Is U.S. income tax invalid?

wait.....
no, I think it was more of a wince

I am not asking any questions

I deleted my previous post because, while I didn't see it, apparently it was some bad link to a nasty sex photo. I apologize to everyone. It was suppose to be a funny photo that told Tryagain that I did not understand a word she said to me.

Hey Joe, what do you think of THIS

I listened to the video and was not at all impressed. Have you seen the law that says murder is a crime. Have you seen the law that says stealing is a crime. Have you seen the law that says forgery or perjury is a crime. Of course the average public is going to say "no". I do not know many people who sit down at the law library and read law books.
Well, when people ask me how to cheat on taxes (not wheather to file or not- might just check out 86 S.E. 2d 672, 676), I tell them "it is your tax return so do whatever you like". Just remember you are the one signing it. A lot of you talk about the IRS as a thing. They are people. I should know I was an IRS employee. Do they track you down, yes they do. Do they take the items you own or prosecute you and make sure you go to Federal Prison, yes they do. Do they know about your whole life history. Yes, they do (most of it anyway). You would be surprised at how much they know. I was surprised at how much information they have on all of us. To be quite honest I like most of the people at the IRS. Contrary to belief, a lot of them are nice.

No worries here... even the crazies know alcohol, tobacco and firearms people have to pay. :wink: ...and that wasn't the fascinating part. You missed a ton of well timed pictures, questions and quotes and apparently the last half hour when they switch gears away from the IRS, which is the most interesting part of the film. Obviously you turned it off before you got there, I can see be the time.

I watched about thirty seconds of that video. In that short amount of time, I could already feel myself getting dumber. I want those thirty seconds of my life back.

Wuss. I've seen you endure worse than that and at worst; it was the best crockumentary I've ever seen.

Bill you keep promoting the last half of the film where he drifts off to talk about how people will have chips planted in them so the government can monitor their movements? Or he talks about how the US is becoming part of the North American Union.

Schiff and Schulz are making money off those nuts, why not Russo? For $19.95 you too can own the video. Or you could go spend $5 and get a copy of a much better film like Ishtar.

That is very good.

Well, it's a much better film than Yentl. (The one Bill linked to ... not Ishtar.)

Based on what critical analysis there Tico?

Which one makes better use of the slide show technique?

I will then take the time and watch the whole thing. Sorry, I get bored easily. No offense I hope. :wink:

Apparently you've not seen Yentl ... res ipsa loquitur.


I spent a week watching Yentl one evening.

You forgot to mention the chips placed in the cars that are manufactured.
The local dealerships have no access to these chips. I found that out about a year ago.

That is like saying, either Truth exists or Truth does not exist. Which is it and provide proof.

The natural question, before wild Bill introduced the theatrical element is this: What must one appeal to resolve the paradoxical historical conundrum.

It is the categorical formulation of the simultaneous, situational, instantiated contradiction, where deductive invalidity is the product of the utmost categorical truth of the assumption that if the antecedent of a true conditional is false, then the consequent of the conditional is true or false indifferently, and of the categorical falsehood of the conclusion consequently predicates that if it be not the case that the consequent of a true conditional is true or false indifferently, then, it is not the case that the antecedent of the conditional is false.

To pronounce the consequent of a true conditional as being true or false indifferently is tantamount to saying modally that where the antecedent of a true conditional is notoriously false, then the consequent can, or could be, or is possibly true or false. But it may be worthwhile to see that the definitive, simultaneous equality of both true, and false, can be formulated without explicitly including modal terms, which become the predicating operators, which, for the sake of showing that the consequent paradoxical conundrum is not straightforwardly resolvable by appealing to concrete philosophical scruples concerning the intentionality of predicated modal contexts.

Can ya'll not see that?

Huh? I have no idea as to the meaning of what you wrote.