Recent Posts

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
61
Discussions; Public Archive / MV
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 14, 2023, 09:19:57 AM »
Quote from: 14 August 09:29
Dale Eastman the constitution should be easy for anyone except the government to live under since the constitution does not grant individuals any rights. The constitution limits the government from taking those rights. We the people are the executioners of the constitution. Just because the executioners of the past have not enforced the bill of rights in the past does not mean we are not a constitutional republic. The constitution is not an organic document or the bill of rights would be changed like Wikipedia changes damn near daily. It means we have more work to do. I agree the FBI, CIA, FEMA, Homeland Security, FDA, even the state police are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled twice income tax is unconstitutional. Even our abused constitution is better than what any other country has. Right now we have people in office that were installed like commode’s installed by jackleg plumbers. If the US was still running as designed we would still have a very limited government. Instead progressives/communists have chipped away at our rights one little piece at a time while we the people chose to do nothing. We should be in the streets like Europe shutting down the country to demand any unconstitutional law be appealed. But we don’t because the government still has us divided by race, sex, color, sexual preference, and now transgender. We look for aliens from other worlds while our government sells us to China and Russia. Until we the people grow a pair of balls instead of encouraging our young men to cut them off, we will continue to add to our demise. Mark my word, we will be having our first civil war. The spawns of Satan vs the Christian patriots. Now, believing in God or not, is the time to pick the right side.
Quote from: 14 August 10:14
You have made too many claims that are flat out wrong. A few of your errors make a discussion 'tween you and I DOA. Because a few are absolutely correct, I'm not adverse to its resuscitation.
Quote from: 14 August 20:33
The constitution limits the government from taking those rights.
Quote from: 14 August 23:17
The constitution limits the government from taking those rights.

Obviously you have no clue as to what Lysander Spooner wrote 153 years ago.

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
BOSTON: PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, 1870.
Quote from:  16 August 13:46
Dale Eastman so your evidence is an article of one man’s opinion written a hundred years ago? Lolol. I guess the Supreme Court’s section is irrelevant. Seriously dude, you are obviously demented and require a lobotomy.
Quote from:  16 August 17:25
Dale Eastman so your evidence is an article of one man’s opinion written a hundred years ago? Lolol. I guess the Supreme Court’s section is irrelevant. Seriously dude, you are obviously demented and require a lobotomy.

According to the Declaration of Independence, government's reason for existing is to protect the rights of the governed
𝟙 Admit or deny?

You have a right to life.
𝟚 𝟙 Admit or deny?

You have a right to liberty.
𝟛 Admit or deny?

You have a right to pursuit of happiness.
𝟜 Admit or deny?

Being robbed of your justly earned property is a violation of your right of ownership of that property.
𝟝 Admit or deny?

 is a violation of your right to the liberty of owning that property.
𝟞 Admit or deny?

Being robbed of your justly earned property interferes with your pursuit of happiness of justly acquiring, owning, using, and selling your property.
𝟟 Admit or deny?

Calling robbery "Taxation" does not make the taking of anybodies' property (money) a moral act.
𝟠 Admit or deny?
62
Discussions; Public Archive / CH
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 14, 2023, 06:58:28 AM »
Quote from: Original post 14 August 07:18
I’m good with having an echo chamber lol. I get the whole “but muh diverse viewpoints!” thing, but that ship has sailed. 🙄 I prefer an echo chamber, not because I refuse to consider other alternatives, but rather because those other alternatives go against EVERYTHING I believe in and stand for, and because I have exactly ZERO common ground with a Democrat/Leftist. Their outlook on the world is totally anathema to me. I don’t even want to associate with it. I only have so much time in this life, and I would much prefer to spend it associating with the dreamers and doers and those who want freedom for others and for others to live their best life. Why would I want to associate with people who buy into the whole sordid bullshit Democrap narrative- the woe is me, there’s-a-racist-behind-every-bush, the free market is evil, freedom is bad, victim mentality, climate change hysteria, bow-down-and-worship-the-LGBT-agenda, only-government-can-run-you-life malarkey? Please explain that to me lol. It’s a cult, and I have zero desire to associate with it. Ergo, I’m cool with only associating with like minded individuals. 😉😛
Quote from: 14 August 07:31
Hmmmm. And I have no common ground with any pro-government, brainwashed morons.
The convo's I've had with yellow/gold believers is why I expanded my lewd, rude, & crude meme to cover three political parties.

