Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 40/46 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Kent Hovind's debates, can someone help?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 127 (101064)
04-19-2004 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Coragyps
04-18-2004 10:13 AM


Re: Hovind and taxes
Read what I wrote, buz! "seems to have...."
I fully realize that he hasn't been convicted of anything. I'll wait and see.
I did read what you said. You figured he was likely in enough trouble that his lecturing would cease and you said he seems to have forgotten a million plus income. Gross receipts are a far cry from gross income and gross income is usually over double net income. Gross receipts include cost of goods sold, etc. Check again. I believe the link alluded to gross receipts, not gross income or net income. Some businesses have huge gross receipts and end up with a net loss.
I understand that gross isn't the same as net, too - but I would imagine that you actually file a return each year, don't you, buz? A church is tax-exempt, but the minister isn't - my dad filed a return each and every year. That's the law in this country.
.
I repeat.........Kent Hovind maintains that the tax laws are not Constitutional and all I can say is that he states this openly in public and is hiding nothing. He's been doing this for years and still charged with no crimes. I understand that these people who operate this way do so lawfully, though the feds don't like it and are doing everything they can think of to find a valid charge to arrest them. I understand also that you better be pretty smart on your tax laws and your legal rights or don't try this at home.
Sole proprietors such as myself file yearly. I've filed every year for over 50 years and do my own books and accounting.
[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 04-19-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Coragyps, posted 04-18-2004 10:13 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Darwin Storm, posted 04-20-2004 12:40 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 127 (101071)
04-19-2004 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Coragyps
04-19-2004 10:57 PM


You're probably right there, buz. How would any work have gotten done on the farm if they had vanished?
Yah, I thought of that as I was posting, but no, it was the premise of evolution, imo, that gave Darwin the idea of their demise and physiological inferiority to other races.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Coragyps, posted 04-19-2004 10:57 PM Coragyps has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 127 (101075)
04-19-2004 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Chiroptera
04-19-2004 11:09 PM


Buz, are you saying that Darwin advocated genocide? Note: I am not putting words in your mouth; I am asking for clarification.
Thanks Chirop for allowing me to clarify my own thoughts.
Put it this way. He considered them to be more subhuman than the other races and likely unlike Hitler, would leave the process of elimination to time. However, having said that it was this mindset that seemed to motivate one who achieved the political power and military wherewithall to move the process along. After all, the quicker this was accomplised, the more advanced, the more intelligent and the more purely human a nation and a world would become, as one with this mindset would likely figure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Chiroptera, posted 04-19-2004 11:09 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 127 (101078)
04-19-2004 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by nator
04-18-2004 10:12 AM


Specifically, can you provide any support for your claim that Darwin's theory states that more color = less evolved?
True or false? Apes are dark skinned. True or false? If evolution was factual human primates would tend to dark skin rather than white and much time required for that to change. Methinks Darwin figured dark skinned folks were the lesser evolved and lesser advanced of the human species. Simple as that. Creationists would never have any reason to entertain such thoughts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by nator, posted 04-18-2004 10:12 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Sylas, posted 04-20-2004 1:06 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024