Snipes Acquitted!!!!

ga1150 · Post by **ga1150** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:10 pm

Quixote wrote:Ah, tax denier logic. "A implies B, therefore not-A must imply not-B." "All men are mortal, therefore all women are immortal."

Actually...if you really pay attention, I was pointing out the fact that this is what you folks do...all the time.

Post by **Quixote** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:12 pm

ga1150 wrote:"An acquittal doesn't mean there isn't a law, but in order to be convicted of breaking a law, there had to be a law to be broken."

How sophomoric. We've just recently in Georgia had someone cleared after 30 years or so by DNA evidence, and released.

They were convicted...so there 'had to be a law broken"? Are you sure that you want to be in print saying that?

Even an illiterate ought to notice there were more words between "there" and "broken" in The Operative's version than in ga1150's. That might lead him to wonder if those extra words were important. And then he might ask one of his literate friends to explain the diffence between "there had to be a law to be broken" and "there had to be a law broken".

ga1150 · Post by **ga1150** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:12 pm

Quixote wrote:tax denier

You folks never fail to amuse me with the near immediate name-calling. But, since you did, exactly how have I 'denied' any tax?

Post by **Joey Smith** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:12 pm

ga1150 wrote:"An acquittal doesn't mean there isn't a law, but in order to be convicted of breaking a law, there had to be a law to be broken."

How sophomoric. We've just recently in Georgia had someone cleared after 30 years or so by DNA evidence, and released.

They were convicted...so there 'had to be a law broken"? Are you sure that you want to be in print saying that?

"Every man in here is innocent." ~ The Shawshank Redemption

ga1150 · Post by **ga1150** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:13 pm

Joey Smith wrote:"Every man in here is innocent." ~ The Shawshank Redemption

Cute...but non-responsive. Typical Quatloosian tactic.

Investor · Post by **Investor** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:14 pm

"An acquittal doesn't mean there isn't a law, but in order to be convicted of breaking a law, there had to be a law to be broken."

How sophomoric. We've just recently in Georgia had someone cleared after 30 years or so by DNA evidence, and released.

They were convicted...so there 'had to be a law broken"? Are you sure that you want to be in print saying that?

What he said was that being convicted of a crime shows that the law prohibiting the conduct is obviously in place. Just because someone was cleared on DNA evidence, it does not mean that there is no law against murder (I assume this was a murder case). In the same line of reasoning, an acquital does not mean that there is not a law prohibiting the underlying activity - does California have no law against murder? They must not, by your reasoning; OJ Simpson was acquited.

lawdevil · Post by **lawdevil** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:14 pm

Why is the NY Times calling them tax resisters? They are tax protestors!!!!

Post by **Joey Smith** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:15 pm

ga1150 wrote:
Joey Smith wrote:"Every man in here is innocent." ~ The Shawshank Redemption
Cute...but non-responsive. Typical Quatloosian tactic.

Absolutely responsive; you just don't like the response.

Investor · Post by **Investor** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:16 pm

Why is the NY Times calling them tax resisters? They are tax protestors!!!!

I think both terms are inaccurate. To resist or protest, they must acknowledge the existence of the tax. What they really are is tax deniers.

ga1150 · Post by **ga1150** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:18 pm

Quixote wrote:Even an illiterate ought to notice there were more words between "there" and "broken" in The Operative's version than in ga1150's. That might lead him to wonder if those extra words were important. And then he might ask one of his literate friends to explain the diffence between "there had to be a law to be broken" and "there had to be a law broken".

Ahhh...more name-calling. You are correct however, though you handled it in a childish manner. I misread the post, as you did mine, but I'll not resort to grade-school behavior, see if you can locate it on your own.

Doktor Avalanche · Post by **Doktor Avalanche** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:20 pm

CaptainKickback wrote:And until that person was exonerated by DNA evidence, he had been found guilty of breaking whatever law(s) put him there.

In fact, until the whole matter is expunged from the records, he is still has a guilty verdict(s) on his record.

And if I am wrong, I am sure the attorneys here will correct me.

I think I'd rather have my testicles hooked up to a DeSoto battery.

Post by **Joey Smith** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:21 pm

Nothing will prevent Snipes from sending in DNA samples.

ga1150 · Post by **ga1150** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:22 pm

Joey Smith wrote:Absolutely responsive; you just don't like the response.

I stand corrected...it was a "response". Sort of like when you ask someone how to get to the airport, and they "respond" with "I have a home in the Ukraine".

Post by **Quixote** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:42 pm

ga1150 wrote:
Quixote wrote:Even an illiterate ought to notice there were more words between "there" and "broken" in The Operative's version than in ga1150's. That might lead him to wonder if those extra words were important. And then he might ask one of his literate friends to explain the diffence between "there had to be a law to be broken" and "there had to be a law broken".
Ahhh...more name-calling. You are correct however, though you handled it in a childish manner. I misread the post, as you did mine, but I'll not resort to grade-school behavior, see if you can locate it on your own.

No, I read yours perfectly. That is why I was able to note the difference between what The Observer wrote and what you wrote. As to the charge of name calling, twice you have demonstrated that you do not understand simple English. I call 'em like I see 'em.

Post by **Joey Smith** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:48 pm

ga1150 wrote:
Joey Smith wrote:Absolutely responsive; you just don't like the response.
I stand corrected...it was a "response". Sort of like when you ask someone how to get to the airport, and they "respond" with "I have a home in the Ukraine".

Then apparently you didn't understand the response, sort of like somebody who shows up in New Orleans from the Ukraine who doesn't speak Creole . . .

Post by **The Observer** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:52 pm

Quixote wrote:No, I read yours perfectly. That is why I was able to note the difference between what The Observer wrote and what you wrote. As to the charge of name calling, twice you have demonstrated that you do not understand simple English. I call 'em like I see 'em.

Minor quibble - that was my twin evil brother, The Operative, not me.

Post by **Quixote** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:02 pm

The Observer wrote:
Quixote wrote:No, I read yours perfectly. That is why I was able to note the difference between what The Observer wrote and what you wrote. As to the charge of name calling, twice you have demonstrated that you do not understand simple English. I call 'em like I see 'em.
Minor quibble - that was my twin evil brother, The Operative, not me.

Post by **grixit** » Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:13 pm

Doktor Avalanche wrote: I think I'd rather have my testicles hooked up to a DeSoto battery.

Hey, you're here to work, mister, not to have fun!

Post by **LPC** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:31 am

"The verdict shows that promoters face serious jail time” but clients who follow their advice will face a lesser but still-serious risk, said JJ MacNab, a Maryland insurance analyst who attended the trial and is writing a book about tax deniers.

**Allegedly** writing a book. They always leave out "allegedly."

Doktor Avalanche · Post by **Doktor Avalanche** » Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:32 am

LPC wrote:
"The verdict shows that promoters face serious jail time” but clients who follow their advice will face a lesser but still-serious risk, said JJ MacNab, a Maryland insurance analyst who attended the trial and is writing a book about tax deniers.
**Allegedly** writing a book. They always leave out "allegedly."

It makes for better copy.