Can BITCOINs Defeat IRS Tax Thieves?

[Pottapaug1938]

The short answer to BobHurt's long-winded unadulterated equine effluent rant: we say what we say because what we say is backed up years of settled legal precedent. What you say is backed up by Charles P. Pierce's Third Great Premise of Idiot America: "Fact is that which enough people believe, Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it." You fervently believe that tax denialists lose in court, time after time after time, because the judges and attorneys invloved are wrong on the law but are too corrupt to admit it. Instead of examining the evidence to arrive at a conclusion about income taxation, you start with your desired premise and then cast around desperately for evidence which seemes to support it. The "truth", as you perceive it, is just so obvious to you that you cannot comprehend the possibility that it is you who are wrong; and the fact that the courts consistently rule against the positions that you espouse can only be explained, in your mind, as the result of a malevolent and corrupt conspiracy. You cling to your legal fantasies like a drowning man clings to a life raft, because by doing so you are able to pretend that you are a Warrior for a Noble Cause -- when in fact the only people who take you seriously are deluded fools like yourself.

[bobhurt]

Yes, Fawkes, the movie icon in the mask, was a terrorist. The corrupt Government hated him. You did see the movie, right? He struck a symbolic and expensive blow against that government. The film swept through the patriot communities of the land like wildfire. It ignited waves of protest against malfeasance and injustice in courts. Did you see images of the rally in Washington that Bob Shulz's We The People Foundation sponsored? Hundreds stood silent in those Guy Fawkes outfits, including the masks, right near the White House. Why? Many people feel so angry about the injustice in courts that they want to see a blow struck against it sufficiently to wake up the rest of America to protest and take whatever action they must to bring about improvement.

This income tax dispute constitutes a case in point. None of your scathing, scorching, excoriating derisions of tax protesters can change the reality of the truths in their dispute. Sure, first and foremost the bulk of them simply don't want to pay income tax because it seems immoral to tax productivity instead of consumption while deficit spending destroys savings, imposing an unlegislated back-end tax on wages and savings, and making income tax obsolete.

Surely you've seen gold jump to $1895 and silver to $44 an ounce because of the world's collapsing confidence in the fiat Federal Reserve Note dollar. Does that not justify protest? And surely you've read of the $16 Trillion the FED lent to foreign and domestic banks since 2007 to shore them up and bail them out while they steal their publics blind through crooked foreclosures caused by their predatory lending over the past decade and more. That has had the same effect as Conan the Barbarian storming into every town with his marauders to pillage and plunder. The banking marauders have ended up with that wealth, and government has helped every step of the way. Does that not justify protest, Guy Fawkes style?

The BITCOIN transactions are kids playing soccer by comparison to what government and big money malfeasances have justified. BITCOIN still boils down not merely to a protest, but also to people privately engaging in commerce with one another. And because it sidesteps the control freaks in government and big money, I support its use wholeheartedly.

Bottom line, NO, I don't want to witness the destruction of the national capitol building where Congress does its good and its bad work. I want Congress to stop doing bad. But if destruction of that building would move Congress to eliminate their bad actions, I might start selling tickets to the event. As happened in the 1770's, people might someday stop jabbering and start taking EFFECTIVE political action, even to the point of using the threat of physical force to fix America's debt problem and judicial oligarchy problem, and hey, for good measure, its problem electing illegal aliens into the Presidency. And by the way, a million man march on Washington, a Guy Fawkes mob at the White House, and a mob showing up at the polls to vote ALL constitute threats of physical force.

In the end, government is all about threatened or actual physical force, both the putting of people into power, tolerating their use of that power, and removing them from power. And all governments tend to outlaw the use of physical force in effecting change in government. But note these two prime examples of the importance of keeping the engine of the populace's physical force in good running condition:

From the Florida Constitution of 1838:

ARTICLE I.

Declaration of Rights.

That the great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:

Section 1. That all freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal; and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation; and of pursuing their own happiness.

Section 2. That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and established for their benefit; and, therefore, they have, at all times, an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may deem expedient.

