Famspear is a Pussy!

[Micheal360]

No comment really? You are nothing more than a funking pussy! Won't even accept the challenge!

[Micheal360]

I have a degree in computer science. Famspear is a coward! He hides behind this form! Nothing he says is actually logical nor is in fact constitutional law!

[Micheal360]

I have my Masters degree in computer science! I understand and I can read!

[chronistra]

Sadly, however, you can't understand what you read.

Or perhaps it's more a matter that you choose not to understand (or choose not to read) because what Famspear writes about how the world really works does not comport with your desires for how the world should work.

Somebody lock this thread, please.

[Hyrion]

As a fellow computer scientist:

My humble opinion is that the venom and personal attacks you have displayed in this thread is rather deserving of a couple things:

• A: The entire thread (including this post) deleted

• B: Your account prevented from starting new threads

• C: A serious consideration given to locking - perhaps deleting - the account

• D: A serious consideration given to your IP being blocked

If you worked for me and displayed - in your application of computer science and personal interaction - the level of understanding you have been displaying with regards your conclusions based on Law along with the behavioral patterns you've just displayed, you'd be demoted to an entry level position and not allowed to speak with anyone on the business side of things.

Just my humble opinion.

[Famspear]

Dear Jameson/Micheal:

Oh, whatasmatter weetle feller? Is life just not working out for you?



Over the past nine days [edit: correction: over the past 12 days], you have started no less than four threads under the name "Jameson3171" and (counting this one) three threads under the name "Micheal360." In pretty much all seven of these threads, you have demonstrated that you are obsessed with trying to argue that under the current federal income tax laws, you are not (or should not be) "directly" taxed.

It is obvious to everyone else here that you cannot read legal materials competently.

It is also obvious that you refuse to accept that whether a federal income tax is now or at one time was considered to be a "direct tax" or not, you yourself can be DIRECTLY taxed under the U.S. Constitution, including both Article I and the Sixteenth Amendment. You not only have failed or refused to understand the different uses of the term "direct," you have failed or refused to even attempt to understand.

Instead, you keep copying and pasting materials from court cases, from the Congressional Research Service, or from other sources, with which almost everyone here is already familiar -- materials that not only do not mean what you obviously "want" them to mean but in some instances actually contradict your positions.

I am trying to be patient with you, but you need to exhibit some change in behavior, and you need to do it promptly.

[grixit]

Michael and/or Jameson:

Forget about the interpretations, and the quotations from supposed experts. Hey, forget about what Famspear and the others here have to say. Just go do your homework.

And by homework i mean, look up what actually happened when someone appeared in court and brought up the claims that you have been endorsing. Look up any 10 such cases of your choice and come back with a report on what the verdict was in each.

No cheating, these have to be actual cases that went to full verdicts, not ones where the defendant settled, or got off for some reason other than their claims.

To make it easier for you to concentrate on the assignment, i'm going to lock this thread and any other that you start on this subject before you finish.

This is your chance to shut us up, so get started.

Or are you chicken?