NEW HAMPSHIRE- Feds Want Browns' Huge Weapons Cache

[namedpipes]

You can't possibly be reading my posts. I've made it very clear that the Browns got what they deserved and had ample opportunities to see the punishment that was coming their way.

They took a stand on political principal and paid the price.

I also made it very clear that the system we have depends on the application of excessive force toward violators or FLAUNTERS of the law.

I can't make it any plainer than I have and suggested several posts ago that we're beating this to death.

"I've made it very clear that the Browns got what they deserved and had ample opportunities to see the punishment that was coming their way."

You have stated a bunch of times that they got what they deserved. Your best argument was that they should have complied because everyone else does.

Here you say the system depends on the use of excessive force.

Everything you have said boils down to "Because I said so."

Titan, that is the same argument I was offered when the schoolyard bully wanted half my lunch money, maybe 35 years ago.

I punched him in the mouth and he never bothered me again. (He did collect regularly from others) I think he went on to become a tax collector in later years.

So, do you have any actual facts, statistics, English common law, ANYTHING to support your viewpoints other than "because"?

Yes, the subject has been beaten to death. Sadly, it will go on for four more decades for the Browns. Although they will surely die before then, in prison. For punching a bully in the mouth.

 

[terraformer]

FYI, according to Mirriam Webster...

FLAUNT...
1 : to display ostentatiously or impudently : parade <flaunting his superiority>
2 : to treat contemptuously <flaunted the rules — Louis Untermeyer>

synonyms see show

— flaunt noun

— flaunt·ing·ly \ˈflȯn-tiŋ-lē, ˈflän-\ adverb

— flaunty \-tē\ adjective

usage Although transitive sense 2 of flaunt undoubtedly arose from confusion with flout, the contexts in which it appears cannot be called substandard <meting out punishment to the occasional mavericks who operate rigged games, tolerate rowdyism, or otherwise flaunt the law — Oscar Lewis> <observed with horror the flaunting of their authority in the suburbs, where men…put up buildings that had no place at all in a Christian commonwealth — Marchette Chute> <in our profession…very rarely do we publicly chastise a colleague who has flaunted our most basic principles — R. T. Blackburn, AAUP Bulletin>. If you use it, however, you should be aware that many people will consider it a mistake. Use of flout in the sense of flaunt 1 is found occasionally <“The proper pronunciation,” the blonde said, flouting her refined upbringing, “is pree feeks” — Mike Royko>.

Flaunt usually is tied with display. In the above usage, there was no display so flout was more correct, though apparently flaunt is OK.

 

[Titan]

"I've made it very clear that the Browns got what they deserved and had ample opportunities to see the punishment that was coming their way."

You have stated a bunch of times that they got what they deserved. Your best argument was that they should have complied because everyone else does.

Here you say the system depends on the use of excessive force.

Everything you have said boils down to "Because I said so."

Titan, that is the same argument I was offered when the schoolyard bully wanted half my lunch money, maybe 35 years ago.

I punched him in the mouth and he never bothered me again. (He did collect regularly from others) I think he went on to become a tax collector in later years.

So, do you have any actual facts, statistics, English common law, ANYTHING to support your viewpoints other than "because"?

Yes, the subject has been beaten to death. Sadly, it will go on for four more decades for the Browns. Although they will surely die before then, in prison. For punching a bully in the mouth.

I clearly didn't say 'because I said so'.

I pointed out the facts....the government's ability to impose an income tax has repeatedly been upheld by the courts.

The system DOES depend on excessive force. The applicable LAW allowed the sentence that was given.

The Browns DID flaunt the law and ignore all attempts to collect, choosing instead to PROTEST a law they knew has been repeatedly upheld.

Why aren't you getting this?

I for one, am done!

 

[Titan]

Flaunt usually is tied with display. In the above usage, there was no display so flout was more correct, though apparently flaunt is OK.

Really?

Are you one of the Websters?

Let's be serious and drop the language BS.

 

[namedpipes]

I clearly didn't say 'because I said so'.

I pointed out the facts....the government's ability to impose an income tax has repeatedly been upheld by the courts.

The system DOES depend on excessive force. The applicable LAW allowed the sentence that was given.

The Browns DID flaunt the law and ignore all attempts to collect, choosing instead to PROTEST a law they knew has been repeatedly upheld.

Why aren't you getting this?

I for one, am done!

I see. You think that *I* think that the Browns were not breaking any law?!

Of COURSE they were breaking the law. They knew exactly what they were doing and they knew the likely outcome and they did it anyway because they thought the issue was important enough to make that stand. They accepted the consequences.