Here's an example:
https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1656.0

Quote from: 14 August 07:41
Dale Eastman. If you don't want to live under the constitution, why do you stay here. Go start your own country.
Quote from: 14 August 08:13
Dale Eastman. If you don't want to live under the constitution, why do you stay here. Go start your own country.

I accept your invitation to discuss what you and I don't like about each other's posted comments.

𝟙 What, specifically, do you mean by "living under the CONstitution"?

𝟚 How, specifically, does your "living under the CONstitution" impact YOUR life?

𝟛 Please provide evidence to support your (implied) belief that the CONstitution applies to anybody other than government officers, agents, or employees.
Quote
Dale Eastman. The constitution applies almost exclusively to the govt. This country was founded as a constitutional Republic. That is what we are trying to do here. If you want to do something else, I think that is great, but please go do it somewhere else. I already have enough people causing problems here.
Quote from: 14 August 08:52
Kudos for answering the numbered questions you answered. Thank you.

The question you have not yet answered:
𝟙 What, specifically, do you mean by "living under the CONstitution"?

I already have enough people causing problems here.

𝟜 You have implied that somehow I'm causing "you" problems.
Admit or deny?

𝟝 Please articulate specifically and concisely the problem or problems you think I'm causing you.

This country was founded as a constitutional Republic. That is what we are trying to do here.

𝟞 Am I correct in my understanding that you want to work towards returning the U.S. to a "CONstitutional Republic"?

If you want to do something else, [...] please go do it somewhere else.

𝟟 What do you imagine I want to do?

An Organic Document of the United States IS the Declaration of Liberty.
𝟠 Admit or deny?

These words are contained within this Organic Document:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and 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;
𝟡 Admit or deny?

𝟙𝟘 Am I correct in assuming that you have never read Lysander Spooner's NO TREASON?
Quote from: 14 August 09:18
Dale Eastman. You are not a serious person. You are not interested in answers, so that is why you did not get any. I will say that is it clear that you do not wish to live under a constitutional Republic, and I am fine with that. Go create what you want. I wish you well.
Quote from: 14 August 09:50
You are not a serious person.

𝟙𝟙 Why you calling me by your maiden name?

You are the one who initiated this discussion when you commented instead of scrolling past my anti-Votards comment.

You are not interested in answers, so that is why you did not get any.

You just implied that you're clairvoyant?
𝟙𝟚 Admit or deny?

You are not interested in answers

You have some "different" thinking than I do. I ask questions in attempts to understand why people like you think what and why you do.

I will say that is it clear that you do not wish to live under a constitutional Republic

And I will say that is it clear that you do not wish to explain what a CONstitutional Republic is in your mind.

Thus, I throw your own words right back at you:
You are not a serious person.
If you were, you would explain what you intend.
Quote from: 14 August 09:54
Dale Eastman. That is good advice. I'll take it.
63
Discussions; Public Archive / WIP Notes
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 10, 2023, 08:49:14 AM »
Quote
Dale Eastman We've been trying it your way for 50 years.

Hiya Jonathan. Pedantic Asshole Dale here.

Who exactly is this "We"?

Do you have signed permission slips from each and every one of this group of "we" giving you permission to speak and write for them?

❺ What, exactly, is my way?

I actually believe that all rhetoric is wasted at the moment [...]

Rhetoric: writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion

❻ What is the purpose of this persuasion?
❻① What is the purpose of my persuasion?
❻② What is the purpose of your persuasion?
❻③ What is the purpose of the LP's persuasion?
❻④ What is the purpose of the Voluntarist's persuasion?
❻⑤ What is the purpose of the Anarchist's persuasion?
❻⑥ What is the purpose of my YDOM persuasion?
❻⑦ What is the purpose of the Natural Law Matters persuasion?

I actually believe that all rhetoric is wasted at the moment because our system of elections is rigged to prevent 3rd parties or independents from ever gaining a foothold.

The entire system of voting is a hoax. If you vote, you are a brainwashed idiot.
Admit or deny?

Voting is Majority Tyranny.
Admit or deny?

An elected representative does not represent all the voters.
Admit or deny?

64
Discussions; Public Archive / JR
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 08, 2023, 11:17:25 AM »
Quote from: 2 August 16:10 Original post.
Quote from: 5 August 17:57
Still, FairTheft is better than UnFairTheft. I definitely endorse scrapping the tax code in favor of the FairTheft. https://fairtax.org/about
Quote from: 7 August 08:22
Don't want your compensation taxed? Learn the law.
https://synapticsparks.info/tax/ExamineFedTax.html
Quote from: 8 August 06:48
Dale Eastman This isn't about me. It's about the country.
Quote from: 8 August 09:01
A country that has been socially engineered to be idiots and morons. I read bunches of comments of these same folks in the liberty and freedom camps that complain about taxation being theft. Tax on American's compensation for labor happens because they voluntarily sign W4's when no law requires this.
Quote from: 8 August 11:43
Dale Eastman I am a Libertarian, not just a libertarian. We are a POLITICAL party, not a philosophical debating society. We must advocate changes that reduce the size and impact of government while still being capable of attracting plurality support.
Quote from: 8 August 12:16
We are a POLITICAL party, not a philosophical debating society.

This discussion has taken a turn I did not see. In reviewing the discussion, I should have.

Philosophical debates would include discussions of what is moral.

The link you supplied to Fair Tax didn't register at first read. Now that it has, I see it as your admission that you and the rest of the Votards in the Liberty Party condone armed robbery and are for the enslavement of your fellow Americans. Your political party is the conglomeration of immoral... folks.

while still being capable of attracting plurality support.

Exactly whose support are you immoral folks trying to attract?
Quote from: 9 August 06:22
Dale Eastman And you are accomplishing what, exactly? What has jumping up and down yelling "Taxation is Theft!" gotten you? Right now government is at 10, with the D's and R's ready to turn it up to 11. You are shouting that it should be zero. But are you not willing to concede that if we could get it to 5 it would be a huge improvement over the status quo? What is the good of being a party that gets 2% of the vote, except to convince voters that since we're so fringe, all of our ideas must be fringe also. But our ideas wouldn't be fringe if we just toned down our rhetoric a bit. There are 10s of millions of Americans who would gladly vote for a Party that advocates "smaller" government. There are only 10s of thousands that support "no" government. The Republicans are getting all the votes of the supporters of "smaller" government, even though they actually support "bigger" government, because those voters see us as too extreme. We're in a giant hole. You are advocating no hole. But before we can get to no hole, first we have to stop digging.
Quote from: 9 August 10:06
After writing this comment, I went back through it. You, like others I have had discussions with, have a habit of ignoring certain things in my text. I have numbered the things I would appreciate that you don't ignore.

Dale Eastman And you are accomplishing what, exactly?

That is a valid and excellent question. Socratic Questioning to get at the facts and to determine if the facts are true.

❶ Goose-Gander quote. That logical approach works both ways, so JR, you are accomplishing what, exactly?
I acknowledge you are actually answering that reversal of the question before it was asked.

What has jumping up and down yelling "Taxation is Theft!" gotten you?

Good question. It's just aimed at the wrong person. The tax on one's domestic compensation for labor is NOT theft. So I actually agree with you on the question to all the others.

❷ So I ask this question: What has voluntarily signing a W4 when no law requires it gotten you or those jumping up and down yelling "Taxation is Theft!"

What is the good of being a party that gets 2% of the vote, except to convince voters that since we're so fringe, all of our ideas must be fringe also.

❸ I'm going to slam this cognition back on the table since you and the other Libertarian have both ignored it.
If the Libertarian candidates won a majority of offices by a landslide, how is this Libertarian (party) government is going to get funding to do its government stuff? If this Libertarian (party) government is not going to immediately cut taxes to 0%, then it is extorting the people for its funding.

The logical conclusion of this is a self-evident fact: You and the rest of the Libertarians support enslavement and condone robbery.

our ideas wouldn't be fringe if we just toned down our rhetoric a bit.

I understand this rhetoric as "less government". This just means "LESS ENSLAVEMENT".
Government IS tyranny.

There are 10s of millions of Americans who would gladly vote for a Party that advocates "smaller" government.

There are 10s of millions of Votards who don't realize that they have been brainwashed to believe bullshit.

We're in a giant hole. You are advocating no hole. But before we can get to no hole, first we have to stop digging.

If you vote, you are still digging.

❹ Where did government get its alleged right to rule?
Quote from: 10 August 08:01
Dale Eastman We've been trying it your way for 50 years. I actually believe that all rhetoric is wasted at the moment because our system of elections is rigged to prevent 3rd parties or independents from ever gaining a foothold. First Past the Post voting ALWAYS leads to a 2-party outcome. That's why over the past several years I have shifted the focus of my efforts towards passing Ranked Choice Voting across the country and trying to rely Libertarians and all 3rd parties to that cause. https://www.facebook.com/groups/294425008619232 But I still believe that fore the LP to be successful we need to advocate a broad based rollback of government. The end result will NOT be anarchy, it will be more freedom and more prosperity for everyone.
Quote from: 10 August 09:55
I read what you wrote. I was 196 words into a reply. Nope. Not gonna until you address my numbered points.

❹ Where did government get its alleged right to rule?

❷ So I ask this question: What has voluntarily signing a W4 when no law requires it gotten you or those jumping up and down yelling "Taxation is Theft!"

❸ If the Libertarian candidates won a majority of offices by a landslide, how is this Libertarian (party) government is going to get funding to do its government stuff?
Quote from: 11 August 06:27
Dale Eastman "The answer to your questions is "less than 1% of the vote."
Quote from: 11 August 07:47
Dale Eastman "The answer to your questions is "less than 1% of the vote."

I am entirely about "THE LOGIC."

Me: ❸ If the Libertarian candidates won a majority of offices by a landslide, how is this Libertarian (party) government is going to get funding to do its government stuff?

You: "less than 1% of the vote."

Me: ❷ What has voluntarily signing a W4 when no law requires it gotten you or those jumping up and down yelling "Taxation is Theft!"

You: "less than 1% of the vote."

Me: ❹ Where did government get its alleged right to rule?

You: "less than 1% of the vote."

You did NOT pay attention while in your government indoctrination center incarceration (Day jail - public school). Read this again:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and 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;

I ask again:
❹ Where did government get its alleged right to rule?
Quote from: 12 August 07:30
Dale Eastman Either you're a moron or being intentionally stupid. The LP is POLITICAL party, not a pholosophical debating society. Or job is attract votes in order to REDUCE the size of government, not eliminate it. I don't say "taxation is Theft" because that is not the way to attract votes. I favor the FairTax which would levy a national retail sales tax on everyone. That answers question #1. Advocating people refuse to file taxes does nothing to attract votes. As far as where does the government get its right to rule, that ship has sailed as far as convincing Americans. the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that government should pay for the military, the courts, national parks, schools, roads, police, fire, etc. The question is how much MORE should they do, because they do thousands of additional tasks whose elimination are ripe for attracting votes. If a person believes in Social Security you are wasting your time advocating for the elimination of SS. But they might still be willing to listen to an argument for self-funding retirement rather than our current failed Ponzi scheme. They might believe in police, but be willing to discuss treating drugs like alcohol. They might be against illegal immigration, but might be willing to discuss increasing legal immigration. They might want government to fund schools, but might be open to giving the money to parents rather than teacher unions. I favor dramatically less government than we have now. I just don't favor NO government because that is a political loser. If you don't understand what a POLITICAL party is for then go join a debating club.
Quote from: 12 August 07:30
Your reply is 272 words. In those 272 words you FAILED to address all of my numbered concerns.

Actually I speculate that you didn't fail. I speculate that you willfully and deliberately ignored the ones you don't like because they drill too deep into your LP beliefs.

If you don't understand what a POLITICAL party is for then go join a debating club.
The LP is POLITICAL party, not a pholosophical debating society.

Every single political party on the planet IS a philosophical debating party.

Join our party - vote for our candidate because our candidate has the same philosophy that we do. Our philosophy is better than all the other parties' philosophies added together.  And our candidate's better than the other parties' candidates anyway.

I understand EXACTLY what the LP's philosophies are.

Dale Eastman Either you're a moron or being intentionally stupid.

You are not the first individual to call me names because my questions expose the errors in what they believe.

Let's go with I am a moron and I am stupid... So please help me understand your thinking by addressing my questions and concerns.

You have adequately addressed concern/question ❶. Thank you.

I will acknowledge that you did in fact address my question #❹.

As far as where does the government get its right to rule, that ship has sailed as far as convincing Americans.

Woefully inadequately though. Thus:
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
This is a fancy way to say, in Latin: Your claim; Your opinion; means nothing; my opinion cancels yours.

Therefore I am going to present the same question differently.

The Organic Document of the United States IS the Declaration of Liberty.
❺ Admit or deny?

These words are contained within this Organic Document:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and 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;
❻ Admit or deny?

the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that government should pay for the military, the courts, national parks, schools, roads, police, fire, etc.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

So you're clairvoyant and you've read some 340 million minds. ⇇ Rhetorical. No question mark.

I favor dramatically less government than we have now.
I just don't favor NO government because that is a political loser.

You just admitted to wanting a smaller government.
❼ Admit or deny?

You just admitted to wanting a government.
❽ Admit or deny?

To govern is to control.
❾ Admit or deny?

To control other humans is to rule other humans.
❿ Admit or deny?

I favor the FairTax which would levy a national retail sales tax on everyone.
That answers question #1.


That also answers question #3:
❸ If the Libertarian candidates won a majority of offices by a landslide, how is this Libertarian (party) government is going to get funding to do its government stuff?

𝟙𝟙  Is this Libertarian (party) government going to let folks who don't want to pay this tax not pay this tax?

Taking any human's property against their will when they have done no harm to another is theft regardless of what this action is labeled.
𝟙𝟚 Admit or deny?

65
Discussions; Public Archive / TO
« Last post by Dale Eastman on August 07, 2023, 01:48:38 PM »
Quote from: 2 August 16:10 Original post.
Quote from: 5 August 01:57
I disagree. An anarchists would agree. A Libertarian would qualify his answer.

In a limited government, some taxes would be appropriated as long as they are minimal and unobtrusive.
Quote from: 7 August 08:27
It's not a false dichotomy. You're a Statist Lite. You support slavery.

https://synapticsparks.info/


Quote from: 7 August 12:45
You condone theft. You are a Statist Lite.
Quote from: 7 August 13:46
So you think, wrongly, calling me names is a form of debate? I'm a Libertarian. I'm not an anarchist. YOU are being the problem. The solution you proffer is no solution at all.
Quote from: 7 August 15:06
So you think, wrongly, calling me names is a form of debate?

Well... Now that you question it. Do you want me to delete this alleged name calling from my two previous posts, or will an "I apologize" and an "I'm sorry" assuage the insult you took that I did not mean to project?

YOU are being the problem.

How so? Exactly what are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of this problem you claim I am being. Please be succinct and articulate when you list my sins.

The solution you proffer is no solution at all.

So you're a mind reader and clairvoyant  eh? What's the next big lottery's winning numbers.

Then tell me exactly what my solution is going to be when I finish writing my new web site.

Now back to the accusation I aimed at you: You support slavery.
67
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.
68
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.

69
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.
70
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.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »