Comment: Unfulfilled promises are the routine?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I am enjoying speaking with you (see in situ)

Unfulfilled promises are the routine?

Where is the exception?

"But you are wrong on some pretty basic and fundamental points."

That looks like a promise by you to show me (the simpleton in your eyes) where I am being proven wrong. The problem with that promise (if it is one) is such that your claim is that you know what I think, based upon what I write, and the routine for me is that no such claim is even close to being valid. Then the routine goes on with error upon error based upon the original false claim whereby the person making the false claim has claimed to know what I think.

"... I am surprised that you argue against them."

I don't argue. My useful definition of an argument is a meeting of an aggressor who targets someone for some reason and what happens is an attempt by the aggressor to win some nebulous contest.

It takes two to tango. I don't.

"If you could state your point SUCCINCTLY, I would be happy to agree or disagree with it."

My point had to do with your claim concerning what you call "government" whereby people utilize threats and violence to get what they want from the people they target. The point that you miss, in my view, is the use of falsehood added to the use of threats and violence.

Your words:

"A mafia uses violence and the threat of violence to get what they want. Do you support that?"

So the answer to your latest question is: The point you missed was the point at which the people who perpetrate crime (with or without a badge) utilize falsehood, so that is the point that you miss, in my view, based upon what you wrote in quotes above.

Next is this:

"This is one point that I cannot believe you even try to argue."

I don't argue. What would be the point? You can always win, in your mind. I have no desire, whatsoever, to be used by you in such a manner.


Why do you personalize something that can be proven one way or the other way? Why do you decide to make a claim that I am in some way wrong? Either taxes are voluntary or taxes are not voluntary. I see no point in arguing, so what is your point in attempting to turn a discussion into an argument?

In every single case where someone voluntarily pays a tax, in each case, that proves the point that taxes are voluntary.

If you want to call a tax an involuntary payment, then you can do so, and who is to argue with your use of words?

Not me.

If any transfer of power is the result of a criminal using falsehood, threat, or violence upon an innocent targeted victim, or victims, then said transaction is a crime, not a tax, unless the "tax payer" wants to call it a tax, and unless the criminal wants to call it a tax, and then YOUR argument is YOURS not mine. I know what a crime is and I have no cause to call a crime anything other than a crime.

You and a whole army of fellows in agreement can call a crime anything you want, you all can call it a tax payment, if that floats your boat, but it has nothing to do with me, as I prefer to call a crime a crime, since a crime is a crime, defined by criminals as they define the meaning of crime, even if they call their crimes Fried Chicken, or tax payments, it remains to be crime, despite the false terminology.

"That is so laughable."

Ha ha, at my expense?

Is that the point of YOUR argument?

You have me in your sights, and you are making me pay your tax now?

"I think even grade schoolers understand that you would be fined, detained, and then imprisoned if you CHOSE NOT to pay your taxes."

I was a third grader once, and I have raised two of my own children, who went through third grade, and we three know what criminals are, even when they say they are demanding taxes, we know how that works, they have trouble getting their victims to pay when they are honestly claiming to be collecting their extortion payments.

Laugh all you want, at my expense, ha, ha, ha, isn't it so (expletive) funny?

I'm not laughing.

"If I am mistaken, and you don't think this, then correct me."

Arguments involve the person targeting me for their version of a "tax payment" (they get to laugh at my expense) so they, in this case you, tell me what I think. What happened this time? An exception to the rule? You ask what I think?

I think criminals perpetrate crimes, and one obvious version of crime is to call their crimes by other names. When the victims start using the other names too, then that is part of the conditioning, proof positive to me. What you think is your business, not mine.

What you write, on the other hand, is interesting enough for me to comment upon it, despite the obvious, measurable, costs to me personally, as you laugh at my expense, for example.

"But if you think paying taxes is something we HAVE A CHOICE on, you have to outline this; because I think that IT IS CLEARLY not true!"

In these so called arguments there is no demand for my outlines, as the person demanding the taxes (you in this case) find ways to make me look stupid, and then the tax collector (in this case you) get to laugh at the work done to me. How fun can it get?

Ha, ha, ha, isn't it so (expletive) funny?

"Taxation is theft." Do you disagree with this?

Case in point. I already outlined my viewpoint well enough. I can repeat, but for what reason, so you can laugh at me more?

Theft is theft. Falsehood is falsehood. Lies are lies. When the criminals steal they often call their actions names that make their actions less obvious. When the victims start using the false words, that measures something worth knowing, in my opinion.

"I believe most people on this board agree that taxation is theft."

Next you are going to inform me of what is, or is not, democracy according to you and your well conditioned mob?

'You would obviously say "you have no right to my earnings."'

You don't know me. I would ask if there was a good reason for me to transfer that economic power to my neighbor. I like my neighbors, they are good people.

"But if an IRS agent says..."

I think you mean the criminals, at least you are using symbols that accurately identify criminals, so I can respond to any criminal demand in the same way. If I can find a way to avoid paying an extortion payment to a criminal then I answer that demand in that way. I don't need to announce to you, or the fellow criminals, how I manage to avoid paying the extortion fee.

"Do IRS agents have "magical rights" that common people don't have?"

Criminals who know better know how to convince their victims that their victims have no choice, and the really good criminals convince their victims that the extortion payments are taxes, and in that way the victims no longer understand how defensive voluntary government works. Cases in point are abundant, even ubiquitous.

"And this seems so basic, I am surprised you argue against it."

Now that you have constructed someone arguing with you (not me by the way) you can laugh at how stupid your construction of your arguing partner is to you?

"Kidnapping is wrong, unless a man in a blue costume does it."

So far the promise of someone proving to me how wrong I am is non-existent.

If you don't "volunteer" to send your kids to public school, what do you think will happen?
If you don't "volunteer" to pay property taxes, what will happen?
If you don't "volunteer" to obey traffic postings, what will happen?
If you don't "volunteer" to show up for a court date, what will happen?
If you don't "volunteer" to pay for the military budget, what will happen?

You don't know me, yet you think you do, and you are the one laughing?

'I am not sure we are using the same definition for "voluntary."'

If I am a part of "we," then you can know, for sure, that we have not established the meaning of any words in any way whereby I agree, voluntarily, with the word in question.

If we can't agree on the word government, or tax, then I have no confidence at all in agreeing with the meaning of any words you may have to offer to me, voluntarily. When you claim to know the meaning of the words government and tax, despite my objections, that tells me that our discussion is not one, instead our discussion is you dictating to me the meaning of words. That may work for your entertainment at my expense, but for my part, this is no longer a voluntary association. This has become a defense on my part, as you resort to distortions of facts in the effort to gain at my expense.

Criminals are what criminals do.

And I cannot believe you are sincere with your message that "taxes and government are voluntary." You consider yourself qualified to serve in congress? And you can honestly say that "taxes are voluntary?"


Here is the place I am familiar with, having actually participated in so called debates where candidates, including me, spoke with potential "tax payers" and the level of ignorance was palpable.

Fewer "tax payers" actually "vote" as the lies unravel, those who still do are learning the hard way.

Perhaps you will too.