I only said the punishment was out of proportion, not that they had a "legal" right to do what they did.

Get the wax out of your ears.

 

[Titan]

I see. You think that *I* think that the Browns were not breaking any law?!

Of COURSE they were breaking the law. They knew exactly what they were doing and they knew the likely outcome and they did it anyway because they thought the issue was important enough to make that stand. They accepted the consequences.

I only said the punishment was out of proportion, not that they had a "legal" right to do what they did.

Get the wax out of your ears.

Okay, I get it...you said the punishment was out of proportion.

Since you're a big fan of ARGUMENT, and SUPPORT (as am I), please provide all of the citations necessary to support your argument that the punishment was 'out of proportion'.

I'll assume you're not going to say .... "Because I said so!"

My posts have me consistent with the sentencing judge that the punishment was appropriate and within guidelines for a major tax evasion case.

Now it's your turn...

Argue on, but don't forget the support for your argument!




BTW, if you acknowledge that they ... 'knew the likely outcome', WTF are WE arguing about?

 

[cekim]

"Can't we all just get along?"

 

[Cato]

IMO failure to pay taxes should not be a criminal offense. Criminal offenses should apply only to acts that violate an individual's rights.

Owing taxes should be a civil matter. If someone owes the government taxes then the government should be required to sue the person in civil court for relief just like everyone else. If your neighbor owes you $10,000 should you be able to raid his home in order to collect? Of course not. Neither should the government.

Why is it acceptable that those who are employed by the government can act in an uncivilized manner while the rest of us are expected to be civilized and settle our money differences in a civil court of law?

 

[terraformer]

Owing taxes is a civil offense. Tax fraud and misrepresenting income on tax returns is criminal.

 

[Cato]

Owing taxes is a civil offense. Tax fraud and misrepresenting income on tax returns is criminal.

Failure to file and evasion of payment in tax collection cases are crimes.

 

[namedpipes]

Okay, I get it...you said the punishment was out of proportion.

Since you're a big fan of ARGUMENT, and SUPPORT (as am I), please provide all of the citations necessary to support your argument that the punishment was 'out of proportion'.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...HAMPSHIRE-Feds-Want-Browns-Huge-Weapons-Cache

and

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...rid=8001&contenttype=vBForum_Post&showposts=1

BTW, if you acknowledge that they ... 'knew the likely outcome', WTF are WE arguing about?

You appear to take the position that their punishment was appropriate. I don't. That.

 

[mikem317]

Owing taxes is a civil offense. Tax fraud and misrepresenting income on tax returns is criminal.

Ain't that ironic? If we lie to them, we get nailed to a cross. But if they lie to us, they usually get reelected.

 

[Titan]

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...HAMPSHIRE-Feds-Want-Browns-Huge-Weapons-Cache

and

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...rid=8001&contenttype=vBForum_Post&showposts=1



You appear to take the position that their punishment was appropriate. I don't. That.

Your argument that the punishment was excessive is a link to this thread?

Pardon me if I don't know what the heck you're talking about.

The fact that you're arguing that the punishment was excessive is exactly what I've challenged you to support. Linking to this thread, citing other people's opinions isn't proof of anything.

 

[namedpipes]

Your argument that the punishment was excessive is a link to this thread?

Pardon me if I don't know what the heck you're talking about.

The fact that you're arguing that the punishment was excessive is exactly what I've challenged you to support. Linking to this thread, citing other people's opinions isn't proof of anything.

They did not pay a bill. Go to jail for 40 years? Get real. I won't bother to support that. It is self evident.

Even so, I did give examples of cases (by allusion) where far more heinous cases were treated trivially by the courts.

You stated that excessive punishment is necessary to enforce our "voluntary" compliance. Support that.

 

[Titan]

Just as I thought, you're the one who has nothing but ...'Because I said so!'

Really?....Just didn't pay a bill. Where were you for the standoff that made every news outlet in the country for days on end?

You must be kidding about me supporting the argument that the system is designed for punishment to be excessive.

The entire thrust of ALL of your posts has been that the punishment was excessive.

If you don't believe it to be true, then withhold your own taxes this year.

My point, that doesn't need defense, is that the sentence was within applicable guidelines for the crime.

It's self evident, unless you're alleging that the sentence was illegal and that the judge made a horrendous appealable issue.

The burden is on you to prove the 'out of proportion' argument and you haven't.



Hopefully a merciful moderator will be along any minute to end this circle jerk.

