Does Ron Paul Think There Is No Law?

[ElfNinosMom]

I got this from the Ed Brown MySpace page:

Arron Russo: “So the federal Reserve is actually an illegal entity functioning within Government?”
Congressman Ron Paul: “It’s illegal, and what we have given to this so called agency is the authority to counterfeit money.”
Arron Russo: “Is there a law that requires people to file a 1040?”
Congressman Ron Paul: “Not explicitly; but it’s certainly IMPLIED.”
Arron Russo: “Well implied by force; but is there a law?”
Congressman Ron Paul: “I cannot cite a law, no, I cannot… You know if they THINK it’s a law and they have all the guns; you know it’s an authoritarian approach.”

[Joey Smith]

Ron Paul is a moonbat. He has no chance of being elected, but is merely creating a pre-retirement fund by raising moneys for his (hopeless) presidential run.

[notorial dissent]

The telling point in Mr Paul's corner is THINK, I've seen no evidence that he does or can. He can, however, spout whatever rhetoric he thinks will endear him to his crowd of the moment.

[Judge Roy Bean]

You'd have to understand Paul's constituents to understand how he got elected and remains in office. To them, he's the only sane voice in Washington.

[silversopp]

I don't think that there is any Congressman who would be able to cite the law(s) on any given subject.

Ron Paul certainly thinks there is a law requiring people to pay income tax, as he periodically introduces legislation to repeal the income tax laws. It would seem a bit odd for Ron Paul to try to repeal a law that he believes doesn't exist, no?

[ASITStands]

Ron Paul certainly thinks there is a law requiring people to pay income tax, as he periodically introduces legislation to repeal the income tax laws. It would seem a bit odd for Ron Paul to try to repeal a law that he believes doesn't exist, no?

But you're trying to argue for some sort of logic. Since when does that apply to the tax protester or patriot movement?

[silversopp]

But you're trying to argue for some sort of logic. Since when does that apply to the tax protester or patriot movement?

A great scam has to sell you first on bad assumptions. The rest comes easy.

I think that most TP arguments are logical. Remember, one can be logical and wrong at the same time. If you accept, as a given, certain assumptions, then the TP arguments make sense. The problem is that they accept wrong assumptions, not so much their way of thinking.

For example, if you accept that the 16th amendment was never ratified, it would be logical to believe that the tax, in some cases, has to be apportioned. If you accept the grand Illuminati conspiracy, a lot of their beliefs make sense.

It's very similiar to religion...Catholicism wont make much sense to someone who doesn't accept Christ, but makes a lot of sense to those who do.

[Imalawman]

I think that most TP arguments are logical.

Isn't that grounds for instant banning? I'm pretty sure it is.

[Prof]

But you're trying to argue for some sort of logic. Since when does that apply to the tax protester or patriot movement?

A great scam has to sell you first on bad assumptions. The rest comes easy.

I think that most TP arguments are logical. Remember, one can be logical and wrong at the same time. If you accept, as a given, certain assumptions, then the TP arguments make sense. The problem is that they accept wrong assumptions, not so much their way of thinking.

For example, if you accept that the 16th amendment was never ratified, it would be logical to believe that the tax, in some cases, has to be apportioned. If you accept the grand Illuminati conspiracy, a lot of their beliefs make sense.

It's very similiar to religion...Catholicism wont make much sense to someone who doesn't accept Christ, but makes a lot of sense to those who do.

"Not to us Reformed Church Protestants!," said the Presbyterian. (Tongue planted firmly in cheek, by the way.)

[ASITStands]

Actually, I think 'silversopp' is right.

If you accept certain assumptions, tax protester arguments exhibit some sort of logic. Of course, when you honestly examine the assumptions, the logic falls apart.

Generally, the assumption overlooks other, more valid findings that overrule the original assumption. And, when those other, more valid findings are presented, the logic falls apart, and the tax protester falls back on his "belief" the law and courts are wrong.

In cases like that, the old proverbs, "You can't argue with an idiot!" or "You can't wrestle with a pig!" come to mind.

[Prof]

Actually, I think 'silversopp' is right.

If you accept certain assumptions, tax protester arguments exhibit some sort of logic. Of course, when you honestly examine the assumptions, the logic falls apart.

Generally, the assumption overlooks other, more valid findings that overrule the original assumption. And, when those other, more valid findings are presented, the logic falls apart, and the tax protester falls back on his "belief" the law and courts are wrong.

In cases like that, the old proverbs, "You can't argue with an idiot!" or "You can't wrestle with a pig!" come to mind.

"You can't teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and irritates the pig." I used that quote once; Demo or somebody immediately posted a CD featuring singing pigs. Remember, like the first liar, the first aphorist never wins.

[ASITStands]

"Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, and only the pig will enjoy it!"

http://blog.revmike.us/archives/000256.html

I've heard this in various forms over the years. There's even a book with that title.

http://www.amazon.com/Never-Wrestle-Nin ... 0141002085

So, am I like the last liar? Or, the last aphorist?