Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
51
Discussions; Public Archive / RT
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 07, 2023, 06:41:07 AM »
Quote from: 28 July 16:47 My original bait.
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)

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?

Since I'm getting spammed by ignorant or dishonest tax preparers, I'm returning the favor by asking this question. Please note all the failures and refusals to answer this very specific question about tax law.
Quote from: 6 August 23:10
Dale Eastman The tax law that requires payment doesn't use the term "private citizen." However, using other terminology that would reasonably include people who are "private citizens," the tax code does call for tax to be paid on all income that isn't specifically excluded. As such, wages (compensation for labor) are taxable. You post quite often, demanding that the term "private citizen" be used in the statute in order to prove you wrong. Of course, you are just playing a game of semantics. The money you earn as a fry cook at McDonald's is taxable.
Quote from: 7 August 07:42
I appreciate that you have engaged with me. I do not appreciate your failure to answer the question. This is tempered by my knowledge that most folks do not know what the words of tax law are. They have all been socially engineered to be afraid of the IRS.

The tax law that requires payment doesn't use the term "private citizen."

In view of your complaint about my question's wording I'll simplify it:

"What law makes me liable for the income tax?"

My question is specifically asking for the liability statute(s).
They exist, but you seem to be totally unaware of them.
They ALL follow the same format as this liability statute for another tax:

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

Imposing a tax is meaningless unless somebody is required to pay it.

So I ask again: "What law makes me liable for the income tax?"

Concurrent with this specific lack of knowledge, I'd bet you have no idea who is required by law to fill out a W4 form. As a private person working solely within CONUS, it was NOT me.

The money you earn as a fry cook at McDonald's is taxable.

Minor point, not germane to this discussion. Income does not mean everything that comes in.

Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe , 247 U.S. 330 (1918)
We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., and Hays v. Gauley Mountain Coal Co., the broad content on submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts-everything that comes in-are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income,' and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income.
Quote from: 7 August 11:09
Dale Eastman So what's your point? You initially said that fry-cook wages were not taxable, and now you admit with the fry-cook wages are taxable. Try to find some consistency.
Quote from: 7 August 11:34
You initially said that fry-cook wages were not taxable

Please copy-paste my exact words where you claim I stated such.

Dale Eastman So what's your point?

My point, taking your reading comprehension issues in consideration, is you have again FAILED to answer my question. A question I simplified for you. Here it is again:

"What law makes me liable for the income tax?"
Quote from: 7 August 16:26
You are liable to pay US income tax if you are a resident of the US, and have income that isn't excluded from taxation. You might also be subject to US income tax if you don't reside in the US, but have US-sourced income or are a US citizen/green card holder.
Quote from: 7 August 18:48
You are liable to pay US income tax if you are a resident of the US,

You have again FAILED to answer my question. A question I simplified for you. Here it is again:

"What law makes me liable for the income tax?"

Statute number please?
Quote from: 7 August 19:13
Dale Eastman You already know the answer.
Quote from: 7 August 20:31
Dale Eastman You already know the answer.

Yes. I actually do.

You on the other hand DO NOT.

If you did know, you would post the statute number.
Quote from: 9 August 13:39
Dale Eastman You already know the answer.

Yes. I actually do.

You on the other hand DO NOT.

If you did know, you would post the statute number.

Statute number please?

Else you are an ignorant or dishonest tax preparer.
52
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: BT
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 02, 2023, 10:42:26 AM »
Quote
Since you refuse to answer the very simple questions or defend your claims, I am not inclined to play games. Learn that truth is correspondence with reality, and that bad youtube videos are not evidence. Until you have some falsification criteria and understand what evidence is, there is nothing you could even in theory have to offer any thinking person.

A great primer on critical thought is The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival by Wendy McElroy. In it, or in any intro to logic text you can learn that the fact that universalizing from an instance is in fact a well known fallacy, not an ignorant assumption.

Given infinite time and an education you could never make a case for your faith.
Quote
Why are you calling me by your maiden name?

I addressed all of your questions. You disrespected my by ignoring my questions and posting laugh reacts.

I asked you to explain what you see in those two vid screen caps. So my apology for assuming you were a sighted person. I'm going to assume you can't see any of the following images.

53
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: BT
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 01, 2023, 10:40:48 AM »
Please explain what is causing this twisting of the alleged contrails. On both sides.
54
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: BT
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 01, 2023, 10:38:58 AM »
Please explain what is causing this between the alleged contrails.
55
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: BT
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 01, 2023, 10:37:41 AM »
I'm going to do what I always do when I attempt to interact with folks like you. I'm going to ask you specific questions about the claims you have made. And in your case, I am going to ask you questions about the questions you have asked me.

You have asked six questions. I disassembled your compound sentence/question as I often do to get to the facts and truth of the matter.

Can you account for the change in fuel quality?

Irrelevant. You are using this question as a distraction based upon whatever assumption you have in your thoughts.

How about the lift capacity of wings and the weight of these massive loads of liquids?

Again, you are telegraphing your ignorant assumption. Have you ever watched airborne fire fighting drops?

🔍 Most large air tankers carry up to 3,000 gallons of retardant. The 747 is capable of carrying far more retardant than any other. When first introduced it was listed at 20,000 gallons. Then the federal government certified it at 19,200 gallons. More recently it was required to carry no more than 17,500 gallons. The second-largest capacity air tanker is the Russian-made Ilyushin IL-76 at 11,574 gallons. The DC-10 until a couple of years ago was allowed to hold 11,600 but federal officials now restrict it to 9,400.🔍

KC-135: 200,000 pounds fuel carrying capacity.
The KC-46A’s 212,000 pounds fuel carrying capacity.

Can you explain how those who are supposedly doing this without the knowledge of anyone flying the planes,

Why are you assuming the pilots don't know what they are doing? During ww2 the gubment kept a whole fucking city hidden: Oak Ridge, Tennessee: America's Secret Atomic City

Can you explain how those who are supposedly doing this without the knowledge of anyone  on the ground,

Thank you for admitting you had no clue as to what you allegedly watched in that 3 minute, 12 second video. I say "allegedly" because I will be asking you specific questions so you can prove to me that you actually watched that video.

Can you explain how those who are supposedly doing this without the knowledge of anyone working air ports,

How do you know these aircraft aren't being flown out of military bases?

Can you explain how those who are magically protected from these mystery chemicals that no one has shown any hint of any evidence of?

The evidence is being collected. You didn't read the cited website https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/ wherein the evidence is presented.

Also thanks for admitting that you fail to understand that universalizing from an "instance" is a well known fallacy and so logically CANNOT count as proof of this faith.

More of your ignorant assumptions.

Two questions to follow in two posts with two images the questions are about.
56
Discussions; Public Archive / BT
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 01, 2023, 09:19:51 AM »
Quote from: 30 July 20:29
I'd be happy to never come across another flerfer, chermtrail doofus, moon landing denier, etc...
It would be different if they had evidence, used reason, and understood falsification criteria..
Quote from: 31 July 08:26
I finally had evidence presented on the chemtrail - contrail controversy that I found to be definitive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q-BZxl-Zxk
And I recommend visiting the site.
Also, as a Boomer, I remember a deeper blue sky. It's faded blue now because of what is being sprayed in an attempt to change the Earth's albedo..
Quote from: 31 July 13:13
Can you account for the change in fuel quality?
How about the lift capacity of wings and the weight of these massive loads of liquids?
Can you explain how those who are supposedly doing this without the knowledge of anyone flying the planes, on the ground, working air ports, etc, are magically protected from these mystery chemicals that no one has shown any hint of any evidence of?
Quote from: 31 July 13:14
Oh, and can you justify the universalization from an "instance" as logically valid?
Quote from: 31 July 14:19
Thank you for admitting that the 3 minute, 12 second video was just too long for your short attention span. And that you couldn't be bothered to visit the source, https://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

Snarky insult comment about your pedigree withheld (self-censored).
Quote from: 31 July 14:47
Wow.. Thanks for admitting offering any answers is too much effort and you could not be bothered with reason and evidence.
Quote from: 31 July 14:48
Also thanks for admitting that you fail to understand that universalizing from an "instance" is a well known fallacy and so logically CANNOT count as proof of this faith.
But thanks too for immediately going to personal attacks instead of offering anything any thinking person would accept as engaging in the topic.
Quote from: 31 July 14:50
Can you also share the "great" youtube "proof" of the sky being CGI, NASA inventing the Ancient Greeks, and the massive ice wall surrounding the flat earth?
Thanks for outing yourself.
57
Misc. / Re: What statute makes me liable for taxes on
« Last post by Dale Eastman on July 27, 2023, 07:40:58 AM »
Original Comment: ➽ Now is the perfect time to request relief for IRS back taxes (including penalties and interest).

Dear IRS

Please answer 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?

If you fail to specifically answer with 26 USC §x??x, where §x??x is the statute number, then you have admitted that there is no statute imposing liability for an American's domestic compensation for labor that is taxed in 26 USC §§ 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e).

Please note: the Supreme Court of the United States 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).

The Supreme Court of the United States 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)

The Supreme Court of the United States 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)
58
Discussions; Public Archive / ED
« Last post by Dale Eastman on July 26, 2023, 08:54:20 AM »

Quote
What the fuck are you talking about
Quote
I'm not gonna play with the simps .. I'm not here for friends or likes ..I'm here for the truth .. and if I find out.. it's curtains for them

You wouldn't know truth if it bit you in the ass.