.

 

[namedpipes]

Just as I thought, you're the one who has nothing but ...'Because I said so!'

Really?....Just didn't pay a bill. Where were you for the standoff that made every news outlet in the country for days on end?

You must be kidding about me supporting the argument that the system is designed for punishment to be excessive.

The entire thrust of ALL of your posts has been that the punishment was excessive.

If you don't believe it to be true, then withhold your own taxes this year.

You mean the non violent standoff where they stayed home and didn't answer the door?

*I'm* not willing to go to jail for 40 years to make you happy.

You might want to re-read some of your posts... You are rewriting history...

 

[Titan]

One last time....they flaunted the law, very publicly over an extended period of time, claiming the government had no legal authority to tax them.

By your own admission, they knew exactly what they were doing and what the consequences were.

Does 'non-violence' make it any less a public standoff, flaunting the law?

The judge applied a legal sentence for the crime committed, within sentencing guidelines.

You've been unable to support your assertions that the sentence was 'out of proportion'.


Making me happy has nothing to do with the discussion. If you want to avoid spending nearly 40 years in jail....don't argue in the media that the government has no authority to tax you, and don't refuse to surrender to the authorities when they come to enforce the penalties for non-payment.

There's really nothing more to discuss.

 

[Dave03835]

30 guns makes a "Huge Weapons Cache"? That had to come from the left wing media.

 

[namedpipes]

One last time....they flaunted the law, very publicly over an extended period of time, claiming the government had no legal authority to tax them.

By your own admission, they knew exactly what they were doing and what the consequences were.

Does 'non-violence' make it any less a public standoff, flaunting the law?

The judge applied a legal sentence for the crime committed, within sentencing guidelines.

You've been unable to support your assertions that the sentence was 'out of proportion'.


Making me happy has nothing to do with the discussion. If you want to avoid spending nearly 40 years in jail....don't argue in the media that the government has no authority to tax you, and don't refuse to surrender to the authorities when they come to enforce the penalties for non-payment.

There's really nothing more to discuss.

I did not say the State broke the law or awarded a sentence that was against the law, just that it was way out of proportion with the crime and the crime itself was arguably an honorable act. Not unlike the gentleman here in Mass that punched out a child molester that was trying to rape his son and he (the father) was prosecuted for assault. Sure. He assaulted the guy. No question.

I don't know whether you are a tax / toll collector, work for the State in some other capacity or are merely a liberal, but may you someday grow up.

 

[Titan]

...I don't know whether you are a tax / toll collector, work for the State in some other capacity or are merely a liberal, but may you someday grow up.

Speaking of growing up. This is my last conversation with you.

I've debated with you for pages and pages and you have failed to make your point. Suck it up and accept that you failed to make your case for 'out of proportion' even when challenged directly to do so.

I don't need to waste any more time with you.


I'm not a tax collector or anything like that. Just a law-abiding tax payer who can follow a chain of logic.

 

[namedpipes]

. . . I've debated with you for pages and pages and you have failed to make your point. Suck it up and accept that you failed to make your case for 'out of proportion' even when challenged directly to do so. . . .

And I in turn have debated for pages and pages with you and YOU have failed to make your point.

Suck it up and accept that you have failed to make your case for whatever it is that you were arguing for.

 

[Titan]

And I in turn have debated for pages and pages with you and YOU have failed to make your point.

Suck it up and accept that you have failed to make your case for whatever it is that you were arguing for.

How perfectly fitting that you still can't follow the discussion.

Bye.

 

[calsdad]

Since this thread seems to have degraded a little in a bitchfest lets see if we can dissect some of the arguments.

Lets start with the definition of voluntary - since Titans argument seems to rest largely on his assertion that taxes are "voluntary":

vol·un·tar·y (vln-tr)
adj.
1. Done or undertaken of one's own free will: a voluntary decision to leave the job.
2. Acting or done willingly and without constraint or expectation of reward: a voluntary hostage; voluntary community work.
3. Normally controlled by or subject to individual volition: voluntary muscle contractions.
4. Capable of making choices; having the faculty of will.
5. Supported by contributions or charitable donations rather than by government appropriations: voluntary hospitals.
6. Law
a. Without legal obligation or consideration: a voluntary conveyance of property.
b. Done deliberately; intentional: voluntary manslaughter.
n. pl. vol·un·tar·ies
1. Music
a. A short piece of music, often improvised on a solo instrument, played as an introduction to a larger work.
b. A piece for solo organ, often improvised, played before, during, or after a religious service.
2. A volunteer.


