Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hovind busted, finally
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 241 of 308 (378206)
01-19-2007 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Jaderis
01-19-2007 8:37 PM


Re: Well ...
Jaderis writes:
Crap. I don't know what I was thinking.
You were probably thinking of Gettysburg, the first significant Union victory in 1863. The war did continue on for almost two more years, as you said.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Jaderis, posted 01-19-2007 8:37 PM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Jaderis, posted 01-19-2007 9:16 PM Percy has not replied

Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3425 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 242 of 308 (378212)
01-19-2007 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Percy
01-19-2007 8:52 PM


Re: Well ...
I think I was actually confusing Kennedy's assassination in 1963 with Lincoln's. That's the only thing that makes sense to me.
Oh well. The mistake has been corrected and the blush emoticon is properly conveying my shame.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by Percy, posted 01-19-2007 8:52 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by kuresu, posted 01-19-2007 9:29 PM Jaderis has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 243 of 308 (378213)
01-19-2007 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Jaderis
01-19-2007 8:37 PM


Re: Well ...
Nah, just close to home.
My something-great grandfather owned Ford's Theaters.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Jaderis, posted 01-19-2007 8:37 PM Jaderis has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 244 of 308 (378218)
01-19-2007 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Jaderis
01-19-2007 9:16 PM


Re: Well ...
that's quite okay. historical slip-ups are fairly easy. esp. when dealing with dates. a common mistake I make is the starting year of that war--I always want to say 1860. what's really funny though, is that in our scout district's klondike derby (knowledge competition, basically), if you say that the US motto is E Unum Pluribus, they'll accept it, because it's the latin version, or so they think. good think they don't know latin--i didn't realize "In God we Trust" was the motto. oops.
ABE: and Lincoln had an assistant (or something like that) names Kennedy. Kennedy has the same, but opposite--his was Lincoln.
Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Jaderis, posted 01-19-2007 9:16 PM Jaderis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by jar, posted 01-19-2007 9:32 PM kuresu has not replied
 Message 246 by dwise1, posted 01-19-2007 10:37 PM kuresu has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 245 of 308 (378220)
01-19-2007 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by kuresu
01-19-2007 9:29 PM


Re: Well ...
And both were followed by a Johnson as an unelected President.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by kuresu, posted 01-19-2007 9:29 PM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-20-2007 3:36 AM jar has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 246 of 308 (378231)
01-19-2007 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by kuresu
01-19-2007 9:29 PM


Re: Well ...
... if you say that the US motto is E Unum Pluribus, they'll accept it, because it's the latin version, or so they think. good think they don't know latin--i didn't realize "In God we Trust" was the motto. oops.
Since when? Only since 1956.
From 1776 to 1956, the National Motto was "E Pluribus Unum" ("out of many, one"). Then Congress replaced it in 1956 with "In God We Trust", one year after mandating that phrase on our money and two years after splitting "one nation indivisible" with "under God" (how's that for apt symbolism?).
High time we call for the restoration of the National Motto and the Pledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by kuresu, posted 01-19-2007 9:29 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by kuresu, posted 01-19-2007 10:44 PM dwise1 has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 247 of 308 (378235)
01-19-2007 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by dwise1
01-19-2007 10:37 PM


Re: Well ...
the really funny thing--these people in my district would much prefer In God We Trust than E Pluribus Unum.
as to the last comment--esp. since we are no longer facing a communist enemy with propaganda depicting them as atheists hordes. the only reason we have that is so we could differentiate ourselves from those atheist communists (because guess what, our constitution and amendment forbid state-sponsored religion).
what's really funny, is that by changing it, maybe our current foes (generally speaking, those behind Islamic terrorism) will see we aren't favoring christianity over islam, or some such thing. incredibly unlikely, but . . . it does take away one of their reasons for fighting us, I'm just not sure which, and not sure if they'd recognize the change.
but you know what, let's attempt to get back to topic. I'd really want to know what Charley has to say about my list of states ratifying the 16th amendment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by dwise1, posted 01-19-2007 10:37 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2007 11:32 PM kuresu has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 248 of 308 (378249)
01-19-2007 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by kuresu
01-19-2007 10:44 PM


Re: Well ...
I'd really want to know what Charley has to say about my list of states ratifying the 16th amendment.
It is interesting that Florida didn't ratify the 16th amendment. The problem appears was the 16 amendment legally ratified.
--------------------------
1. Wages are not taxable income, as the term is defined by several key decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court that remain in force today.
2. The U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to levy "direct taxes" on private property, but only if those taxes are apportioned across the 50 States.
3. The IRS now enforces the collection of "income taxes" as direct taxes without apportionment, and cites the 16th Amendment for its authority to do so.
4. The 16th Amendment, the "income tax" amendment, was never lawfully ratified by the required 36 States, but was declared ratified by the U.S. Secretary of State.
5. The 16th Amendment could never have done away with the apportionment rule for any direct taxes if it never became a law in the first place.
Description of Errors:
1. Failure to concur in U. S. Senate Joint Resolution No. 40 in that various changes were made to the text of the official Joint Resolution of the U.S. Congress.
2. Failure to follow the guidelines for the return of a certified copy of the ratification action, as contained in Congressional Concurrent Resolution No. 6, and as required by Section 205 of the Revised Statutes of 1878.
3. Governor vetoed the resolution and the State Legislature failed to override the veto.
4. Resolution was not submitted to the Governor for approval.
5. State Senate failed to pass the resolution by a required 2/3 majority.
6. State Assembly or House failed to pass the resolution by a required 2/3 majority.
7. State Senate failed to pass the resolution.
8. State Assembly or House failed to pass the resolution.
9. Other State constitutional violations not mentioned above.
(Source: The Law That Never Was -- The Fraud of the 16th Amendment and Personal Income Tax, by Bill Benson and M. J. 'Red' Beckman, published by Constitutional Research Assoc., Box 550, South Holland, IL 60473, April 1985)
Notes:
(10) The Senate rejected the minority report of the committee on judiciary and federal relations recommending ratification of this amendment on June 23, 1911, by a vote of 6 to 19. (Connecticut Senate Journal, 1911, pp. 1346-1348)
(11) Florida House passed H.J. Res. 192, ratifying this amendment on May 21, 1913, by a vote of 59 to 0. (Florida House Journal, 1913, p. 1686.) The Senate committee on constitution recommended that the resolution do not pass. May 27, 1913. (Florida Senate Journal, 1913, p. 1745.)
(12) The House passed a joint resolution ratifying the sixteenth amendment on May 10, 1911, by a vote of 139 to 4. (Pennsylvania House Journal, 1911, pp. 2690-2691.) The Senate referred the joint resolution to the committee on judiciary special, where it lay. (Pennsylvania Senate Journal, 1911, p. 2162.)
(13) Senate resolution refusing to ratify this amendment was concurred in by House April 29, 1910. (Rhode Island House Journal, April 29, 1910.)
(14) The House rejected this amendment on March 9, 1911, by a vote of 31 to 10. (Utah House Journal, 1911, pp. 606-607.) The Senate passed the resolution ratifying the amendment by a vote of 12 to 2 on February 17, 1911. (Utah Senate Journal, 1911, p. 256.)
(15) The Senate ratified this amendment by a vote of 19 to 5 on March 9, 1910. (Virginia Senate Journal, 1910, pp. 651-652.) The House Journal, 1910, does not show that this resolution ratifying the amendment ever came to a vote.
The Federal Zone: Appendix J: Petitions to Congress
Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by kuresu, posted 01-19-2007 10:44 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by kuresu, posted 01-19-2007 11:50 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 256 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2007 4:42 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 257 by Lithodid-Man, posted 01-20-2007 5:14 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 258 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2007 9:09 AM johnfolton has not replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 249 of 308 (378252)
01-19-2007 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by johnfolton
01-19-2007 11:32 PM