Note Section 2's use of the terms inalienable and indefeasible, meaning no one can take the right, and no one can waive, yield, or give up the right. And focus on these crystal clear words from the above excerpt:

alter or abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may deem expedient

A group of guys somewhat like us wrote that, agonizing over the choice of words to express their passionate yearning for a government of honesty and integrity, and their insistence on the right to use any means of their choice to change or remove a government that did not live up to those standards. Guess what, Quatloosians? The people of Florida still have that right because they can't waive or surrender it, and no one can take it away, even though the legislators struck that provision from the Constitution at the behest of Federal Marshals during Reconstruction.

From the Declaration of Independence of 1776

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Take note of these words from that excerpt:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

They should look familiar to you because you saw them from the Florida Constitution of 1838. Legislators way back them surely adopted those Florida Constitution words from the Declaration of Independence crafted 62 years earlier. So you have two proof sources from founding documents corroborating my assertion that Guy Fawkes' destruction of the Palace of Westminster, while physically forceful and terrifying, constituted a legitimate means of altering government, regardless of whether the effort, in which he died, failed.

Of course you could argue that if he failed to bring about the change then his actions must have constituted a violation of law. Quatloosians, it goes with our saying that if you lose, the law goes against you and if you win it goes for you. So the key becomes making a successful effort, one that doesn't kill you and your cadres in the process. If you, as attorneys, want to denounce the concept and take no effort, well, then, as I wrote earlier, you are cowards, no matter how pragmatic, and you deserve the corrupt government you have, by your unpatriotic indolence, wrought.

You should note that I have promoted what I consider the only real solution to corrupt government and patriotically indolent lawyers: going out two by two to minister to people in neighborhoods, helping them selflessly and lovingly with their problems, and encouraging them to learn the law and ideals of good government and become legally and politically active to make our governments what they should be.

I did not promote mindless destruction of government business, even though I acknowledge it as a constitutionally and legally sound means of altering or abolishing government. That might scare the crooks in government but it won't change their characters. The People need to replace those crooks with governors having intelligence, knowledge, and honor. They need a broad field of applicants from which to choose. In order to improve that field, they need to nurture families in communities so they will apply sound principles of economics and relationship building to procreate and rear healthy, sane, strong, humane, intelligent, increasingly knowledgeable children of initiative. For THAT reason I promote the two by two program for everybody, ESPECIALLY Quatloosians.

Thank you for the opportunity to interact and respond.

[LPC]

Yes, Fawkes, the movie icon in the mask, was a terrorist. The corrupt Government hated him. You did see the movie, right?

The *movie* was based on a comic book, not historical events. The *real* Guy Fawkes did not wear a mask, and the movie ("V for Vendetta") was not about him.

You are a legal, cultural, literary, and historical moron.

[Cathulhu]

Bob, you poor little Hurt thing...brevity is the soul of wit. If you had anything worth saying, it's smothered under the blah, blah, blah boring crap. That's why I don't bother with you.

Bored now! Think I'll go get a pedicure.

[Duke2Earl]

Bob,

Here's the real deal. Nobody here cares what you think. What we do care about is predicability. We can predict with 100% certainty what will happen if you do go down the road that you have convinced yourself is correct. We know with 100% certainty that the people who actually matter, who have the right to send you to jail, or make your life hell do not agree with you. We know with 100% certainty that you are actually wrong... why?... because generations of courts have said so. We know with 100% certainty that if a person wants to make the choices you have made and continue to make they will give up the chance to have anything resembling a normal prosperous life. I am sorry but we simply do not want to tilt at that windmill while you obviously do.

What we are here for is not even so much to explain in detail why you are wrong because that is obviously a waste of breath and electrons. While I and the vast majority of the world know that you are simply wrong, there is clearly no power on earth that could convince you. So what many here do is try to make sure that people who are flirting with the choice to give up normal lives for a life of a losing underground war with the powers that be do it with open eyes. They need to understand that they will spend their whole life, their money, their family and their ability to live in peace and accomplish nothing but live every day with the frustration you so obviously have.

Bob, you have wasted your life and accomplished exactly nothing. Don't waste the lives of others.

[bobhurt]

Pottapaug:

what we say is backed up years of settled legal precedent.

I only partially believe you. Much of what Quatloosians say constitutes hateful diatribe intended to injure and embarrass, not educate. The malevolence in your remarks constitute a classic example. You often write in generalities, a tactic of suppression that reveals an intention to malign, not heal. Furthermore, you in your strident denunciation of my comments, merely proved my point.

You fervently believe that tax denialists lose in court, time after time after time, because the judges and attorneys invloved are wrong on the law but are too corrupt to admit it.

Not really. I believe most lose because they are dumbasses who want to fight a losing battle against case law COMBINED with the IRS/DOJ ability to use dirty tricks and to suborn both judge and jury.

I saw in the case of Gene Webb that the prosecutor convinced the judge not to allow the IMF into evidence because it would confuse the jury, even though reliance on information in the IMF stood central to the defendant's case. That constituted one of those dirty tricks, not a quest for truth. The DOJ intended to stifle the truth so the jury couldn't know it.

Instead of examining the evidence to arrive at a conclusion about income taxation,

Hmm, I think we just dealt with that point. If the judge and prosecutor conspire to block salient evidence that constitutes obstruction of justice, a felony. And it happens often, as in Gene Webb's case.

you start with your desired premise and then cast around desperately for evidence which seemes to support it.

I don't see much truth in that statement. When we see phenomena, we often go looking for the sources and causes. When we see that the constitution says something, we go looking for why the IRS disobeys it, and we seek to hold its agents accountable. When the courts say it means precisely the opposite of what it says, we go looking for reasons, and often we insist or demand adherence to the constitution as we read it.

And we conclude, as I sometimes have, that the courts have become corrupt, creating, obeying, and enforcing some obscure "public policy" (hidden rules invented by administration minions with no authority to create or enforce such rules) that stands opposite to the intent, spirit, and purpose of the Constitution. In many cases, good attorneys and lawyers press a case or ruling in opposition to that policy, and suffer some consequences. I consider it miraculous that Congress has impeached only 15 federal judges for "bad behavior". I incline to the opinion of Kevin Gutzman that "high crimes and misdemeanors" operates expansively and means "any kind of corruption, malfeasance, failure to perform administrative, ministerial, and judicial duties competently and in strictest accordance with law and rules." I cut federal judges ZERO slack and I think Quatloosians ought to cut them zero too. They have too important and sacred a duty to muck about in politics with their rulings, yet many, if not most, do. Hence their obedience to public policy rather than law and rules. Wikipedia says this:

Shaping public policy is a complex and multifaceted process that involves the interplay of numerous individuals and interest groups competing and collaborating to influence policymakers to act in a particular way. These individuals and groups use a variety of tactics and tools to advance their aims, including advocating their positions publicly, attempting to educate supporters and opponents, and mobilizing allies on a particular issue.

In other words judges, by obeying "public policy" rather than law and rules, can and often do abuse the law and rules to cheat one or more litigants in a case out of deserved justice. And in so doing, they create case law to justify continued cheating of a broad array of litigants. One such public policy: "Everybody shall pay income tax directly to the IRS."

the fact that the courts consistently rule against the positions that you espouse can only be explained, in your mind, as the result of a malevolent and corrupt conspiracy.

I believe I just demonstrated that public policy is precisely that: a conspiracy. Wikipedia admits it, so why can't you? Of one thing you can feel certain: it is malevolent, but the conspirators don't feel the brunt of it.

You cling to your legal fantasies like a drowning man clings to a life raft, because by doing so you are able to pretend that you are a Warrior for a Noble Cause -- when in fact the only people who take you seriously are deluded fools like yourself.

Really? Deluded fools? How would you like another example of the cheating of the people through public policy? I refer you to the recent suggestion by Dr. Charles E. Lincoln, JD Chicago U Law, PhD, Harvard (Anthropology) that the Government's establishment of the Social Security Trust Fund and its further failure (under Public Policy) to fund it, plus threats by the President NOT to PAY SSI to eligible recipients, constitute grounds to sue Congress and the President under the 14th Amendment's Section 4 provision that

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

You may read Dr. Lincoln's outline and grounds for the complaint at my Scribd account. Then tell me, has public policy corrupted the Judiciary and Congress with respect to Social Security, converting SS from an actual trust for old age and survivors' benefits into just another income tax? And what about the fiduciary responsibility to manage any trust funds so that they produce revenue that keeps adding to the fund?

Dr. Lincoln writes:

What Congress has done is to increase general taxes and revenue in the name of Social Security and then directed the Secretary of the Treasury to buy Government Treasury Bonds (that’s right, they directed the Secretary of the Treasury to buy his own bonds) and carry this “on the books” as the Social Security Trust. In other words, Social Security, ab initio has been funded exclusively by government-issued, government-purchased debt rather than government equity or outside investment bringing real money INTO the government (as would result from a public issue of Treasury bonds, which are normally quite marketable, in fact, considered prime investments---at least until the recent downgrading of U.S. debt after the August 2, 2011 budget compromise approved by Congress and President Barack Hussein Obama).

It is doubtful whether a single dime of social security tax revenues has ever been used to buy a single one of this government’s bonds deposited into the Social Security Trust Fund. If any such dime has ever been so used, it is impossible to discern it from the record available to us at the present time.

No Segregation of Trust Corpus, No Initial “Delivery” of Anything

What? Fund the Treasury's SS trust with Treasury Bonds? Have I suddenly landed in the twilight zone? Dr. Lincoln seems similarly perplexed by the insanity of such an idiotic move, as he describes the right way to manage the trust's money:

One proper way for Congress to create a trust, especially an participant-based insurance trust, would have been to order the funds received by the IRS marked “Social Security Taxes” to be segregated and deposited into a special account or set of accounts and invested in income producing and/or “blue chip” appreciable securities, according to ordinary fiduciary standards of accounting. There may be other ways Congress could have created a valid trust, but it did no such thing. Apparently there USED to be marketable treasury bonds included in the Social Security Trust Fund, but please note that for the Government to invest in its own bonds is just a very polite way of saying that the Government was printing money into existence and using those funds to purchase the non-marketable treasuries (“non-marketable” means, among other things, that no one outside the U.S. Government WOULD buy them, even if they could).

(emphasis mine)

Congress enacted the Social Security Act under authority of the General Welfare clause. That same clause requires that they properly fund the SS trust AND invest its funds wisely so that they grow. Indexed stocks grow at about 7% per year over inflation, historically. The state of Florida last year invested its $150 billion trust fund money into 15,000 indexed securities, up to 20% foreign. It received 10.5% return, even in this terrible economy. The Treasury Department could have done the same, instead of losing money to inflation on Treasury Bonds.

Dr Lincoln lassos the core issue of the SS trust.

The credit of the Treasury is at all times back of the deposit, with the result that the right of withdrawal will be unaffected by the fate of any intermediate investments, just as if a checking account in the usual form had been opened in a bank.

The last line quoted above, from 301 U.S. 597 of Justice Benjamin Cardozo’s opinion, says it all: the Social Security Trust Fund should be regarded as an open access checking account from which parties who are neither intended trustees nor designated nor contributing beneficiaries could withdraw. That fact alone probably explains why the Federal Government has for seventy five years felt so very free to engage in the on-budget/off-budget manipulation of the receipts of Social Security Taxes as described in DeWitt’s summary quoted above.

To call a massive program for the collection of money from the people a “Trust” and then structure it by statute in such a way that the Supreme Court of the United States would call it the equivalent of a checking account, should be understood both as common law fraud of the actual, neither negligent nor constructive, variety, because to declare a property to be a “Trust” for individual taxpayers and their families and then to organize it as a checking account on which multiplicity of governmental agents can draw constitutes an intentional misstatement of a material fact made with the intent to deceive .

See, Quatloosians? This horrendous public policy regarding Social Security's trust constitutes a monstrous hoax more malevolent than anything any team of Mafia dons ever dreamed up. Con the people into giving up money as an old age and disability premium, and never use the tax to fund the trust, AND invest the trust's paltry funds in funny money. There you have the finer working of a malevolent public policy. Take a good idea and screw it up royally, and cheat the people in the process.

Pottapaug, I have done my best to address your insulting response to my remarks factually and logically. I have not disputed the case you make that tax protesters go like sheep to their slaughter with their deemed-frivolous arguments, for factually they do. I have again made the point that you have shifted the discussion from right/wrong to win/lose. And again I point out that EVERBODY already knows those arguments lose even though many are indeed NOT frivolous, but rather victims of malevolent public policy intended by its authors to pillage the wealth of America like some Conan the Barbarian.

And I have given you a crystal clear example of how that same genre of public policy has corrupted the bright idea of Social Security and turned it into another Mafia enterprise that pillages the wealth of those who can least afford it and have no power to fight back.

If you keep up your scoldings about my propounding losing arguments, I shall have to label you as mentally myopic, for you clearly see but don't want to admit the validity of my points. Those points put you on the political hot seat because if you do nothing about the criminal nature of public policy that pillages the wealth of America in the guise of a just tax, you simply show yourself as part of the problem, and, as I have pointed out, a coward.

So will you continue to toss barbs and darts at me for bringing up these stinging points, or will you get politically active and become part of the solution instead of part of the problem?

Or does some delusion compel you to regard as just fine and peachy the public policies I have discussed?

[bobhurt]

Here's the real deal. Nobody here cares what you think. What we do care about is predicability. We can predict with 100% certainty what will happen if you do go down the road that you have convinced yourself is correct. We know with 100% certainty that the people who actually matter, who have the right to send you to jail, or make your life hell do not agree with you. We know with 100% certainty that you are actually wrong..

You can do better than this. Just read my last post. I readily and freely admit that WE can predict what will happen to people who propound frivolous arguments to the IRS, or in Tax Court, or in the District Court. Don't you realize that by now? I have repeatedly tried to move the discussion to philosophy (what you ought to do politically) rather than legal strategy (how to manage and argue a case).

And the real deal is that you do care what I think. Don't bother denying that you love me and my devotion to truth, beauty, and goodness. I know you do. And I appreciate it. Thanks. I love you too.

[wserra]

When we see that the constitution says something, we go looking for why the IRS disobeys it, and we seek to hold its agents accountable. When the courts say it means precisely the opposite of what it says, we go looking for reasons, and often we insist or demand adherence to the constitution as we read it.

Once you found your own country - let's call it "World o' Hurt" - and design your own legal system, then you can promulgate a provision that permits a random group of wackos to "insist or demand adherence to the constitution as [they] read it". That country isn't this one, though. Here, the courts interpret the constitution, and I think I prefer that to roving bands of wackos insisting and demanding.

[Pottapaug1938]

Here's the real deal. Nobody here cares what you think. What we do care about is predicability. We can predict with 100% certainty what will happen if you do go down the road that you have convinced yourself is correct. We know with 100% certainty that the people who actually matter, who have the right to send you to jail, or make your life hell do not agree with you. We know with 100% certainty that you are actually wrong..

You can do better than this. Just read my last post. I readily and freely admit that WE can predict what will happen to people who propound frivolous arguments to the IRS, or in Tax Court, or in the District Court. Don't you realize that by now? I have repeatedly tried to move the discussion to philosophy (what you ought to do politically) rather than legal strategy (how to manage and argue a case).

And the real deal is that you do care what I think. Don't bother denying that you love me and my devotion to truth, beauty, and goodness. I know you do. And I appreciate it. Thanks. I love you too.

I certainly will deny it. I'd explain why; but that would be as productive as sowing corn on the beach near my house and hoping for a bumper crop.

[Paul]

When we see that the constitution says something, we go looking for why the IRS disobeys it, and we seek to hold its agents accountable. When the courts say it means precisely the opposite of what it says, we go looking for reasons, and often we insist or demand adherence to the constitution as we read it.

So, what part of "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" is the IRS disobeying?

[Pottapaug1938]

When we see that the constitution says something, we go looking for why the IRS disobeys it, and we seek to hold its agents accountable. When the courts say it means precisely the opposite of what it says, we go looking for reasons, and often we insist or demand adherence to the constitution as we read it.

So, what part of "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" is the IRS disobeying?

This guy doesn't understand that how "we" read [the Constitution] DOES NOT MATTER. it's how the COURTS read the Constitution that matters. IF "we" feel differently, then "we" are free to incorporate our points of view into an appellate brief (likely, one dealing with a conviction at trial for tax evasion). ONLY IF the appellate court accepts those arguments do they become the law of the land, instead of the deeply-held fantasies of people who deeply desire that the Courts rule their way, and are intellectually incapable of understanding why they don't.

[bobhurt]

bobhurt wrote:
Yes, Fawkes, the movie icon in the mask, was a terrorist. The corrupt Government hated him. You did see the movie, right?

The *movie* was based on a comic book, not historical events. The *real* Guy Fawkes did not wear a mask, and the movie ("V for Vendetta") was not about him.

You are a legal, cultural, literary, and historical moron.
Dan Evans

Look, I referred only to the Guy Fawkes who wore the mask in the movie V for Vendetta as you guessed. There he blew up the Parliament building as a protest against the corrupt legislature. How does my rendering of that story to show how crooked government breeds physical force in response make me a moron about anything?

Aby Cathulhu » Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:42 pm

Bob, you poor little Hurt thing...brevity is the soul of wit. If you had anything worth saying, it's smothered under the blah, blah, blah boring crap. That's why I don't bother with you.

Bored now! Think I'll go get a pedicure.

As for wit, I prefer conveying a point without stabbing an ice pick into the sides of my detractors' tires or eyes. The snotty Quatloosians (just the snotty ones) seem to calculate their pithy flit to spotlight their brilliance while leaving shrapnel in their adversary. Quatloosians seem to cluster in a llama-pack, each nipping a bit of flesh till the prey flees.

Just as you tire of interacting with whom you deem witless, I tire of interacting with trolls. So I don't blame you for skulking off.


You two are so cute as you revile me with hollow potshots. I know you have good quality in you somewhere. Deliver it while you have the chance. I do actually have a life outside Quatloos.

You might recall from this thread the following Ken Smith quote:

As the citizen has an absolute right to assassinate a tyrant, any public official who exercises tyrannical power over him ¬¬including judges ¬¬may lawfully be assassinated. And as assassination of a public official is undesirable, the law must be read as not bestowing tyrannical powers, providing remedies when an official abuses his or her lawful authority. Ergo, certiorari is unconstitutional.

Do you know what public policy is? It is tyranny of the kind Ken Smith referred to above in his certiorari petition draft. That text didn't make it to his final cert petition because he wisely excised it. No point alienating your judge, right?

But it has the ring of truth as I pointed out from both the Florida Constitution of 1838 and the Declaration of Independence. Judges, as the final bastion of defense of one's rights, do invite their own excision from government, if not from the planet, for failing to issue just rulings. People injured by unjust rulings which the people cannot practically appeal to a more honest tribunal have the natural right to take the matter in hand and excise the offending judge, one way or another.

Sure, if the Marshals or FBI catch them, government will injure them further as a lesson not to mess with crooked judges. That does not make the justice seeker wrong. It just makes him a loser. He might not lose if he chooses a less risky method of excision.

Do you see the real problem here? It isn't one of condemning a person for wanting to assassinate a judge who ruled against him or of throwing all tax protestors into jail under some pretext of justice. The challenge becomes one of finding balance in a situation that has wrongs and rights on both sides. The people cannot and should not tolerate corruption such as obedience to malevolent public policy. The government must mete out justice to stay anarchy. Finding balance presents a terrible challenge and YOU should accept it.

You see, for the very reason you feel privileged to take potshots at me, you have the obligation to use your knowledge and skill to create that balance. You need to find ways to wean judges off of public policy and onto the law so they will give just rulings. If you can do that, we won't have any more illegal aliens in the Presidency.

Okay, I'm done. See you in a few months.

[Paul]

Okay, I'm done. See you in a few months.

Didn't think you could answer my question. Don't worry, when you come back, I'll ask again.

[Pottapaug1938]

"You see, for the very reason you feel privileged to take potshots at me, you have the obligation to use your knowledge and skill to create that balance. You need to find ways to wean judges off of public policy and onto the law so they will give just rulings. If you can do that, we won't have any more [sic] illegal aliens in the Presidency."

The fact that he could say something as moronic as this makes his opinions unworthy of respect or response.

[Lambkin]

What a surprise, Bob bolted again. The phrase "serial coward" comes to mind.

[The Observer]

Bottom line, NO, I don't want to witness the destruction of the national capitol building where Congress does its good and its bad work. I want Congress to stop doing bad. But if destruction of that building would move Congress to eliminate their bad actions, I might start selling tickets to the event.

Not only do we get bobhurt endorsing political terrorism, but now we have him considering the possibility of personally profiting from the performance of such an act. It is statements like this that make one wonders what bobhurt is going to do next to ensure that his wishes come true.

Okay, I'm done. See you in a few months.

Probably just me, but that statement gives the feeling that it is a threat that was missed and only truly seen after a tragedy unfolded.

[bobhurt]

Okay, you deserve this example of the impact of corrupt government

As for whether Obama is an illegal alien, contact attorney Phil Berg and google around for an analysis of the fake birth certificate of which Obama publicly spoke so proudly after Donald Trump called him out.

Obama is not a natural born US citizen
Obama is not a US citizen at all.
Obama is an illegal alien.

Show your proof to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

[Pottapaug1938]

Okay, you deserve this example of the impact of corrupt government

As for whether Obama is an illegal alien, contact attorney Phil Berg and google around for an analysis of the fake birth certificate of which Obama publicly spoke so proudly after Donald Trump called him out.

Obama is not a natural born US citizen
Obama is not a US citizen at all.
Obama is an illegal alien.

Show your proof to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

Asking Phil Berg for an analysis of Obama's birth certificate is like asking Muammar Gadhafi for advice on how to build a flourishing democracy. I'm not going to dignify your BS with any further comments.

[Joey Smith]

BITCOIN looks like another version of E-Gold which generated a lot of discussion on Quatloos before it ended up causing its participants lots of losses and some of its promoters confessed to money laundering. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold

Before the indictments, they had like 5 million accounts although it seemed like most of those were serving some criminal purpose or another or were facilitating online porn purchases.

For tax purposes, income has never been limited to FRNs or any other type of money. One could work for a month and earn 10,000 Euros, for example, and would be taxed on the dollar-value of the Euro.

The dollar gets weak when unemployment is high so that U.S. goods and services are more attractive, and gets strong when unemployment is low and the U.S. is buying goods and services from overseas. It is an old cycle. Japan, for instance, is intentionally trying to lower the value of the Yen, for instance, to keep its goods competitive.

As far as physical coins go, is somebody going to show up at the Boeing plant with bags of coins to buy a 747? LOL. It is more of a curiosity for the retards at the gun'n'knife shows and pro wrasslin' matches than anything even approaching significant commerce.

[ProfHenryHiggins]

Yes, Fawkes, the movie icon in the mask, was a terrorist. The corrupt Government hated him. You did see the movie, right? He struck a symbolic and expensive blow against that government.

Wrong Guy Fawkes. Who is it that the British burn in effigy every year? Guy Fawkes. Look up why, and then consider religious extremism. It's not Islamic in this case, but Catholic.

Next time, think before posting Hollywood gibberish in a multi-national forum.