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.

Link to FEE home pagePure Intentions? It is impossible to discuss, or even understand, the failures of our school system without understanding its origins. The motivations were not pure; they were never to educate. That need not be speculation—it is directly from the mouths of the reformers themselves. The objective was to nationalize the youth in a particular mold.

The Article
I leave further research to the reader to gain an understanding of this normalized evil of the Ruling Class.
https://freespoke.com/search/web?q=Prussian+schooling+system
The rest: https://naturallawmatters.net/Accustomed-To-The-Forms.html
Quote
---Ahhhh, if one seeks the TRUTH, then he must prepare to light a dozen candles. As I see it, we have got to place our faith in Donald Trump. And if not...prepare to participate in another WAR for Independence.

Nothing changes until the (deliberately made) ignorant population of the world wakes the fuck up to their ENSLAVEMENT.
https://synapticsparks.info/

Quote
Dale Eastman look simpleton ..I didn't ask for your opinion .. copy and paste makes you look silly .. regurgitating someone's thinking, makes u dumb ...


Quote
Dale Eastman look simpleton ..I didn't ask for your opinion ..

I didn't ask you for your opinions either. Yet you posted them... So you must be looking for discussion about your opinions.

I'm not here for friends or likes ..

Neither am I.

I'm here for the truth ..

Me too.

copy and paste makes you look silly .. regurgitating someone's thinking, makes u dumb ...

Says the simpleton too stupid to understand that I copy-pasted my own words from one of my two websites.

So is Greta photo-shopped into a space suit a flat earth comment from you?

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1650.0
59
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: Capitalism BM 2 start
« Last post by Dale Eastman on June 27, 2023, 08:10:23 AM »
Quote from: 26 June 20:21
Dale Eastman you never answered this


OCR

See any issue here? In this current
Corporate system, no private individual
actually owns anything, so who does?
What does "private owners" mean?

Dictionary

Definitions from Oxford Languages - Learn more

Search for a word

capitalism
/kapadlizam/
noun
an economic and political system in which a country's
trade and industry are controlled by private owners for

profit.
"an era of free-market capitalism"

Similar: private enterprise free enterprise v
Quote from: 26 June 20:22
Dale Eastman do you own property?
Quote from: 26 June 20:27
I can't prove a negative. You and many others use that word and my whole point is I don't know what it means. I know what the word government means to different people. But capitalism seems to be even more perplexing in it's ability to catch a wide variety of people in it's mental box. Authoritarian collectivism such as Communism, fascism, and socialism are worse in many ways because they ignore economic consequences, but a rigged game of monopoly called capitalism isn't much better and much more reliant on deception and secrecy than force.
OCR
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of human behaviors, thoughts and opinions is the primary element in society. Those who hold the knowledge and manipulate these unseen mechanisms in society constitute the invisible government and are the true rulers of humanity. We are governed, our minds are formed, and our ideas are suggested by men we never heard of.
Quote from: 27 June 10:17
BM: ➽ Dale Eastman you never answered this

Actually, I did. Your memory is for shit or you didn't bother to review the discussion. [SHRUG]

Since you've brought it up again...

OCR: ➽ See any issue here?

Yes. Four issues actually.

𝟙 Your lack of ability to cogently explain your anti-capitalism position.

𝟚 Your conflation of two separate items...
OCR: ➽ In this current Corporate system
BM: ➽ regardless, does the current crapitalist system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflation

𝟛 Your refusal / inability to explain what the fuck you mean even when I ask you questions about what you mean by and because of what you post.

𝟜 You keep appearing to post as if you and I are in some argument - disagreement regarding CAPITALISM. I am NOT arguing with you about CAPITALISM because I am STILL trying to get you to explain, exactly, what the details of this CAPITALISM you are against.

OCR: ➽ In this current Corporate system, no private individual actually owns anything,

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
I reject your bullshit claim... I reject your bullshit opinion... I reject your unsubstantiated belief.

OCR: ➽ What does "private owners" mean?

Not the State you fucking Marxist.

BM: ➽ Dale Eastman do you own property?

In spite of YOUR failure to define OWN, Yes I own property.

Now YOU present YOUR definition of OWN... to include all the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of what it means to OWN something.

BM: ➽ You and many others use that word [CAPITALISM] and my whole point is I don't know what it means.

You claim you don't know what CAPITALISM means yet you keep posting anti-CAPITALISM screed. Your anti-CAPITALISM screed is what caught my attention in the first place. As I wrote elsewhere, I have spent years attempting to understand what folks like you think and believe, as well as the why folks like you think and believe what you opine.

BM: ➽ I know what the word government means to different people.

If you say so... Given your track record of illiteracy... I don't believe you.

BM: ➽ But capitalism seems to be even more perplexing in it's ability to catch a wide variety of people in it's mental box.

Per your implication: "CAPITALISM" = "MENTAL BOX"

BM: ➽ I don't know what it ["CAPITALISM" = "MENTAL BOX"] means.

Yet you continue to spew your opinion about something you don't understand.

BM: ➽ a rigged game of monopoly called capitalism

Yet you continue to spew your opinion about something you don't understand.
Quote from: 27 June 10:24
Dale Eastman good luck!
Quote from: 27 June 10:28
Dale Eastman PS if you register it, you don't own it. You don't own jack shit. You're a confused slave.
Quote from: 27 June 10:28
BM: ➽ You don't own jack shit.

I own the same tools I've owned for the last 45 years, Plus the tools I purchased since then. Just for example. There is all the other property I own. So YOU don't know what the fuck you are opining about.

You are showing me just how illiterate you are.
Quote from: 27 June 11:02
Dale Eastman tools?! You think the ruling class gives a fuck about our tools? No, they own your cars and land and you, and give you permission to pick cotton for them.
Quote from: 27 June 11:03
Dale Eastman yeah, I'm so illiterate because I don't believe the overlords wyrds dupity Der 🤣
Quote from: 27 June 11:55
BM: ➽ Dale Eastman yeah, I'm so illiterate because

You refuse to see that you made a claim that I've proven is a LIE.

BM: ➽ You don't own jack shit.
DE: ➽ I own the same tools I've owned for the last 45 years

In other words, you're too fucking stupid to understand my words, and you're too fucking stupid to cogently articulate what you want myself and others to believe.

I doubt you can even understand what the words cogently and articulate mean.

Every interaction I have had with you on the topic of CAPITALISM has been me attempting to get you to cogently articulate what you want myself and others to believe.
Quote from: 27 June 12:00
Dale Eastman you define and defend it if you like, it's a made up word without meaning, but do your statist fantasy shit somewhere else, I'm not interested in delusion. You own your tools tho 🤣
Quote from: 27 June 13:20
BM: ➽ it's a made up word without meaning,

You're against that word yet you continue to FAIL to cogently and articulate What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of this word thing you are against.
Quote from: 27 June 13:22
Dale Eastman I'm against using nonsensical words. That's it.
Quote from: 27 June 13:29
BM: ➽ I'm against using nonsensical words. That's it.

Yet you continue to fail to prove it's a nonsensical word.

What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of "CAPITALISM" that make it a nonsensical word?

Please be cogent and articulate.
Quote from: 27 June 13:40
Dale Eastman if you pay income tax, you don't own anything as you yourself are owned. This isn't rocket science but we've been bamboozled since birth.
Quote from: 27 June 15:03
BM: ➽ Dale Eastman if you pay income tax, you don't own anything as you yourself are owned. This isn't rocket science but we've been bamboozled since birth.

BM: ➽ I'm against using nonsensical words.

Nice attempt at distraction. It didn't work. I am still aware that you have failed to state: What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of "CAPITALISM" that make it a nonsensical word?
60
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: Capitalism BM 2 start
« Last post by Dale Eastman on June 26, 2023, 08:42:47 AM »
Poking the Dumb-fuck illiterate in yet another thread...
Quote from: 26 June 09:40
Words are how humans communicate ideas. To communicate ideas, words MUST have meanings and definitions. This is why I am a pedantic asshole. Known as Voltaire's Admonition, "If you wish to communicate, define your terms."

Some dumb-fuck illiterate: "Capitalism is bad."
Me: "Define capitalism."
Dumb-fuck illiterate: "Capitalism: Bad."
Quote from: 26 June 12:20
Dale Eastman I'm not going in circles with you again. I'll define and defend free markets, voluntary exchange, property rights, and your consent, but I'm not going to define something fraudulent and nonsensical.
OCR:
Capitalism is a bullshit word.
Defend your overlords bullshit if
you like.
Quote from: 26 June 12:58
BM: ➽ Dale Eastman I'm not going in circles with you again. I'll define and defend free markets, voluntary exchange, property rights, and your consent, but I'm not going to define something fraudulent and nonsensical.

Are you now going to deny that you have, on multiple occasions, presented your position that "Capitalism is bad"?
Quote from: 26 June 15:09
Dale Eastman my main contention is it's a bullshit word, which would make it bad. The definitions don't match reality and the plurocrats I abhor swear by it.
Quote from: 26 June 18:40
Are you now going to deny that you have, on multiple occasions, presented your position that "Capitalism is bad"?
Quote from: 26 June 18:43
Dale Eastman no, bullshit including nonsensical words aren't good mkay?
Quote from: 26 June 21:47
BM: ➽ nonsensical words

You claim "CAPITALISM", a word you refuse to define, is a nonsensical word.

What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of "CAPITALISM" that make it a nonsensical word?
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »