If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Sure, Mississippi is getting lots of heat for only just now repealing slavery, but lots of States haven't ratified existing amendments. For example, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont and Utah never authorized the 16th amendment, so NO TAXES WOO-HOO   (npr.org) divider line 75
    More: Interesting, Rhode Island, Mississippi, Connecticut, Utah, 16th amendment, City College of New York, direct election, 36th state  
•       •       •

6386 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Feb 2013 at 2:54 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-21 05:32:40 PM

Wingchild: Amendments typically require ratification from 2/3rds of the states to become law.
If the 2/3rds margin has already been reached, why bother with the expense of holding a vote to further validate what's about to go forward?


While I don't necessarily disagree with your logic, that same argument could be used to justify not bothering to hold primaries in many states or bothering to count votes in many states during the election, or not bothering to count all of the votes on a bill in congress or whatever else.  While it is true that the states that vote late in the primaries have no control over the outcome, we still gain information by holding them there.  Just the same, while a specific congressman's vote may not make or break a bill, their vote still tells us valuable information (where they stand on an issue, for instance.)
 
2013-02-21 05:46:54 PM
I'm going to point out that the newspaper in question is so bad the West Wing had a whole episode subplot dedicated to how awful they are.

/They're like daily mail
//oh wait, this is fark
///carry on
 
2013-02-21 05:47:39 PM

seek3r: I'm going to point out that the newspaper in question is so bad the West Wing had a whole episode subplot dedicated to how awful they are.

/They're like daily mail
//oh wait, this is fark
///carry on


whelp, that was the wrong thread

/slashies?
 
2013-02-21 05:51:29 PM

dj1s: Krymson Tyde: Nabb1: vpb: Mississippi wasn't even a state when the 13th was ratified, so what's the point.

It was probably meant as a symbolic gesture in a good way, and of course it backfired because it reminded us all that Mississippi is still so, well, Mississippi.

Visit Alabama; at least we're not Mississippi.

HEY! Wait just a cotton pickin' minute!  That is Virginia's new slogan!  Well, to be fair our new slogan is: Virginia! at lest we are not Mississippi, but give us time!


Wouldn't West Virginia be a more likely comparison than Mississippi?
 
2013-02-21 05:56:44 PM

GORDON: Well...

Lots of people like to make generalizations about how stupid and backward the South is.

Thing is, we don't see the world as it is, we see the world as we are.


Based on the last 5 years of living in the south, I feel comfortable in saying no, it actually is stupid and backward
 
2013-02-21 06:10:13 PM
Rhode Island (Plantation, etc) seems to be a real pain here. Why not just get rid of the runt.
 
2013-02-21 06:16:30 PM

seek3r: seek3r: I'm going to point out that the newspaper in question is so bad the West Wing had a whole episode subplot dedicated to how awful they are.

/They're like daily mail
//oh wait, this is fark
///carry on

whelp, that was the wrong thread

/slashies?


Shoot, that sounds more interesting than this actual thread.  Where was that post supposed to go?  I wanna go read!
 
2013-02-21 06:18:33 PM
In fact, the Constitution as we know it today was an outgrowth of a fishing dispute between the mid-atlantic states...and was just as controversial back in the day as you'd think it would be today.
 
2013-02-21 06:19:57 PM

Nadie_AZ: First of all, comparing taxes to allowing someone the freedom to vote is like comparing apples to asteroids.

Second,

"Legislative calendars are crowded, and arguing over settled matters isn't a good use of time," says Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

And yet I see so many of these same groups trying to make abortion illegal, christianity the law of the land, making marijuana legal and on and on. What a stupid comment.


The continued legality of abortion is certainly not a settled matter. Furthermore, restrictions on access to it are fair game.
 
2013-02-21 06:47:24 PM

Nadie_AZ: And yet I see so many of these same groups trying to make abortion illegal, christianity the law of the land, making marijuana legal and on and on. What a stupid comment.


That last one had a foot in the door, now it's more like a leg. There are some abortion dog-whistle laws, like requiring something that would shut down most clinics, but no one has made it illegal at the state level. Christianity... I certainly hope their unstable magic friend and his "all in there somewhere" cherry-picked book does not become the law of the land.

And that's all I have to say about that.
 
2013-02-21 06:48:59 PM

Fear_and_Loathing: Rhode Island is either first or last in everything.


We're number "Not fah nutt'n"!
 
2013-02-21 07:31:49 PM
i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-02-21 07:58:13 PM

Special J: Surprised the de-taxing/sovereign citizen loonies haven't latched onto this.


Oh, they have, numerous times, and of course to no avail. This from the IRS is a more entertaining read than most of their documents. Section 1/D/5 is relevant to the thread. "I am not a 'person' as defined by the Internal Revenue Code'" is probably my favorite, though.

Page navigation there seems to be broken, but the .pdf is readable.
 
2013-02-21 08:09:14 PM
Taxes....amendment ratification....blah.

$2000 for the attorney that gets me back the $20k I spent on my ex to the IRS for her goddamn "I'ma protest the taxes and if you love me you'll do the same or else" shiat about 12 years ago when she decided to toy with her (as a payroll manager) W-2s and hide it from me....all part of a little "it was never ratified!" bullshiat a coworker fed her years ago.

not a csb

/y'all think I'm kidding?
//paid off this year
///now on to obama care
 
2013-02-21 08:12:05 PM

give me doughnuts: vpb: Mississippi wasn't even a state when the 13th was ratified, so what's the point.


Mississippi statehood: 1817

Civil War ends: June 1865

13th Amendment adopted: December 1865.


Mississippi readmitted to the union: Feb, 1870
 
2013-02-21 08:14:09 PM
Meh, its entirely moot anyway.  Nothing to see here.
 
2013-02-21 09:04:28 PM
Ratification of the 16th amendment seems to have a number of technical problems. Then again the supreme court also ruled it gave the federal government no new taxing powers.

The income tax comes down to the fact that the federal government has the guns and convinced most people that it is the law, and that's all it really takes for that is what law ultimately is. Belief and force.
 
2013-02-21 10:49:06 PM

leadmetal: Ratification of the 16th amendment seems to have a number of technical problems.


But it was nonetheless ratified. Please read this.

Then again the supreme court also ruled it gave the federal government no new taxing powers.

Either you know the problem with what you are saying and you are deliberately spreading misinformation, or you don't know the problem with what you are saying and you have been duped. Please read this.

The income tax comes down to the fact that the federal government has the guns and convinced most people that it is the law, and that's all it really takes for that is what law ultimately is. Belief and force.

You are simply wrong. Please read this.

There are some excellent policy arguments to be made that there shouldn't be a federal income tax, or that it should be structured very differently. Arguing that there isn't a federal income tax is simply delusional.
 
2013-02-22 01:36:57 AM
KickahaOta:
You are simply wrong. Please read this.

There are some excellent policy arguments to be made that there shouldn't be a federal income tax, or that it should be structured very differently. Arguing that there isn't a federal income tax is simply delusional.


Who argued there isn't one? Nice strawman you create. I stated there is one because people believe there is one. So, if you want someone to argue there isn't an income tax you'll need to find someone else.

And I am correct regarding such law, it is belief and force. If people believe there is tax on income and government has the force to make it so, there is a tax on income. Government itself is a creation of the mind, of belief. It requires people believe in it, fear it, consent to it. Your own link makes that clear, the 16th amendment is ratified because it was believed to be ratified.

For instance, I was once storing a car in my driveway. It was ticketed as 'abandoned' and 'inoperable'. The law clearly said 'abandoned' vehicles were on the city streets and the 'inoperable' law clearly stated that major parts such as engine, transmission, wheels, etc had to be missing. The car was in my driveway and fully operational. The 'judge' simply declared he knew the law. He had men with guns at his disposal. So thus, the car was inoperable and abandoned and the tickets stood. Most people believed that those laws applied to a parked car on private property and so they did. The actual text of the law was irrelevant. Yes, I know, CSB, but I have found this to be true in many instances. Law is what people believe it to be. Which is why the president can now kill anyone he likes by declaring them an enemy combatant first. law is belief plus force.

You seem to be of the mind that because government said so, such is. That's a belief. Government said they have this power, government said it was it ratified, that's all you're showing me. You believe government, and thus it exists. The fact that government is sloppy and doesn't often play by the rules it sets up for itself doesn't interest you. You have your belief. Your cite shows that government simply dismisses its own sloppiness as trivial and frivolous. Much like the 'judge' I faced. He declared he knew the law and dismissed my attempt to introduce the written law.

Furthermore your cite is clearly very biased when it has sections such as: "Paranoid (and Other) Delusions " and "Related (But Non-Tax) Lunacies " hardly the language of an unbiased reference but rather one by someone who believes. There are of course arguments by those who do not believe that are also well cited. Ultimately such cites are irrelevant to my argument, just and interesting aside.

If people in mass, say 75% of those still paying federal income taxes decided they no longer believed in the federal income tax and stopped paying, what then? Would the federal government throw tens of millions of people in prison? You got so wrapped up in your desire to defend your belief against a 'konspiracy kook' you missed the argument. It's not an argument of whether there is or isn't, but rather what law is. how the income tax actually exists.

The federal government, or IRS rather will always go after people who don't believe in the income tax and stop paying with a special vigor and punishment. It must maintain the belief that there is an income tax. If any of these people succeeded in spreading their belief the government people's way of life would be undermined. A tax cheat, someone who files, believes the tax exists, but merely cheats, is of comparatively little interest. Such people can go decades without even filing. Fake refund scammers get away with it every year. Again little vigor is shown compared to those who don't believe the income tax exists. The extra effort is shown for those who may undermine the belief system. Irwin Schiff sits in prison because he attacked the belief system. Had he merely been a tax cheat he would have paid penalties and gone free ages ago.

Even your own reaction and the cite you give shows the vigor in which the belief must be maintained. That the belief in the income tax is most important. As to the meaning I got from what your wrote, one can argue against an income tax but to not believe in it is not acceptable. Those who show signs of disbelief must be socially corrected, demeaned, and ridiculed. That is due to the nature of what law really is.

Law is what it is believed to be. Nothing more. Force keeps non believers visibly compliant. So law is belief and force. Without belief, without consent, a government can dissolve over night.
 
2013-02-22 02:41:37 AM
That's quite a straw you've found to grasp at -- you reject a site comprehensively refuting your arguments, complete with cites to the relevant court decisions, because it comes from "someone who believes"?

You seem to be in a closed loop of conspiracy theory, where evidence refuting the conspiracy becomes further proof of the conspiracy. In any case, we've both made our points.
 
2013-02-22 04:04:52 AM

leadmetal: KickahaOta:
You are simply wrong. Please read this.

There are some excellent policy arguments to be made that there shouldn't be a federal income tax, or that it should be structured very differently. Arguing that there isn't a federal income tax is simply delusional.

Who argued there isn't one? Nice strawman you create. I stated there is one because people believe there is one. So, if you want someone to argue there isn't an income tax you'll need to find someone else.

And I am correct regarding such law, it is belief and force. If people believe there is tax on income and government has the force to make it so, there is a tax on income. Government itself is a creation of the mind, of belief. It requires people believe in it, fear it, consent to it. Your own link makes that clear, the 16th amendment is ratified because it was believed to be ratified.

For instance, I was once storing a car in my driveway. It was ticketed as 'abandoned' and 'inoperable'. The law clearly said 'abandoned' vehicles were on the city streets and the 'inoperable' law clearly stated that major parts such as engine, transmission, wheels, etc had to be missing. The car was in my driveway and fully operational. The 'judge' simply declared he knew the law. He had men with guns at his disposal. So thus, the car was inoperable and abandoned and the tickets stood. Most people believed that those laws applied to a parked car on private property and so they did. The actual text of the law was irrelevant. Yes, I know, CSB, but I have found this to be true in many instances. Law is what people believe it to be. Which is why the president can now kill anyone he likes by declaring them an enemy combatant first. law is belief plus force.

You seem to be of the mind that because government said so, such is. That's a belief. Government said they have this power, government said it was it ratified, that's all you're showing me. You believe government, and thus it exists. The fact that government is slop ...


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-22 04:07:44 AM

Nabb1: Gosling: 27th (banning Congress from giving itself a pay raise during the current term)

That one actually has a rather interesting history.  It was part of the package of the first Amendments submitted to Congress containing the Bill of Rights, but it took two centuries to get 2/3 of the states to ratify it.  Some state would ratify, then more states would join the Union, and it just stayed out there until it finally made the cut back in the 1990's.




"A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States)."
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/
 
2013-02-22 09:04:05 AM

Donnchadha: JustMatt: Fear_and_Loathing: Rhode Island is either first or last in everything.

But never first at anything good...

/Rhode Islander

Rhode Island -- It's not the size that matters!


Yeah, you keep telling yourself that while we gang-bang your wife and daughters.
 
2013-02-22 09:04:47 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Nabb1: Gosling: 27th (banning Congress from giving itself a pay raise during the current term)

That one actually has a rather interesting history.  It was part of the package of the first Amendments submitted to Congress containing the Bill of Rights, but it took two centuries to get 2/3 of the states to ratify it.  Some state would ratify, then more states would join the Union, and it just stayed out there until it finally made the cut back in the 1990's.

"A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States)."
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/


Look, this is FARK.
Logic has no place here.
 
2013-02-22 12:31:35 PM
Ratifying a Law?
Not ratifying a Law?

Means nothing to Washington. They're gonna rule you 'til you get saddle sores, then sell you for horse meat.

Thanks, Abe Lincoln
 
Displayed 25 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report