" means no human was created owning another human.
13. Admit or deny?

"Created equal" means no human was created owning a right-to-rule another human.
14. Admit or deny?

A human with no right-to-rule can NOT delegate a right-to-rule to a third human.
15. Admit or deny?

Candidates for public (government) offices are humans.
16. Admit or deny?

Voters are humans.
17. Admit or deny?

No voter has a right-to-rule any other human.
18. Admit or deny?

Therefore voting can NOT delegate a right-to-rule to any candidates for public (government) offices
19. Admit or deny?

So let's you and I explore any failure of logic I might have.




In the same thread...

Quote from: 28 August 15:51
Nope…feel free to let the fireworks fly 😉😛 He’s just a rando on my friends list Bwahaha
Quote from: quote from WM 28 August 15:51
Quote from: 28 August 19:00
feel free to let the fireworks fly

Same questions for you as your CONstitution loving friend AR since you have been following the discussion enough to post your reacts.

A slave is a human whose free will is over-ruled by a slave-master.
3. Admit or deny.

A slave-master is a person who has a right-to-rule another human.
4. Admit or deny.

These words are contained in the U.S. Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
5. Admit or deny?

"Created equal" means no human was created owning another human.
6. Admit or deny?

"Created equal" means no human was created owning a right-to-rule another human.
7. Admit or deny?

A human with no right-to-rule can NOT delegate a right-to-rule to a third human.
8. Admit or deny?

The words of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution are:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
9. Admit or deny?

The Constitution alleges its authority came from "We the People."
10. Admit or deny?

The words of Article 1 Section 1 are:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,
11. Admit or deny?

The words of Article 1 Section 8 are:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,
12. Admit or deny?

The legislative branch makes all laws, declares war, regulates interstate and foreign commerce and controls taxing and spending policies.
13. Admit or deny?

Title 26 USC §7203 states:
Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
14. Admit or deny?

The Federal Government will fine $25,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
15. Admit or deny?

Government will harm you if you don't pay it.
16. Admit or deny?

Government forces people to pay it taxes.
17. Admit or deny?

Taking 100% of someone's labor and free will is slavery.
18. Admit or deny.

Taking 1% of someone's labor and free will is slavery.
19. Admit or deny.
https://www.facebook.com/wes.milliken/posts/pfbid0o68YNvZeAJ6xeF1G6MxRi42wzN6G2tt8frWTBvhhBDvN66aJLCrAAxU87bH1hfgvl
53
My Commentary On The World / Admit or deny? V1.
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 25, 2023, 11:53:14 AM »
Admit or deny?

How I will communicate with folks whose pedigree I question.

F'rinstance, when your grandfather is also your father and your great grandfather because your grandmother is also your aunt. In other words, grandpa had sex with his daughter who then gave birth to your mother, whom grandpa also impregnated to create you.

YDOM!

You don't own me.
Admit or deny?

A slave is a human whose owner's free will overrides the slave's free will.
Admit or deny?

You don't own me applies to every other human on the planet.
Admit or deny?

If you don't own me, you don't have a right to over-ride my free will when I have not initiated any harm against you or your rights.
Admit or deny?

If you don't own me, you do not have a right-to-rule me.
Admit or deny?

If you are a politician (human), these facts still apply to you.
Admit or deny?

Any human that does not have a right-to-rule me can not give (delegate) that non-existent right-to-rule me to any other human.
Admit or deny?

Your vote does not delegate your non-existent right-to-rule me to any elected politician.
Admit or deny?


54
My Commentary On The World / Light up inquiry.
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 21, 2023, 10:27:35 AM »
You may want to have the prosecutor explain these two Supreme Court decisions to you:

“The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751

“If a plaintiff's allegations of jurisdictional facts are challenged by the defendant, the plaintiff must support them by competent proof, or the bill must be dismissed.” Thomson v. Gaskill, 315 U.S. 442, 446

These are the questions I will be asking you in court.

1. Are you a law enforcement officer?
2. Is your office of law enforcer a government office?
3. Is the purpose of government according to the Declaration of Independence to secure the rights of Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness of “the People”?
4. When you lit me up and pulled me over, had you observed me injure, damage, or harm any other person's life, liberty, or property?
5. When you lit me up and pulled me over, had you observed me about to injure, damage, or harm any other person's life, liberty, or property?
6. What, precisely, was the harm you were protecting others from when you lit me up?
7. Do you understand that if there is no harm, there is no injured party?
8. Do you understand that if there is no injured party, the plaintiff, (you), has no standing to invoke the court's authority?
9. When you lit me up, were you exercising your lawful authority that came with you being a government office holder?
10. When you lit me up, were you exercising your lawful right to rule me to tell me to pull over?
11. If I refused to pull over and just kept driving, would you have done a PIT maneuver or other increase in force to cause me to stop?
12. Do any of these increases in force have the potential to cause me harm or injury?
13. Are the offices of Judge, Prosecutor, and your office of Law Enforcement all government offices?
14. Does this mean my opponents in court, the Judge, Prosecutor, and you, are all members of government and thus are all on the same team?
15. Is it true that government's right to rule the People came from the Declaration of Independence?
16. Is it true that the Declaration of Independence claims this right to rule came from consent of the governed?
17. Can you produce my consent to be governed form with my notarized signature affixed to it?
18. Can you produce the rules I specifically consented to?
19. Can you prove early American slaves consented to be enslaved?
20. Will you admit that I did not consent to being stopped by any government official for any reason?
21. Will you admit that I did not consent to being fined, caged, injured, or killed by any government official?

Failure or refusal to answer these questions honestly, or interference keeping you from answering these questions honestly will be deemed an act of attempted enslavement of me.
55
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: CG
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 20, 2023, 08:54:21 AM »
Quote from: 20 August 06:24
You are a coward.
You have no integrity.
You are not unbiased.
Quote from: 20 August 09:52
You are a coward.
You have no integrity.
You are not unbiased.

SG Have you noticed this EEG Flat-liner likes to call others by his maiden name?
56
Discussions; Public Archive / LJ
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 19, 2023, 11:29:40 AM »
Quote from: 19 August 10:01
Politician=criminal pos.
Quote from: 19 August 11:28
Laura Jane ➽ Politician=criminal pos.

Verifiable and provable.

Unassailable Facts

The facts presented in this section are unassailable, yet I have had mentally enslaved humans attempt to deny that certain facts are actually facts.

Facts exist that directly contradict and refute the standing lies of the Consensus Reality and the Ruling Class that created the Consensus Reality.

I have numbered these facts just in case some brainwashed moron wants to display their lack of thinking ability.
Fact 1: Your coming into existence, your creation, did not give you ownership of me. YDOM: You Don't Own Me.

Your creation did not give you any authority over me. Your creation did not give you a right to rule me, a right to control me, or a right to govern me in matters that are none of your business. Matters that are your business will be addressed later.

Likewise and in parallel:

Fact 2: My coming into existence, my creation, did not give me ownership of you. IDOY: I Don't Own You.

My creation did not give me any authority over you. My creation did not give me a right to rule you, a right to control you, or a right to govern you in matters that are none of my business. Matters that are my business will be addressed later.

These facts also apply to a third entity that is neither you nor me. This third entity is a human just like you and me:

Fact 3: A politician or a police person coming into existence, a politician's or a police person's creation, did not give that politician or that police person ownership of any other human. TDOU: They Don't Own Us.
A politician's or a police person's creation did not give that politician or that police person any authority over any other human. A politician's or a police person's creation did not give a politician or a police person any right to rule any other human, a right to control any other human, or a right to govern any other human in matters that are none of the politician's or the police person's business. Matters that are a politician's or a police person's business will be addressed later.

Facts 1, 2, & 3 in short: YDOM; IDOY; TDOU. You Don't Own Me; I Don't Own You; They Don't Own Us.

Fact 4: What one does not have can not be delegated or given to another. What does not exist can not be delegated or given to another.

Fact 5: I can not give you the keys to my neighbor's car if I don't have them. I can not give you the right to use my neighbor's car if I don't have a right to delegate such permission. And I certainly can not give the keys to you if they don't exist.

Fact 6: A Voter can not delegate or give to any politician that which the Voter does not have. What can not be delegated or given to a politician is ownership of another human; a right to rule, a right to control, or a right to govern any other human. A Voter can only delegate to any politician a right to rule, control, and govern... Themselves.

In short no voter can delegate authority over any other human. This point of logic lays bare a lie propagated by Consensus Reality and the Ruling Class about your alleged right and duty to vote.

If you and I are equal, then I do NOT have a right to rule you. Since I do NOT have a right to rule you, I do NOT have a right to make laws you are required to follow. The present erroneous Consensus Reality ignores this fact
.
Fact 7: Government is an imagined concept just like Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, and Easter Bunny are. These imagined concepts need non-imaginary humans to act for these imagined concepts: to leave children's presents under the tree; to hide the eggs; to take the teeth and leave the money.

Fact 8: Government, just like the previously listed imagined concepts, has no will to act, nor hands to do action. Government is an imaginary concept that only exists in the minds of those who confuse the concept with an actual physical thing. Humans acting as if they are Government do exist. To help you remember and understand this, just replace the word Government with Santa Claus whenever you see it.

Fact 9: What humans pretending to be (Santa) do... is lie about (Santa). What humans pretending to be Government do... is lie about Government.

Continues here with text formatting to assist in showing the points and facts:
https://naturallawmatters.net/Unassailable-Facts.html
Quote from: 19 August 11:32
Dale Eastman 💯 Also, I didn’t come with a user manual stuck up my patootie and neither did anyone else. So stop imposing your made-up laws and rules on me!
Quote from: 19 August 12:29
Yes. I accept your invitation to discuss these laws and rules you claim I ordered you to obey.

Please copy-paste the laws and rules you claim I ordered you to obey.
57
Misc. / Re: What statute makes me liable for taxes on
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 17, 2023, 10:38:16 AM »
Yeah... Keep the scam going.

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle A - Income Taxes
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
Subchapter A - Determination of Tax Liability
PART I - TAX ON INDIVIDUALS
Sec. 1. Tax imposed states:
[...]
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
[...]

Section 5001 Imposition, rate, and attachment of tax states:
There is hereby imposed on all distilled spirits produced in or imported into the United States a tax at the rate of $13.50 on each proof gallon and a proportionate tax at the like rate on all fractional parts of a proof gallon.

Imposition of this tax creates (imposes) no liability for any one to pay it.

Section 5005 Persons liable for tax states:
The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1).

What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?

I have found and read with my own eyes, the law that makes the following classes of person liable for the income tax imposed in section 1 "by clear and unequivocal language".

Sec. 2. Definitions and special rules, (d) Nonresident aliens
Sec. 641. Imposition of tax
Sec. 701. Partners, not partnership, subject to tax
Sec. 871. Tax on nonresident alien individuals
Sec. 876. Alien residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands
Sec. 877. Expatriation to avoid tax
Sec. 1461. Liability for withheld tax
Sec. 1474. Special rules, (a) Liability for withheld tax

The preceding classes of person are specifically pointed out as being required to pay (made liable for) the income tax imposed in section 1. This liability is imposed in language that is just as clear and unequivocal as the distilled spirits tax liability you were shown previously. This liability is not implied. There is no doubt and there is no question that those classes of person are liable for the section 1 income tax.

Working stiffs in the U.S. of America are not those persons.
58
Discussions; Public Archive / CG
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 16, 2023, 10:50:18 AM »
Quote from: 16 August 09:39
lawlessness and vigilante Justice? Interesting… I prefer facts, evidence and actual justice.
Quote from: 16 August 10:31
I prefer facts, evidence and actual justice.

Me too.

Schooling: What you have become accustomed to

When the Ruling Class makes rules about what others should read, that's clearly an attempt to make others think and believe what the Ruling Class wants inculcated in the minds of the Ruled (Slave) Class. In a word, Brainwashing. You've not been taught how to think. You've been taught what to think. Scratch that. You've been taught what to regurgitate on demand. How could you know that what you've been indoctrinated to believe is bad logic or lies if you've never observed good logic and truth for comparison?

A well known point is that the earliest things learned are the hardest things to unlearn. I'll just gloss over the concept of these next two words: Truancy Laws. Give your children to the Ruling Class for free public schooling, or be punished (harmed) by the Ruling Class a.k.a. the Government or State.
[...]
The putrid rot that now passes for schooling is meant to program what to think, not how to think. If a human is taught how to think, then that person would recognize the contradictory ideas they were taught to think (believe). For example; The corrupt schooling system does not focus on these three topics (as presented) so the logic of these presentations are never examined for veracity:

If all were created equal, then none can have a right to rule another.
Rulers and Leaders are NOT the same. The meaning of Leader has been corrupted. A voter is not voting for a Leader. Voting does NOT elect a leader. Leaders do not need laws that allow them to send goons with guns to harm other humans for their refusal to follow or obey the elected Rulers. Voters elect rulers from the choices presented by the Ruling Class.
Anarchy literally means No Rulers. The meaning of Anarchy has been corrupted to mean chaos, violence, and antisocial actions.
https://naturallawmatters.net/Accustomed-To-The-Forms.html


Quote from: 16 August 10:45
Dale Eastman without a government to provide the small protection we have, religious theocracies would actually enslave us all.
Like this isn’t just some possibility, it is an actuality.
Look at what they already preach.
Quote from: 16 August 12:31
Dale Eastman without a government to provide the small protection we have, religious theocracies would actually enslave us all.

Your belief in government is actually a religious belief as well.

My evidence and proof of this is your willful failure to address the points I posted. So being the pedantic asshole I am, I'm placing them in front of you again. And then some more. Numbered to keep track of willful ignorance.

If all were created equal, then none can have a right to rule another.
❶ Admit or deny?

Rulers and Leaders are NOT the same.
❷ Admit or deny?

A voter is not voting for a Leader. Voting does NOT elect a leader.
❸ Admit or deny?

Leaders do not need laws that allow them to send goons with guns to harm other humans for their refusal to follow or obey the elected Rulers.
❹ Admit or deny?

Voters elect rulers from the choices presented by the Ruling Class.
❺ Admit or deny?

When the Ruling Class makes rules about what others should read, that's clearly an attempt to make others think and believe what the Ruling Class wants inculcated in the minds of the Ruled (Slave) Class.
❻ Admit or deny?

religious theocracies would actually enslave us all.
Like this isn’t just some possibility, it is an actuality.


§7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

The Federal Government will fine $25,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
❼ Admit or deny?

Government will harm you if you don't pay it.
❽ Admit or deny?

Government forces people to pay it taxes.
❾ Admit or deny?

A slave is a human whose owner's free will overrides the slave's free will.
❿ Admit or deny?

Q. If taking 100% of someone's labour and free will is slavery, at what percentage is it NOT slavery...?
A. 0%
𝟙𝟙 Admit or deny?
Quote from: 16 August 14:06
I just spent way to much time answering about half these questions… then I realized this is an absolute straw man bullshit I’m not gonna waste my time with.

1. I don’t answer yes no questions.
2 you literally go on a giant ruler “im an edgey anarchism’s that doesn’t wanna pay taxes” tangent.

So ya im not gonna waste my breat any further with someone who’s entire position is that there should be no government. I get it, you hate government. Your position will never change, so please spare me the torture of reading your same old tired arguments.
We get it, I promise you. We get it. You think you are superior to everyone who supports government.
Now please fuck off. Your thought process is boring, tired, over used and entirely devoid of the reasoning for law.
Quote from: 16 August 14:06
Me:
Scrolls up.
Checks group.
"Identified Thinkers 2"
Scrolls down.
Ponders CG's fear of answering my probing questions.

Speculation: CG having read all the questions now knows to answers will expose him as an emotional non-thinker.

1. I don’t answer yes no questions.

Translation: You don't like being tied down to one point at a time.

So ya im not gonna waste my breat any further with someone who’s entire position is that there should be no government.

For an alleged thinker, your willful ignorance of what government actually is, as presented in my questions... Coward afraid to have your beliefs exposed as the indoctrinated BS that it is.

then I realized this is an absolute straw man bullshit

An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.

A straw man fallacy is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction.

You apparently have no clue between a straw man and a potential thread hijack.

You wrote:
I prefer facts, evidence and actual justice.

I gave you  facts, evidence and proof of government INjustice. Were you lying when you said you prefer facts and evidence?

Your position will never change, so please spare me the torture of reading your same old tired arguments.

Arguments with question marks that you refuse to answer.

We get it, I promise you. We get it.

Did you get permission from each member of this group of "we" to speak / write for them?

Who, specifically, is this We, other than you?

Your thought process is boring, tired, over used and entirely devoid of the reasoning for law.

What is law?
Quote from: 16 August 15:50
Dale Eastman boring- straw man. Nty
Quote from: 16 August 16:16
I'm not interested in a flame war with a bored dumb fuck pretending to be a thinker.

Quote
Dale Eastman just screaming “they use force, which means they are evil people that wanna rule me” isn’t thinking.
Lol it’s literally the absence of thought.
It’s the thinking equivalent of being a pissed off teenager that doesn’t want a bedtime.

See you seen to forget I’ve had this same conversation with you at least 15 times over a 6 year period. It’s boring.

The anarchist movement hasn’t presented a new argument in like 5 decades. We get it dude, you guys don’t like government.
Your mindset isn’t new or developed from some new understanding.
It is the exact same boring argument it was back when I use to argue it.

It’s boring. God is it boring…you are literally just arguing the same tired boring point over and over and over. When someone doesn’t agree, they are a statist that likes to use force against people. Literally a gas lighting self righteous, I’m the moral superior person garbage…. For over 6 years I’ve had to read this garbage from you people.
I’m fucking done arguing it.
If you don’t like government, go find a fucking hole somewhere to create your own colony.

But the absence of a position isn’t worth my time.
This is the last message I will send in this regard.
Deuces
Quote from: 17 August 10:40
I prefer facts, evidence and actual justice.

That statement is provably you lying to yourself.

My change in style to using "Admit or deny?" has proven very effective at winnowing out the chaff... The indoctrinated brainwashed emotional morons who have cognitive dissonance triggered by what I present.

Admit... or... Deny.

You just can not deny the numbered points I have presented because I have presented verifiable facts. If you did deny verifiable facts... So this exposes that you do NOT want to admit to the facts presented.

Dale Eastman just screaming “they use force, which means they are evil people that wanna rule me” isn’t thinking.

You just implicitly denied that government uses force against its citizens.
𝟙𝟛 Admit or deny?

You just implicitly denied these three facts numbered 7,8,9.
𝟙𝟜 Admit or deny?

❼ The Federal Government will fine $25,000 or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
❽ Government will harm you if you don't pay it.
❾ Government forces people to pay it taxes.

You have just implied it's okay with you for people to use force against you.
𝟙𝟝 Admit or deny?

By the way... THIS IS SCREAMING IN TEXT MESSAGES. I haven't been online as long as you. I was a late adopter of using the internet. I didn't get my email address and net access until 1996. Please be gentle, I'm still a virgin.

Lol it’s literally the absence of thought.

Since you allege that you are a "Identified Thinker" I'm sure you can find out what "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur" means.

See you seen to forget I’ve had this same conversation with you at least 15 times over a 6 year period. It’s boring.

Since I'm a Boomer with CRS, I can't deny that claim.

I would appreciate you providing one link where you and I interacted. I only need one link and then I'll admit to 15 interactions. If you can find the link to the oldest interaction, that would be great.

So ya im not gonna waste my breat any further with someone who’s entire position is that there should be no government.

You've got that concept stuck in your head such that you are being prejudiced and biased to the point that you are willfully ignoring the prior points.

The anarchist movement hasn’t presented a new argument in like 5 decades.

The members of this anarchist movement all agree on one point: The actual meaning of anarchy: "No Rulers."
𝟙𝟞 Admit or deny?

You assume that I am a member of the anarchist movement.
𝟙𝟟 Admit or deny?

We get it dude

You imply you are a member of this group of "We."
𝟙𝟠 Admit or deny?

You do not have specific permission from each of the other members of this group of "We" to write and speak for the group as if you are the group.
𝟙𝟡 Admit or deny?

Your mindset isn’t new or developed from some new understanding.

My mindset started with the verifiable facts of the evil acts that members of government do.

You have yet to admit to the lessor evil acts of government.
𝟚𝟘 Admit or deny?

It is the exact same boring argument it was back when I use to argue it.

You just implied that you "WERE" an anarchist.
𝟚𝟙 Admit or deny?

𝟚𝟚 Did you present the evils that members of government do?

you are literally just arguing the same tired boring point over and over and over.

You just can not deny the numbered points I have presented because I have presented verifiable facts. If you did deny verifiable facts... So this exposes that you do NOT want to admit to the facts presented.

Your thought process is boring, tired, over used and entirely devoid of the reasoning for law.

These are your words.
𝟚𝟛 Admit or deny?

Rule 301. Presumptions in Civil Cases Generally
In a civil case, unless a federal statute or these rules provide otherwise, the party against whom a presumption is directed has the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption.
Presumptions governed by this rule are given the effect of placing upon the opposing party the burden of establishing the nonexistence of the presumed fact, once the party invoking the presumption establishes the basic facts giving rise to it.

These words are contained within the titled rule.
𝟚𝟜 Admit or deny?

When someone doesn’t agree, they are a statist that likes to use force against people.

You have neither admitted nor denied the verifiable facts I've presented. Failure to deny IS verification of the claim.
𝟚𝟝 Admit or deny?

I’m fucking done arguing it.

Ignoring specific numbered points is admitting them per FRE301.
𝟚𝟞 Admit or deny?

Ignoring specific numbered points is NOT arguing them.
𝟚𝟟 Admit or deny?
In another thread:
Quote from: 18 August 07:27
So when Trump is spending the rest of his life in prison, are you tribalist gonna finally admit he’s a criminal pos, or are you gonna backfire effect and hold your beliefs harder?
Quote from: 18 August 09:08
Now I know why you refuse to answer my questions in that other thread. You're a communist lefty Votard. I had a discussion with another lefty in another group. It could have been with you, though I know it's not you.

Votard:
Last election we voted out evil, I would have voted for Mr Potato Head to get that gangster out of the White House.

Me:
No. You did not vote out evil. You voted for a different source of evil.

Votard:
nope, voted out evil, deal with it.

Me:
What, specifically, do you mean by the "evil" you voted out?

Votard:
🙄

Me:
You made the claim that you "voted out evil".
What, specifically, do you mean by the "evil" you voted out?
What did you vote out. Please be articulate in describing this evil.

Votard:
No, you know what I'm talking about. I dont explain the obvious to people, if you dont know then you're the problem.

Me:
You and I have bumped heads enough for you to know that I will not assume what another means when they use any particular word.
You, among other votards here, think I'm stupid and ignorant... So go with that. "Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do.
What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of this "evil" you claim to have voted out?
Why, specifically, do you think the other guy is evil incarnate and your guy is not?
As a Boomer, my life experience has taught me, when it goes without saying, or it is obvious, it NEEDS saying.
So lemme say something simple and obvious...
Your refusal to articulate what you mean, means you are NOT interested in bringing others to your beliefs and/or conclusions.
You claim I'm the problem and you are the one that refuses to explain what you mean.

Votard:
My refusal to articulate what I mean means I dont play games with people when they ask lame questions. If you dont understand what we just voted out was a memace than you're either one of these red hats, or just playing ignorant.

Me:
Whatever, you gasorminumplaz.

Votard:
Yeah, whatever. Maybe you might try watching the news, or the Jan 6th hearings.

Me:
Attributed to Voltaire, "If you wish to communicate, define your terms."
So how about you define your terms and communicate what you mean, you gazorminumplaz smurfing smurfed smurfer with a smurf smurfed up your smurf.

Votard:
No, this is silly. You know what I'm talking about.

Me:
You are a fucking coward who refuses to be specific and articulate.
Write plainly, boy. Nobody is going to read your mind.

Votard:
Lol, you're an ignorant red hat if you need to be told what the evil was we voted out of the White House.

Me:
No... My LOL... You're the Votard trying to claim a non-voter is supporting the side opposite of the one you support.
Now I ask again, What, specifically, do you mean by the "evil" you voted out?
What did you vote out. Please be articulate in describing this evil.
What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, & characteristics of this "evil" you claim to have voted out?
Why, specifically, do you think the other guy is evil incarnate and your guy is not?

Votard:
I ask you, do you news at all?

Me:
I ask you: Be concise; be articulate; State the "evil" you are so concerned about.
Stop being a fucking coward who refuses to plainly state what you mean.

Votard:
Please dont tag me anynmore, I'm through here.

Me:
You are through here because you are too stupid to plainly state what you wish to only imply. Fucking Votard¹.

¹ Votard
A Voting Retard that believes voting for the lessor of two evils isn't voting for evil.

Quote from: 18 August 09:22
Dale Eastman not what I said. But good job.
Do you even know what a communist is?
Quote from: 18 August 10:23
Do you even know what a communist is?

I decline to follow that red herring and allow you to control the discussion to drag its focus away from your failures.

𝟚𝟠 Why should I not ignore your questions just like you ignore mine?

not what I said.

I posted 573 words. 533 of those words was the transcript of my discussion with that Votard. 533 of those words had nothing to do with you other than for me to imply that you are as stupid as that Votard.

Of course those 533 words are "not what" you "said."

The first 40 words was what I wrote (said). So they are "not what" you "said" either.

𝟚𝟡 So just what exactly were you referring to with your 4 words ➽ not what I said?

So when Trump is spending the rest of his life in prison, are you tribalist gonna finally admit he’s a criminal pos,

Those are your words.
𝟛𝟘 Admit or deny?

Your question implies you believe Trump is a criminal.
𝟛𝟙 Admit or deny?

Your question implies you are on the side opposite of the Trump supporting side.
𝟛𝟙 Admit or deny?

Your question implies you are on the side of Biden supporters.
𝟛𝟚 Admit or deny?

Quote from: 18 August 10:03
so you're saying that Conservatives are such sore losers, that when they get crushed in an election again..... they are gonna start a civil war over it.
You gonna participate in the killing of your countrymen?
Quote from: 19 August 09:19
You gonna participate in the killing of your countrymen?

I hope I don't need to.

Those that support tyrants attempting to enslave other humans are themselves attempting to enslave others by proxy.

I prefer facts, evidence and actual justice.

Yet you refuse to admit to the verifiable facts I have presented to you.

Quote from: 18 August 17:48
Don’t play victim you swine.

You refuse to peacefully co-exist.
Quote from: 19 August 09:33
You refuse to peacefully co-exist.

You just implied that you will "peacefully co-exist."
𝟛𝟛 Admit or deny?

Don’t play victim you swine.

This is not the words of somebody who wants to "peacefully co-exist."
𝟛𝟜 Admit or deny?
59
Misc. / Re: What statute makes me liable for taxes on
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 16, 2023, 08:52:26 AM »
➽ My friend, as a tax strategist, you help your clients reduce their taxes with unique strategies that most preparers don’t know about.

Me too. I tell YOUR clients that no law taxes their domestic compensation for labor.

Ask the IRS this question:

What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?

Reason for question:

SCOTUS has said:
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." GOULD v. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151 (1917).

SCOTUS has said:
... [T]he well-settled rule ... the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid... SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)

SCOTUS has said:
If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886)

I've yet to get a current IRS agent involved in a discussion.

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1569.0
60
Discussions; Public Archive / CS
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 16, 2023, 08:29:04 AM »
Quote from: 12 August 13:49
Do you ever wonder why public schools don't teach our children how to think critically?
Quote from: 12 August 23:45
Just because you can't think critically doesn't mean it wasn't taught.
Quote from: 16 August 09:19
➽ Just because you can't think critically doesn't mean it wasn't taught.

The putrid rot that now passes for schooling is meant to program what to think, not how to think. If a human is taught how to think, then that person would recognize the contradictory ideas they were taught to think (believe). For example; The corrupt schooling system does not focus on these three topics (as presented) so the logic of these presentations are never examined for veracity:

✦ If all were created equal, then none can have a right to rule another.
✦ Rulers and Leaders are NOT the same. The meaning of Leader has been corrupted. A voter is not voting for a Leader. Voting does NOT elect a leader. Leaders do not need laws that allow them to send goons with guns to harm other humans for their refusal to follow or obey the elected Rulers. Voters elect rulers from the choices presented by the Ruling Class.
✦ Anarchy literally means No Rulers. The meaning of Anarchy has been corrupted to mean chaos, violence, and antisocial actions.

NO human has a right to own another human. NO human has a right to rule another human. This means NO Officer, Agent, Elected Politician, or Employee of "government" has ownership of, or a Right to Rule" any other human.

That previous paragraph stands on its own as an example of logic and critical thought. Something I speculate has NOT been presented to you in your public school government indoctrination center.
If you are never exposed to differing thoughts and critical thinking, how the hell are you supposed to learn to think?

You're not supposed to. Don't think about the contradictions you were taught. Just vomit more government lies continuing to ignore the contradictions.

Agree or disagree?

Why?
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »