See other Resistance Articles
Title: Watching Neil Cavuto at the Sacramento Tea Party
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 15, 2009
Author: .
Post Date: 2009-04-15 16:31:27 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 1820
Comments: 156
There are $5k+ in attendance. Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, Libertarians. All are saying that this is not about partisan politics. Folks are united and fed up with fed spending!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-95) not displayed.
.
.
.
#96. To: christine (#94)
i met dickstein and he was a nice guy but this is not the one i asked. yeah it was one of the other ones who make the speaking circuit. here he was outside talking with my friend Pete who blew his brains out later the same year after the irs came after him for 15k,, went to his work and froze his bank account. I wish i had gotten a photo of them together. Glory to God in the highest, and Peace to His people on Earth. I think most of them would resign before they would allow some peon to present his case to a fully-informed jury. And you know the government persecutors don't want that because their conviction rates would plummet.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. You're not referring to me are you, Moonie? You of "IT FELL NEAR FREE FALL SPEED SO IT HAD TO BE CONTROLLED DEMOLITION" and "BECAUSE IT DID NOT FALL AT NEAR FREE FALL SPEED IT PROVES IT WAS CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!" Quick...post some insane list that has absolutely no bearing on the discussion in an effort to deflect from your own stupidity.
Most third party candidates were not even allowed on the ballots in many states especially the larger states. California only allowed four candidates to even be wrote in, and Ron Paul was one of the four. But most Cal voters did not realize it due to the media blockade. They did just as bad in states where they were allowed on the ballot. The first step at correcting a problem is correctly assessing the situation. Pretending there is some huge conservative constitutionalist movement when none exists means you will never accomplish anything. The average conservative would vote for hitler before Ron Paul. They hate liberty with a passion.
Aw c'mon give a poor hard working minimum wage shill a break. Poor Whore got chewed up so they had to send in the second string. I prefer the term middle reliever. Seriously though conservatives love big government as long as a fake evangelical with an R beside his name is in charge. That may mean you aren't a conservative but then you stop calling yourself one. Everyone but True Conservatives defines conservatives as war mongering liberty hating, taxing cutting, faux moral crusaders. At this point you guys are the marxists who claim the Soviet Union wasn't really communism.
The men in white jackets are on the way; sit tight there kid.
Insult with no argument is basically an admission of defeat.
I'm not playing, kid.
I'd love to call myself a conservative, but the idiots you reference make me ashamed to be aligned with them. That's why I call myself a Constitutional conservative these days, I need some elbow-room between myself and the Pat Robertson/Hagee/Bill Kristol/Sean Hannity crowd. P.S. You're a great American, my friend ;-)
_________________________________________________________________________ How about a Constitutional Independent?
I'd love to call myself a conservative, but the idiots you reference make me ashamed to be aligned with them. That's why I call myself a Constitutional conservative these days, I need some elbow-room between myself and the Pat Robertson/Hagee/Bill Kristol/Sean Hannity crowd. I wouldn't even call yourself Constitutional Conservative, just Constitutionalists or something like that. Conservative means to most people, diehard republican.
Really? Because it sure looks like you are.
You watch too much porn. How much is enough ? Your mileage will vary.
I stopped referring to myself as a "conservative" years ago. If I choose any label it is a Paleocon/Paleolibertarian Constitutionalist. However, I have friends across the political spectrum from Republican Activists to Hand Wringing Naderites. I just try to confound them by forcing them to think and look. They find it most annoying. It is so much easier to slip into the label game and say "I'm an X" and so therefore "I MUST" believe "Y" and adhere to that even if it sometimes makes my stomach turn because I just know the other guys are evil". My patrilineal ancestors were settled and long established (more than a century) before the Revolutionary War (my Indian ancestors were here a "bit" before that). True conservatives find most of those who call themselves conservatives to be repugnant to the very beliefs they claim they espouse. The attempt to characterize them as you delineate is a result of the ongoing campaign of propaganda and psychological manipulation which is conducted in the media. You simply prove yourself a shill or very thoroughly indoctrinated and unthinking individual by repeating the drumbeat of media programming. It is exactly like the Dildoeheads who slavishly hang on every belch and tag line uttered by the Maha Junkie, Sean Vannity, Neil BOORtz, Michael Deadved, et. al., .... The words may be different but the song remains the same. Conservatism, true conservatism, is a philosophy arrived at by thought and contemplation - through careful examination and a thoughtful weighing of alternatives. It is not the kneejerk PsyOp conditioned reactions of those who are disinformed and programmed by mass media. The truth be known conservatives, true conservatives, are scary to our would-be slave masters. However the problem with true conservatives is that they are conservative and thus are afraid of any change or difference which is why I am not either a conservative or a Neo-Socialist (aka "liberal"). Both are fixated upon a viewpoint that is the result of mass manipulation via some very sophisticated social programming. Read my tag line newly and in a new unit of time. Both mainstream conservatism and liberalism are fixated upon materialist solutions to spiritual problems. You don't fix a lost soul with modern military hardware or by supporting them at someone else's expense. Oh, and what is wrong with tax cuts? Do you believe that people do not have the right to the produce of their own labor? It wasn't. At least not as that welfare queen Karl Marx and his Plutocratic "Patron" Friedrich Engels theorized. Communism as practiced in the Soviet Union and in China are just another form of total state wherein the State is All and the individual nothing. Of course to a certain low and diseased mindset individualism is a bad thing. "Of course the State has the right to direct your life, control your activities, and keep you in bondage." After all isn't that what states are for? I am minded of H. L. Mencken's commentary on liberals: "I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
You watch too much porn. How much is enough ? Your mileage will vary. That is a pretty bizarre comment.
I'm trying to sink down to your level for a spell to better understand how you could be so fucked up. ;-)
Bzzzzzzzzzzz. Swat!
"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
I ALWAYS LOVED THAT ONE
And my point is that they, like you, should stop calling themselves conservatives, and should stop consorting with them. This entire line of debate started because I called conservatives hypocrites and a small gov paleo took offense. If you guys don't want to get lumped in with GOPbots, stop lumping yourself in with GOPbots. There is no such thing as the one conservative philosophy, which is kind of my point. Conservative gets redefined at least once a generation. That is unless you mean the literal definition, one who wants society to remain the same. In which case almost nobody who calls themselves conservatives are. Tax cuts aren't possible without spending cuts. And about 2/3% of our discretionary budget is spent on war, military and paying off other countries. Most people at these rallies, the GOP style conservatives refuse to cut defense, one penny. And in fact claim we should be spending more, fighting more wars. Large tax cuts are impossible with gutting the US military, or ending all entitlement programs. And even then we'd all just stop paying the 8% SS + MC tax. A right to all of it? No. Taxation should be fair, but clearly the Constitution allows for taxation. Your problem is you define "directing" your life, and controlling activities as anything beyond the level of control you call for, then demonize. The path between total anarchy and total tyranny is continuous. You pretend it is binary. What level of taxation is tyrannical?
I'm trying to sink down to your level for a spell to better understand how you could be so fucked up. ;-) I imagine only remembering the Clinton and Bush administrations is a trauma that you can't completely recreate.
Specifically what does it allow for ?
Sure it does and no one said otherwise. The problem comes when the government bastardizes the English language to extract a tax on an item most people never had and never will have ("income"). Properly understood, the word means "the profit or gain derived from an investment or from engaging in some type of privileged activity." No one who works for wages or a salary in an occupation of common right has ever had any income, at least not from their job.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Bingo! We have a winner.
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.* No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. 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 income tax would be unconstitutional before the 16th amendment but now is legal.
Thank you kindly.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Sure it is, or would be if it were lawfully applied. It isn't in most cases.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Well I don't think its organized, more like the business class all belief in the same economic and political theory, and buy off the political class. But basically I agree. A defacto cabal.
Your problem is your attempt to misdefine the beliefs of others through your own ideological prism. I define directing my life as any attempt by an over arching authority to direct my individual non-threatening of another behavior i.e., my likes, dislikes, or activities. It is not the province of a government of a free people to intrude and micromanage the affairs and activities of the free citizenry. Any amount beyond that needed to pay for the necessaries of a free society i.e., Courts, Coinage, and defense against aggression by other states - at the federal level, and at the State and local level you could add legitimate public safety (Fire and Police), sanitation (including potable water), and roads. Taxation becomes tyrannical when it becomes so suppressive that a formerly free citizenry MUST perform and conform to taxation which impedes their exercise of their natural liberty and/or is used for any purpose other than necessaries as previously defined. Taxation is tyrannical when tax laws are used to force others to conform to standards imposed by another, or for the benefit of another able bodied individual. It is NEVER justified to support a private for profit enterprise. It is tyrannical when it becomes so high, through graft and corruption - as it now is, that it threatens the survival of the individual to support unjustified activities by the State.
"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Your argument is semantics and to tell you the truth I don't even think the semantics argument hold, but it doesn't matter. The original intent of the 16th amendment was to authorize wage, capital gains, property gain and profit taxes. There was an income tax on wages, that was called an income tax, before the amendment was even written.
Your argument is semantics and to tell you the truth I don't even think the semantics argument hold, but it doesn't matter. The original intent of the 16th amendment was to authorize wage, capital gains, property gain and profit taxes. There was an income tax on wages, that was called an income tax, before the amendment was even written. However, no income tax was authorized or written into the original Constitution of the United States. The 16th amendment which purports to authorize such taxation, by the accumulating weight of evidence, was never legally ratified under that Constitution and was imposed by dictat - illegally so. However, one cannot get an honest hearing on the matter in any of the corrupt courts of the land. The "We the People" Foundation has proven this as they have been rebuffed at all levels of government - including the Congress which first agreed to accept the matter under the right of petition but then deleted it from the calendar and will not accept any consideration of it regardless of weight of evidence. Further, unknown to most people, the IRS is not a Government Agency but a Private Corporation. The sole function of the "Income" Tax, semantics aside, is to fund the Feral Reserve and pay off the Banksters who have assumed control of our government.
"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
I've heard this claimed but as far as I can tell it was ratified by 42/48 states. The IRS is a federal agency that is part of the Department of the Treasury.
That is a yes and no. Philander Knox's words were not that it had been ratified but that it "was in effect". To be validly ratified it has to be passed in the State Legislatures exactly as written and presented. Several states modified the wording to suit their own preferences, and one (Tennessee if I recall) passed a measure stating the exact opposite but was counted as one of the states that ratified. There were other irregularities which memory fails me on, but it has all been documented with court certified documents. There are assertions by interested parties who benefit that it was ratified but the evidence suggests strongly that it fell short of the required 3/4 of the states. Guess again buckwheat. Although the IRS uses Treasury Dept. Letterhead it is not legally a part of the Treasury Department. A very interesting court case illustrated this last year. The IRS brought up a failure to file charge on a gentleman for not filing. When the Defense presented their brief the Government withdrew its case, WITH PREJUDICE meaning that it cannot again be reopened. Why? The Defense's argument rested solely on the point that in order to be required to file all government forms, per the Paperwork Reduction Act, must have a valid OMB control number justifying why the information is required. The law applies only to Federal Government Agencies and you must be a government agency to be able to get a valid OMB number. The current IRS 1040 DOES NOT have a valid OMB number. It has an OMB number on it but it is not valid and is thus a fraudulent misrepresentatation as was illustrated by the haste with which the government withdrew their case. (Edited to provide a more easily readable form: Data on the Lear Case
"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Is there a version with paragraph formatting? Thank you.
Fixed - I was able to find a better, original, copy on the "We The People" Foundation Web Site.
"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Thank you - these old eyes need all the help that they can get.
You are most welcome. I wasn't happy with the original reference either.
"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
The 16th amendment which purports to authorize such taxation, by the accumulating weight of evidence, was never legally ratified under that Constitution and was imposed by dictat - illegally so. However, one cannot get an honest hearing on the matter in any of the corrupt courts of the land. The "We the People" Foundation has proven this as they have been rebuffed at all levels of government - including the Congress which first agreed to accept the matter under the right of petition but then deleted it from the calendar and will not accept any consideration of it regardless of weight of evidence. Further, unknown to most people, the IRS is not a Government Agency but a Private Corporation. The sole function of the "Income" Tax, semantics aside, is to fund the Feral Reserve and pay off the Banksters who have assumed control of our government. Let me know if the 'roo learns anything.
All arguments are "semantics." You sound a lot like the establishments "judges" who have no idea what words mean. Only what they have been told by someone even dumber than they are.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Comments (136 - 156) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#97. To: lodwick (#95)
Judges, and the rest of our current system, DO NOT WANT a fully-informed jury to be impaneled.
Lord Acton
#98. To: Original_Intent (#84)
Poor Whore got chewed up so they had to send in the second string.
#99. To: mininggold (#83)
#100. To: Original_Intent (#84)
#101. To: Rhino369 (#100)
At this point you guys are the marxists who claim the Soviet Union wasn't really communism.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams 
#102. To: Rotara (#101)
The men in white jackets are on the way; sit tight there kid.
#103. To: Rhino369 (#102)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#104. To: Rhino369 (#100)
(Edited)
Seriously though conservatives love big government as long as a fake evangelical with an R beside his name is in charge.
"This man is Jesus,” shouted one man, spilling his Guinness as Barack Obama began his inaugural address. “When will he come to Kenya to save us?”
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#105. To: X-15 (#104)
#106. To: X-15 (#104)
#107. To: Rotara (#103)
I'm not playing, kid.
#108. To: Rhino369 (#107)
Because it sure looks like you are.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#109. To: Rhino369 (#100)
(Edited)
Seriously though conservatives love big government as long as a fake evangelical with an R beside his name is in charge. That may mean you aren't a conservative but then you stop calling yourself one.
Everyone but True Conservatives defines conservatives as war mongering liberty hating, taxing cutting, faux moral crusaders.
At this point you guys are the marxists who claim the Soviet Union wasn't really communism.
"The believing mind reaches its perihelion in the so-called Liberals. They believe each and every quack who sets up his booth on the fairgrounds, including the Communists. The Communists have some talents too, but they always stop short of believing in the Liberals." ~
(H. L. Mencken, "A Book Of Burlesques", reprinted in "A Mencken Chrestomathy", 1949, p. 616)
#110. To: Rotara (#108)
#111. To: Rhino369 (#110)
That is a pretty bizarre comment.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#112. To: war (#98)
#113. To: Original_Intent (#109)
Dildoeheads
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#114. To: Original_Intent (#109)
True conservatives find most of those who call themselves conservatives to be repugnant to the very beliefs they claim they espouse.
Conservatism, true conservatism, is a philosophy arrived at by thought and contemplation - through careful examination and a thoughtful weighing of alternatives.
Oh, and what is wrong with tax cuts?
Do you believe that people do not have the right to the produce of their own labor?
Of course to a certain low and diseased mindset individualism is a bad thing. "Of course the State has the right to direct your life, control your activities, and keep you in bondage." After all isn't that what states are for?
#115. To: Rotara (#111)
#116. To: Rhino369 (#114)
Taxation should be fair, but clearly the Constitution allows for taxation.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#117. To: Rhino369 (#115)
It's all one big illegal administration run by the cabal.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#118. To: Rhino369 (#114)
A right to all of it? No. Taxation should be fair, but clearly the Constitution allows for taxation.
Lord Acton
#119. To: James Deffenbach, wage earners here (#118)
No one who works for wages or a salary in an occupation of common right has ever had any income, at least not from their job.
#120. To: Rotara (#116)
(Edited)
Specifically what does it allow for ?
#121. To: lodwick (#119)
Lord Acton
#122. To: Rhino369 (#120)
*The income tax would be unconstitutional before the 16th amendment but now is.
Lord Acton
#123. To: Rotara (#117)
It's all one big illegal administration run by the cabal.
#124. To: Rhino369 (#114)
Your problem is you define "directing" your life, and controlling activities as anything beyond the level of control you call for, then demonize. The path between total anarchy and total tyranny is continuous. You pretend it is binary.
What level of taxation is tyrannical?
#125. To: James Deffenbach (#118)
Sure it does and no one said otherwise. The problem comes when the government bastardizes the English language to extract a tax on an item most people never had and never will have ("income"). Properly understood, the word means "the profit or gain derived from an investment or from engaging in some type of privileged activity." No one who works for wages or a salary in an occupation of common right has ever had any income, at least not from their job.
#126. To: Rhino369, James Deffenbach, Rotara, all (#125)
Sure it does and no one said otherwise. The problem comes when the government bastardizes the English language to extract a tax on an item most people never had and never will have ("income"). Properly understood, the word means "the profit or gain derived from an investment or from engaging in some type of privileged activity." No one who works for wages or a salary in an occupation of common right has ever had any income, at least not from their job.
#127. To: Original_Intent (#126)
by the accumulating weight of evidence, was never legally ratified under that Constitution and was imposed by dictat - illegally so
Further, unknown to most people, the IRS is not a Government Agency but a Private Corporation.
#128. To: Rhino369 (#127)
(Edited)
I've heard this claimed but as far as I can tell it was ratified by 42/48 states.
Further, unknown to most people, the IRS is not a Government Agency but a Private Corporation.
The IRS is a federal agency that is part of the Department of the Treasury.
#129. To: Original_Intent (#128)
#130. To: lodwick (#129)
#131. To: Original_Intent (#130)
#132. To: lodwick (#131)
#133. To: Original_Intent (#126)
However, no income tax was authorized or written into the original Constitution of the United States.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#134. To: Original_Intent (#128)
Bravo !
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#135. To: Rhino369 (#125)
Your argument is semantics and to tell you the truth I don't even think the semantics argument hold, but it doesn't matter. The original intent of the 16th amendment was to authorize wage, capital gains, property gain and profit taxes. There was an income tax on wages, that was called an income tax, before the amendment was even written.
Lord Acton
.
.
.