ahem
per your first point, I would like to know just which specific rulings. a more recent ruling on an issue supercedes an outdated one.
secondly, wages are taxed, esp. by social security. unless you're your own boss, 7% of your paycheck goes to social security. this is on top of any other state tax on wages. wages are taxable. they are a means of income, and any means of income, as per the amendment, unless otherwise specified by later congresses, are taxable.
2. every person in every state is required to pay income taxes. unless I'm missing the meaning of apportioned here.
3. apparently I'm missing the definition of apportionment.
4. I remind you of my list--42 states ratified it, legally, I might add.
5. since it is lawful, it did away with apportionment. also, subsequent supreme court rulings haven't struck down the non-apportionment rule since the passage of the amendment. it still goes.
failures:
1. i've heard of this. changing commans, capitalization, and other minor changes, does not count. what's the difference between voting on:
Raise Taxes by 30%
riase taxes by 30%.
same message.
2.don't know about this, so I can't say anything. I'll let tax experts handle it (if there is such a thing)
3.i don't see how this is an error unless a state that ratified it actually rejected it. list the state that did this.
4.again, tell me the state. If it's virginia, they didn't even decide, so . . .
5-9. same objection. Show me the state. If these are nine separate states, I'll remind you, only 36 needed to pass the amendment.
48-9=39. still passes the 3/4 mark.
(upon checking your source list, most of the states implicated are listed on the record as rejecting, or doing nothing towards ratification. you still pass the 3/4 boundary. tough luck kiddo, 16th is law. now then, please render unto caesar--I really like having decent roads and a publicly funded education.

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by johnfolton, posted 01-19-2007 11:32 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by jar, posted 01-19-2007 11:56 PM kuresu has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 250 of 308 (378254)
01-19-2007 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 249 by kuresu
01-19-2007 11:50 PM


Re: ahem
Google "Paul Andrew Mitchell"

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by kuresu, posted 01-19-2007 11:50 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by kuresu, posted 01-20-2007 12:07 AM jar has replied

kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 251 of 308 (378262)
01-20-2007 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by jar
01-19-2007 11:56 PM


Re: ahem
i did. i'm still missing something, I think. seems to me to be a guy w/o identity wanting money. but then, I couldbe too tired right now to think through some of the bullshit apparent in those pages.
mind clueing me in?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by jar, posted 01-19-2007 11:56 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by jar, posted 01-20-2007 12:15 AM kuresu has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 252 of 308 (378269)
01-20-2007 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by kuresu
01-20-2007 12:07 AM


Re: ahem
That is the source of whatever (charley) rant against the IRS. The guy is a fruitcake. The source is not a real law firm, and the guy is not even a real lawyer.
here is his resume

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by kuresu, posted 01-20-2007 12:07 AM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by johnfolton, posted 01-20-2007 12:28 AM jar has not replied
 Message 254 by subbie, posted 01-20-2007 2:53 AM jar has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 253 of 308 (378273)
01-20-2007 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by jar
01-20-2007 12:15 AM


Re: ahem
The real issue is not the IRS but that our money is being created out of nothing and being reloaned back to the America with interest on nothing.
There is nothing wrong with taxation but its how our money is created and to whom its being paid too.
You should be outraged, we should all be outraged, the IRS is the collection agency for our national debt primarily interest to those bankers scaming you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by jar, posted 01-20-2007 12:15 AM jar has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 254 of 308 (378290)
01-20-2007 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by jar
01-20-2007 12:15 AM


Paul Andrew Mitchell
Well, I can tell from a quick perusal of his "resume" that he would need six years to become a lawyer, the first three being devoted to disabusing him of the myriad things he thinks he knows about the law that aren't so.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by jar, posted 01-20-2007 12:15 AM jar has not replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 255 of 308 (378292)
01-20-2007 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by jar
01-19-2007 9:32 PM


Re: Well ...
And both were followed by a Johnson as an unelected President.
Hey. Keep it clean.
__

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by jar, posted 01-19-2007 9:32 PM jar 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