Us government's trick to violate civil liberties - Page 8

Numinous · 12-21-2011, 05:43 AM

Well HR, if you're so desperate to touch the "other side" of this lunacy of a theory, I'll respond to the post where you quoted me on ZIP Codes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Human Rasengan

Some specific event in U.S. history, such as the Civil War, the Great Depression, or the passage of some national debt threshold, actually caused the United States to cease to exist under the Constitution;

That is stupid. A country cannot cease under the same constitution it created, only the other way around is possible, since, you know, constitutions can be amended if something on them is outdated.

Quote:

all actions in the name of the U.S. government since that event are part of a conspiracy by those in power to retain the appearance of constitutional authority.

That is stupid. Amendments exist, so the need of a needlessly complicated conspiracy is null.

Quote:

The gold fringe around the American flag, as displayed in many federal courts, designates them as Admiralty courts, which cannot hear other kinds of cases, or signal that the court is operating under martial law.[3]

Hey, you didn't even bother to copy-paste this shit right!

Quote:

In United States v. Greenstreet, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas noted: "Defendant Greenstreet's response to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment identifies this Court as an 'Admiralty Court' without further discussing his allegation. If his reference is to be construed as a jurisdictional challenge, his motion is denied. Others have attempted to persuade the judiciary that fringe on an American flag denotes a court of admiralty. In light of the fact that this Court has such a flag in its courtroom, the issue is addressed. The concept behind the theory the proponent asserts is that if a courtroom is adorned with a flag which happens to be fringed around the edges, such decor indicates that the court is one of admiralty jurisdiction exclusively.

And that is stupid. From ushistory.org:

Quote:

What does the fringe on the flag represent?
The gold trim is found on ceremonial flags, to be used indoors and for ceremonies only. They originally were used on military flags. The fringe has no specific significance, but is considered completely within the guidelines of proper flag etiquette. There is nothing in the flag code indicating that the fringe is for federal government flags only. The Internet contains many sites that claim that the fringe indicates martial law or that the Constitution does not apply in that area. These are entirely unfounded (usually citing Executive Order 10834 and inventing text that is not part of the order) and should be dismissed as urban legends.

If you actually consulted sites that aren't plagued by conspiracy nuts you'd know that's just crazy talk.

Quote:

The PRA [the Paperwork Reduction Act] requires that all government agencies display valid OMB control numbers and certain disclosures directly on all information collection forms that the public is requested to file. [The defendant's] sole defense was he was not required to file an IRS Form 1040 because it displays an invalid OMB control number. Government officials knew that if the case went to trial, it would expose the fraudulent, counterfeit 1040.

Hummm, how the hell does that happen if the IRS form 1040's OMB of everybody is the same (1545-0074)? And how does that have any thing to with courts (unless it is about fiscal fraud but, then again, since the forms have the same number that's pretty stupid to advocate).

Quote:

They also must have known that a trial would expose the ongoing conspiracy between OMB and IRS to publish 1040 forms each year that those agencies knew were in violation of the PRA. That would raise the issue that the Form 1040, with its invalid control number, is being used by the Government to cover up the underlying constitutional tort -- that is, the enforcement of a direct, unapportioned tax on the labor of every working man, women and child in America

That is stupid. I already pointed out that the OMB is the same in the forms, so no violation of the PRA there and therefore, no discovery of some loltastic constitutional "tort". Also, the wording given to the IRS in the text you copy-pasted reeks of someone who doesn't want to pay taxes and comes up with silly theories to prove him/her right.

Quote:

The contention that paper money is illegal has been consistently rejected.

Wut? Paper money was invented in the 7th century in China, so the concept is more than a millenium older than the US itself, how the hell can it be illegal?!

Quote:

Congress has exercised this power by delegation to the federal reserve system. 12 U.S.C. section 411.Federal reserve notes are legal tender for all debts, including taxes. 31 U.S.C. section 392 [now 31 U.S.C. § 5103]; Milam v. U.S. 524 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1974). The United States Constitution, art. 1, section 10, 'prohibits the states from declaring legal tender anything other than gold or silver.

Oh, now I see why you would think paper money is illegal, but that is stupid. The Legal Tender Act of 1862 legalized the issuing of paper money due to the Civil War making only pure silver and gold coins the only legal tender pretty much inviable. And the Constitution allows it, Article I, section 8, clause 18:

Quote:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Article I, section 8, clause 8:

Quote:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

Since gold and silver coinage wasn't proper anymore, these two clauses give the Executive branch the power to have a law that allows the necessity of using paper money for the economy, crippled by the Civil War, to be back on its feet.

Quote:

THe movement has roots in Occupy walstreet, the Tea party( since most of this has to do with unfair taxation) the redemption movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemption_movement Sovereign citizens Movement and many other small groups are all lumped into a domestic terrorist group monitored by the FBI and persecuted by the IRS.

And the same wikipedia article says why the Redemption movement is being lumped with the criminal:

Quote:

The U.S. Internal Revenue Service has included the "straw man" claim in its list of frivolous positions that may result in the imposition of a $5,000 penalty when used as the basis for an inaccurate tax return.[5] Likewise the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) regards the instructors and promoters of Redemption schemes as fraudsters.[3]

And they're in their right to do so. These guys are using a conspiracy theory to evade taxes and do fraudulent businesses and that's illegal. You can't seriously expect the IRS and the FBI to pat in the back people who clearly are committing a felony just because.

So, will you stop trying necro'ing this failure of a theory?

Wait a minute, where does this address ZIP Codes at all, HR?!

Quote:

Actually, he is the one who implied it had an age requirement.
I implied it had a maturity requirement.

How do you even wake up in the morning knowing that you're such a filthy liar?!

**Miburo** · 12-21-2011, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

Actually, he is the one who implied it had an age requirement.
I implied it had a maturity requirement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

If you hate the "I don't really know anything" statement, it's because you are young enough that you just haven't lived long enough to have the majority of things that you not only deduced, but have been taught get changed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Google dictionary

1. The length of time that a person has lived or a thing has existed

Link

Yeah, nothing about age there. And by that I mean you specifically referred to age. But there is probably some special made-up rule you've got up your sleeve that you will use to justify your blatant dishonesty. Oh, I know, how about he directly challenged your opinion which magically makes his opinion an absolute truth which is bad according to your absolute truthful rules, while you only shared a totally antagonizing opinion, which is completely different, totally awesome, and a sign of true wisdom. That works, right?

ACt · 12-21-2011, 09:49 AM

^Pretty much what I would have written. But hey, age is just a number, right?

Anyway, the best reply to from the guy who likes debates is "hey, that's your opinion but that doesn't mean you are right" so I guess the only thing to point out is that "it doesn't make me wrong either" and leave it at that. I'll everyone else have a crack at psuedo-zen-philosophy-teflon man. I think I've made my point pretty, thoroughly. I really can't go any further with a guy who claims to be an idiot because he doesn't know anything thus nothing can be ruled out in a debate that by calling his entire philosophy bullshit (even providing some counter reasons of why) to receive such ambiguous, empty responses.

Substanceless arguments are not rebuttals. And since, by his own admission, he can't rule out that I'm 100% wrong, which means I must be right, to whatever extent, when means I win.

Victory!

ACt · 12-21-2011, 09:49 AM

Oh, and inb4 "that's your opinion".

almightywood · 12-21-2011, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo

Link

Yeah, nothing about age there. And by that I mean you specifically referred to age. But there is probably some special made-up rule you've got up your sleeve that you will use to justify your blatant dishonesty. Oh, I know, how about he directly challenged your opinion which magically makes his opinion an absolute truth which is bad according to your absolute truthful rules, while you only shared a totally antagonizing opinion, which is completely different, totally awesome, and a sign of true wisdom. That works, right?

You conveniently missed the line following that that said:

To think that there is any sort of permanence to the knowledge you currently possess is simply a failing of the youth, believe it or not.

Thereby IMPLYING that it was a maturity issue, not an age issue.

People mature as they age it's true so they are related, and one could easily mistake one for the other.

I have met people I would term young who are in their 40s, and I knew people who I would've called old in their 20s.

He's the one who turned into which one of us is older, hence changing it into an age thing.

I used it as level of life thing, he used it like a number thing.

Simple as that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACt

^Pretty much what I would have written. But hey, age is just a number, right?

Anyway, the best reply to from the guy who likes debates is "hey, that's your opinion but that doesn't mean you are right" so I guess the only thing to point out is that "it doesn't make me wrong either" and leave it at that. I'll everyone else have a crack at psuedo-zen-philosophy-teflon man. I think I've made my point pretty, thoroughly. I really can't go any further with a guy who claims to be an idiot because he doesn't know anything thus nothing can be ruled out in a debate that by calling his entire philosophy bullshit (even providing some counter reasons of why) to receive such ambiguous, empty responses.

Substanceless arguments are not rebuttals. And since, by his own admission, he can't rule out that I'm 100% wrong, which means I must be right, to whatever extent, when means I win.

Victory!

Oh whatever, by virtue of the very nature of my philosophy (or any other set of rules) I can completely tear apart anything that purposefully attempts to do the same to my beliefs (or me) and not be wrong.

It's pretty much the same thing as self defense clauses in the law.
It's illegal for you to pull a gun on me, but it's not illegal for me to pull a gun back on you.
That's, oh so hypocritical.

I can't even begin to fathom how you possibly think you weren't in the wrong to begin with when you went to tell me that my beliefs are wrong, since the only way you could prove that would be to completely prove they were absolutely impossible.

How many people have died over religion in this world, and you try and act like there is nothing at all taboo about beliefs.

If you were tell someone you disagree with their beliefs it would be one thing, but you don't do this, you flat out tell people they are wrong, which is why they aren't, and you are.

There is no possible way you could be right at this point unless there was no way you could be wrong. You are not discussing, you are not debating, you are only being rude if you don't have something more than an opinion to go on every single time you ever tell anybody they are wrong in their beliefs. Every person has THE RIGHT (a right is indisputable) to have their own beliefs respected.

Your stunning lack of respect has had me judge you to be lacking in character, as well of lacking in substance for refusing to address my actual points on my philosophy and instead resorting to this foolish trickery.

I bid good day to you sir, I am done talking to you.

ACt · 12-21-2011, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

I bid good day to you sir, I am done talking to you.

Promise? (Don't you love the holier than thou argument ends?)

Quote:

Oh whatever, by virtue of the very nature of my philosophy (or any other set of rules) I can completely tear apart anything that purposefully attempts to do the same to my beliefs (or me) and not be wrong.

It's pretty much the same thing as self defense clauses in the law.
That's, oh so hypocritical.

I can't even begin to fathom how you possibly think you couldn't be in the wrong to begin with when you go to tell someone their beliefs are wrong.

When did I state I didn't think I couldn't be in the wrong? Now who's putting arguments in other's mouths? What I state is I believe I'm correct. I can always be wrong (I think I stated that, too.)

Quote:

How many people have died over religion in this world, and you try and act like there is nothing at all taboo about beliefs.

Again, when did I begin believing this? I think there is a lot of danger and wrongness about beliefs. That's why I work to refute them (religion particularly) rather than just say "I can't refute anything because of the possibility it is correct."

Hey... I've heard that argument from someone. Who was it? Oh yeah, you.

Quote:

Your stunning lack of respect has had me judge you to be lacking in character as well of lack of substance for refusing to address my actual points on my philosophy and instead resorting to this foolish trickery.

I'll admit to using some stronger than normal language, but that was rather deliberate to try and get any sort of firm stance out of you, because you struck me as one of those pacifist arguers who would let anything bounce off of you and not respond directly to challenges. Overall, I think you've proven that. I have repeatedly attacked your "philosophy" and you've repeated rebuffed it without any true response. The closest thing I've gotten to a true discussion with you is your "you're young, once you've lived long enough you'll agree with me."

Guess what - I won't. The "subtraction of knowledge is bad" mantra you so half-heartedly defended earlier is a total antithesis to the life I work at in efforts to actually add knowledge to the world. What we remove as false is actual knowledge in that we know what is not going on. It is just as useful and true as knowing what is going on. Knowledge is gained for any aspect of experiment, even if it removes possibilities.

As for respect, that is earned. You haven't done anything to earn my respect but cling to unoriginal circular arguments and you can't help but contradict yourself while you tell me that you dislike proving anything wrong. That is enough to not care how roughly I deal with you. But don't worry, my character and substance is just fine.

And since this individual is done talking with me, does anyone, anyone at all, want to chime in on whether or not what I say has any substance? Even a shred of truth?

**Mal** · 12-21-2011, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

Oh whatever, by virtue of the very nature of my philosophy (or any other set of rules) I can completely tear apart anything that purposefully attempts to do the same to my beliefs (or me) and not be wrong.

Were your belief the common one, the growth of humanity would cease and no new knowledge would be gained. Feel free to tear that apart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

It's pretty much the same thing as self defense clauses in the law.
It's illegal for you to pull a gun on me, but it's not illegal for me to pull a gun back on you.
That's, oh so hypocritical.

So it's hypocritical to allow someone to defend themselves when threatened, but not allow someone to threaten people?

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

I can't even begin to fathom how you possibly think you weren't in the wrong to begin with when you went to tell me that my beliefs are wrong, since the only way you could prove that would be to completely prove they were absolutely impossible.

They aren't absolutely impossible, because the only thing that is absolutely impossible is definite proof through induction. However, your beliefs are improbable to the point that we'd may as well take them as impossible until further evidence suggest otherwise. The elimination of possibilities to discover the most probable cause is the single most important factor in the growth of humanity. Without deduction, we would be apes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

How many people have died over religion in this world, and you try and act like there is nothing at all taboo about beliefs.

But I thought everyone had the right to have their beliefs respected? What if my belief is that the Jews have invaded my rightful homeland and must be eliminated? Should all Jews be expected to voluntarily line up for the slaughter, out of respect for my belief?

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

If you were tell someone you disagree with their beliefs it would be one thing, but you don't do this, you flat out tell people they are wrong, which is why they aren't, and you are.

So, if I incorrectly believe that all flight is the result of magic fairy dust and happy thoughts, the physical world is suddenly altered so it becomes true simply because someone said two words to me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

There is no possible way you could be right at this point unless there was no way you could be wrong. You are not discussing, you are not debating, you are only being rude if you don't have something more than an opinion to go on every single time you ever tell anybody they are wrong in their beliefs. Every person has THE RIGHT (a right is indisputable) to have their own beliefs respected.

Each person has the right to hold their own beliefs, not to have those beliefs respected.

**Miburo** · 12-21-2011, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

You conveniently missed the line following that that said:

To think that there is any sort of permanence to the knowledge you currently possess is simply a failing of the youth, believe it or not.

Thereby IMPLYING that it was a maturity issue, not an age issue.

People mature as they age it's true so they are related, and one could easily mistake one for the other.

I have met people I would term young who are in their 40s, and I knew people who I would've called old in their 20s.

He's the one who turned into which one of us is older, hence changing it into an age thing.

I used it as level of life thing, he used it like a number thing.

Simple as that.

Actually, I simply conveniently read exactly what you posted. If you weren't talking about his age and meant maturity then you shouldn't have specifically talked about age. It's as simple as that.

Not that it even really matters, since attacking his maturity in that situation is equally as retarded as attacking his age. ACt was neither being immature, nor is he young.

Quote:

Oh whatever, by virtue of the very nature of my philosophy (or any other set of rules) I can completely tear apart anything that purposefully attempts to do the same to my beliefs (or me) and not be wrong.

It's pretty much the same thing as self defense clauses in the law.
It's illegal for you to pull a gun on me, but it's not illegal for me to pull a gun back on you.
That's, oh so hypocritical.

I can't even begin to fathom how you possibly think you weren't in the wrong to begin with when you went to tell me that my beliefs are wrong, since the only way you could prove that would be to completely prove they were absolutely impossible.

How many people have died over religion in this world, and you try and act like there is nothing at all taboo about beliefs.

If you were tell someone you disagree with their beliefs it would be one thing, but you don't do this, you flat out tell people they are wrong, which is why they aren't, and you are.

There is no possible way you could be right at this point unless there was no way you could be wrong. You are not discussing, you are not debating, you are only being rude if you don't have something more than an opinion to go on every single time you ever tell anybody they are wrong in their beliefs. Every person has THE RIGHT (a right is indisputable) to have their own beliefs respected.

Your stunning lack of respect has had me judge you to be lacking in character, as well of lacking in substance for refusing to address my actual points on my philosophy and instead resorting to this foolish trickery.

I bid good day to you sir, I am done talking to you.

Oh look. More made up rules.

Let me see if I follow. You making a statement = infallible opinion. A counter-argument = attack on your opinion, which is horrible and makes the person automatically wrong and disrespectful; analogous to assaulting a person and the denial of rights. Any counter-arguments you use against your opponents counter-arguments = self-defense and righteous.

I think it's official, (IN MY OPINION, which can only be challenged with ABSOLUTE TRUTH and must be respected since I have an indisputable right to have you respect my beliefs because you said so) you're the dumbest person on this forum. Quite the feat. Congratulations.

**Miburo** · 12-21-2011, 12:54 PM

This dude must have been the debate team's ACE.

"Objection! That's a counter-argument to my position. I win."

How do you beat that?!?

almightywood · 12-21-2011, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo

Actually, I simply conveniently read exactly what you posted. If you weren't talking about his age and meant maturity then you shouldn't have specifically talked about age. It's as simple as that.

Not that it even really matters, since attacking his maturity in that situation is equally as retarded as attacking his age. ACt was neither being immature, nor is he young.

Oh look. More made up rules.

Let me see if I follow. You making a statement = infallible opinion. A counter-argument = attack on your opinion, which is horrible and makes the person automatically wrong and disrespectful; analogous to assaulting a person and the denial of rights. Any counter-arguments you use against your opponents counter-arguments = self-defense and righteous.

I think it's official, (IN MY OPINION, which can only be challenged with ABSOLUTE TRUTH and must be respected since I have an indisputable right to have you respect my beliefs because you said so) you're the dumbest person on this forum. Quite the feat. Congratulations.

Oh whatever, quit pulling that stupid fucking trick out of your ass like it's actually logical.

By the very definition of it being a counter-argument (although counter-argument doesn't even fit since there was no argument on the other side, argument implies an attack as well) it is in fact an attack.
Whenever you use your opinion as an attack against someone you are no longer using it like an opinion. Someone's beliefs are never up for debate, only discussion, whether they are yours or mine, and there's no such thing as a counter-argument in a discussion.

How fucking hard is that to grasp?

So I am 100% correct due to defending myself to say you are moronic, deceitful, disrespectful, and completely wrong.

**Mal** · 12-21-2011, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

So I am 100% correct due to defending myself to say you are moronic, deceitful, disrespectful, and completely wrong.

You are attacking my belief that I am intelligent, honest, respectful and completely correct. You must be wrong.

almightywood · 12-21-2011, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

You are attacking my belief that I am intelligent, honest, respectful and completely correct. You must be wrong.

I never even addressed you, try again.

**Mal** · 12-21-2011, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

I never even addressed you, try again.

I share Miburo's beliefs, so they are mine as well. Try avoiding responding to me again.

almightywood · 12-21-2011, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mal

I share Miburo's beliefs, so they are mine as well. Try avoiding responding to me again.

Well in that case, since you are directly attacking me, I would be 100% correct by virtue of self defense to say that the words applied to you as well if I chose to.

Do you really think you can disprove the philosophy I base my life around with such a childish trick?

**Mal** · 12-21-2011, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by almightywood

Well in that case, since you are directly attacking me, I would be 100% correct by virtue of self defense to say that the words applied to you as well if I chose to.

Do you really think you can disprove the philosophy I base my life around with such a childish trick?

I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your beliefs.

I don't think basic logic is a "childish trick."

12-21-2011, 09:49 AM	#108
ACt Heart Wizard Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Halls of Irreverence Posts: 3,252 Thanks: 5,323 Thanked 18,680 Times in 4,845 Posts	Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties ^Pretty much what I would have written. But hey, age is just a number, right? Anyway, the best reply to from the guy who likes debates is "hey, that's your opinion but that doesn't mean you are right" so I guess the only thing to point out is that "it doesn't make me wrong either" and leave it at that. I'll everyone else have a crack at psuedo-zen-philosophy-teflon man. I think I've made my point pretty, thoroughly. I really can't go any further with a guy who claims to be an idiot because he doesn't know anything thus nothing can be ruled out in a debate that by calling his entire philosophy bullshit (even providing some counter reasons of why) to receive such ambiguous, empty responses. Substanceless arguments are not rebuttals. And since, by his own admission, he can't rule out that I'm 100% wrong, which means I must be right, to whatever extent, when means I win. Victory! __________________ It's amazing to me that, unlike in the real world, people on the internet will wear "everyone thinks I'm a moron" as a badge of honour.

12-21-2011, 09:49 AM	#109
ACt Heart Wizard Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Halls of Irreverence Posts: 3,252 Thanks: 5,323 Thanked 18,680 Times in 4,845 Posts	Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties Oh, and inb4 "that's your opinion". __________________ It's amazing to me that, unlike in the real world, people on the internet will wear "everyone thinks I'm a moron" as a badge of honour.

12-21-2011, 12:54 PM	#114
Miburo Deos Fortioribus Adesse Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Valhalla Posts: 3,543 Thanks: 34,417 Thanked 17,643 Times in 5,442 Posts	Re: Us government's trick to violate civil liberties This dude must have been the debate team's ACE. "Objection! That's a counter-argument to my position. I win." How do you beat that?!?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)