People in right wing dictatorships are just as screwed as people in left wing dictatorships. Communism is besides the point. I don't think communism has much to do with why Kim Jong-il is the way he is. He is a religious figure in North Korea.The talk of World War III is a bit overblown. The more scared people are, the more easily they can be manipulated. Don't fall for it.
-
George W. Bush
-
In reply to:
It's really depressing knowing that people's lives have to be restricted.
If you think the communist control is bad, take a look at your own government. Do you know that the American people pay income tax because they believe it is the law, but in actual fact there is no law at all. Income tax is against American law, it goes against the American constitution yet your government make you believe that it is un-American to not pay your income tax.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, freedom of Religion and freedom of petition.
The right to petition allows the people of the United States to lobby Congress, State government and legislatures and courts at any level to spur Government action. A petition was presented to the US government to present the law that forced the American people to pay Income Taxes. On August 31st, 2005 federal judge Emmet Sullivan ruled that the government does not have to answer the American people's questions, even though it is guranteed by the First Amendment.
-
In reply to: I think that a big problem with the 2004 Presidential Election was that a weak candidate was put up against Bush. People didn't want to vote for an ok-ish candidate and they didn't want to re-elect that gobshite. The problem with the 2004 Presidential election was that there was only one candidate. The choice was to vote for him, or against him. There was even a political organization, ABB (anybody but Bush) that was formed which only emphasizes this point. Kerry also had campaign issues, primarily caused by the fact that he didn't run his own campaign, but rather let the like of Michael Moore et al to run it for him. They took the focus off of Kerry and his plan and put it on Bush and Bush alone. I have a friend who told me he had a campaign worker for Kerry talk to him about getting Bush out of office and actually had the guy freeze up when he asked who he should vote for instead. He was so focused on being anti-Bush that he forgot who he was supporting!It's been a long time since Americans actually had a decent choice...
-
Actually, it is a law. The 16th amendment establishes that the federal government takes out taxes in citizens' income.
-
The Supreme Court has ruled that the government has no authority to impose a direct unapportioned tax on the labor of the American people, and the 16th Amendment does not give the government that power.
-
Could you find me a reference for that?Are you talking about this? http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BruceBartlett/2006/08/29/court_ruling_shakes_ground_under_irs The Supreme Court just opened up its session (if not, they are pretty close to it), and I haven't heard any major rulings about income taxes. That url above is referring to a federal judge ruling, which is not the Supreme Court.
-
Are you saying there was no difference between Bush I and Clinton, Bob Dole and Clinton, Bush II and Gore, or Bush II and Kerry? Are are you saying that they all just sucked, so it didn't really matter?_____________Bob, that stuff about the income tax being illegal isn't some lunatic fringe craziness.The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1913) states:In reply to:The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.The conspiracy-happy tax protesters claim that the amendment was not properly ratified, but they seem to have only a passing familiarity with reality.
-
Oh no, I'm talking much earlier than that. In reply to: According to the report, in 1913, just months after the purported ratification of the 16th Amendment, Congress attempted to stretch the meaning of the legal term “income” beyond the meaning and intent of the framers of the 16th Amendment, as recorded in EVERY official and professional document of the era: congressional record, congressional reports, law reviews, journals of political science, newspapers of record and so forth.In the Income Tax Act of 1913, Congress surreptitiously, by stealth and without authority, included an un-apportioned, direct tax on the salaries, wages and compensation of ordinary Americans and instituted withholding at the source.However, in 1916, the Supreme Court brought the devilish action of Congress and the Executive branch to a screeching halt. The Supreme Court ruled in Brushaber (and the cases bundled with it), that wages are NOT income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment.As the research documents, Congress was then forced to amend the Income Tax Act, to remove salaries, wages and compensation from the definition of taxable income, to outlaw the withholding of wages from the paychecks of citizens and to direct the Executive Department to refund all wages withheld. All this, of course was done to bring the law into compliance with Brushaber. http://www.givemeliberty.org/docs/TaxResearchCD/Attach2-Overview.htm
-
The site you referenced is not a neutral site. But, anyway...if the Supreme Court found the law unconstitutional, they would have used their power of judicial review and nullified the Act as well as the amendment.
-
The first part of my post was sarcasm. I was commenting on how not only do you constantly agree with Abi, but thats almsot all you say on the matter. You simply say "Yes, I agree with you Abi" instead of providing any extra thought or comments on your opinion. Surely there must be something more that you can contribute beyond "I agree".
-
Okay, kiddos. We're getting off topic with the taxes and disagreement talk. Back on subject. How do you guys think Bush should handle the North Korea nuclear missle test that happened over the weekend?
-
The Supreme Court cannot nullify any part of the Constitution. The Constitution is the underpinning of all laws. It's up to the Supreme Court to expain what the words mean.
-
I knew you'd clear that up for me. I couldn't remember if I had it right or not.
-
He was being sarcastic! He's saying that you agree with everything she says. He'd go into catatonic shock if you ever posted a disagreement with Abi.Personally, I'm still wondering what good things Bush has done. Could you fill me in?
-
Altho the website is obviously not neutral (words such as "devilish" kinda give it away) but I have found nothing to the contrary. There is a new movie being released now in the States called America: Freedom to Fascism, where producer/director Aaron Russo tried to find the law that says that the American people have to pay Income Tax and that he couldn't find it. He has featured on it a good few ex-IRS investigators whom when presented with the task of finding the law in the past found nothing, and quit their jobs and no longer pay Income Tax.http://www.freedomtofascism.com/trailer/AMERICApromoV1_H264.movAn interview with Aaron Russo:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3254488777215293198
-
Aaron Russo tried to find the law that says that the American people have to pay Income Tax and that he couldn't find itHuh? Read about U.S. income tax law on this Cornell Law School income tax page.I'm telling you, those conspiracy nuts are wrong.
-
In reply to: Okay, kiddos. We're getting off topic with the taxes and disagreement talk. Well this is my thread and I shall hijack it if I want to! But really, this thread is open to all intelligent political conversations. You can talk about Bush directly, international events such as North Korea or even American politics. This thread is not only providing a space for some of the most inteligent people of this forum (such as yourself, Steve, Starfish, SYL...) to debate inteligent issues, and it is helping many people on the forum, including myself especially, to learn more about international views and events and to hear more than one side to every argument.
-
That's a good site. Good information.
-
I didnt think you were being rude at all hon so dont worry about that. I know what you mean about being freaked out by the state of the world. I, for example, would love to have more kids, but all the civil unrest in the world would make you think twice about what you might be bringing somebody into..
-
What I'm saying is that if the US had not gone into Iraq that Saddam AND his WMD would still be there. The WMD was not moved to Syria until AFTER the US entered into Iraq. The convoy (by land) was seen by infra-red satellite but was about 100 miles away from the nearest US troops...no way to stop them. You call this convenient...such a statement would be made by a person who's looking to find fault with the US. I'd call it fact...not biased one way or the other. The pilot of one of the jet airliners that had it's seats all ripped out to make room for the barrels of Saddam's WMD that he was looking to ship out post-haste went on the market last year. The book didn't get much media attention, did it. The media are just a bunch of liberal ah*s who are interested in painting the president of the US in a bad light and in playing down anything that might vindicate his position. Once you understand this, it becomes easy to see how the media bends the truth and is very selective about what it reports and what it doesn't. Unfortunately, there are plenty of poeple on the web that are more than willing to buy into anything anti-US...so they willingly swollow whatever the media spoon-feeds them. The facts, and therefor the truth, are usually somewhere else to be found.Why didn't the US follow the WMD into Syria? Part of the justification of the whole thing was that Saddam used WMD to kill off tens of thousands of his own people (remember the Kurds?) and in a war with Iran years ago. In other words, Saddam demonstrated a willingness to use the stuff. Syria, despite threats, has not. Big difference.As for the US wanting to go into Syria, that's not completely out of the question. The US would rather let time take its course, though. After it's clear to the world that the Iraqi people can successfully govern themselves and manage their own affairs, other countries in the Islam world will follow. (That's the theory, anyway.) Witness Lebanon shortly after the successful liberation. They got fed up with the Syrians running the show and managed to kick them out...almost as if they smelled Saddams WMD. (At least their military faction was forced out...no doubt there is still some Syrian presence there.)