Titan: Your assertion that income taxes are "voluntary" in this country is complete and utter crap. There are penalties - severe penalties (as the Browns have found out) - for not doing EXACTLY what the government wants you to do. Even filling out the tax forms and sending them in - after the government has appropriated your money thru withholding - is not "voluntary" because they WILL get you and punish you sooner or later for not filing the forms. There have been numerous cases of this.

How in the hell did you ever get the concept into your head that a "voluntary" system needs to be "backed up with harsh penalties" ???. This is one of the most screwy concepts I have heard this week. I guess the next time I fail to show up down at the food bank that I "volunteered" for - I better be worried they are going to come to my house and beat the crap out of me? Or the next time I "volunteer" my time for Habitat for Humanity I will pay severe fines if put up a wall that is crooked? How about the next time I send in money to a charity they put me in jail for a month if I fail to send them enough?

There is absolutely no way that the Federal income tax system in this country - or any of the state income tax systems - are "voluntary". That is BS marketing term used by the government to suck in the rubes and make them argue on internet forums that the tax system in this country is all good and we should stop bitching about the fiscal rape we go thru on a daily basis to support a federal government that pisses away the wealth of this country at an ever increasing rate.

The proper term for the tax system in this country is "coercive":

co·er·cion (k-ûrzhn, -shn)
n.
1. The act or practice of coercing.
2. Power or ability to coerce.
co·ercion·ary (-zh-nr, -sh-) adj.


1. the act or power of coercing
2. government by force
coercionist n
coercive [kəʊˈɜːsɪv] adj
coercively adv
coerciveness n

co·erce (k-ûrs)
tr.v. co·erced, co·erc·ing, co·erc·es
1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.
3. To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.
[Latin coercre, to control, restrain : co-, co- + arcre, to enclose, confine.]
co·ercer n.
co·erci·ble adj.


(tr) to compel or restrain by force or authority without regard to individual wishes or desires
[from Latin coercēre to confine, restrain, from co- together + arcēre to enclose]
coercer n


The Browns did not wish to pay taxes. They made this very clear by not doing so. The government used pressure, threats, intimidation - and eventually forcible control (37 years in jail) - to try and put the Browns into compliance.

It says it right in the definition:

2. government by force

It also says:

2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.

Your understanding of the word voluntary is all screwed up.

 

[Titan]

I'm done with this topic, but since you missed the boat on the main discussion, I'll respond.
I'm a proponent of the flat tax. I think there's very little redeeming value to our current tax system.
My arguments have been based on fact and logic if you just read my posts.

I referred to the tax system as 'voluntary' because that term is commonly accepted by folks in government, tax preparers, and literate tax payers.

I'm not advocating in any way for the current system, just commenting on what namedpipes already conceded...

That the Browns knew what they were doing and the consequences of their actions.

I pay my taxes according to the law and assume you do also, and will do so until we have a new system.

I prefer not to suffer the Browns' fate and assume you've decided on compliance with the system as well.

Here's the definition of 'Voluntary Tax System' (Google can be your friend).

LINK

Voluntary Tax:

Definition: "A system of compliance that relies on individual citizens to report their income freely and voluntarily, calculate their tax liability correctly, and file a tax return on time," according to the Internal Revenue Service.

The income tax system is voluntary. That's because people are free to arrange their financial affairs in such a way to take advantage of any tax benefits. Voluntary does not mean that the tax laws don't apply to you. Voluntary means you can minimize your taxes by taking advantage of various deductions and tax credits.

Voluntary also means that you must tell the IRS what your tax liability is. And the only way to do that is to file a tax return.
--------------------[end]--------------------

This REALLY is my last post in this thread, there's nothing more worth discussing.

 

[calsdad]

Here's the definition of 'Voluntary Tax System' (Google can be your friend).

LINK

Voluntary Tax:

Definition: "A system of compliance that relies on individual citizens to report their income freely and voluntarily, calculate their tax liability correctly, and file a tax return on time," according to the Internal Revenue Service.

The income tax system is voluntary. That's because people are free to arrange their financial affairs in such a way to take advantage of any tax benefits. Voluntary does not mean that the tax laws don't apply to you. Voluntary means you can minimize your taxes by taking advantage of various deductions and tax credits.

Voluntary also means that you must tell the IRS what your tax liability is. And the only way to do that is to file a tax return.
--------------------[end]--------------------

This REALLY is my last post in this thread, there's nothing more worth discussing.

That's the worst excuse for "voluntary" I think I have ever heard.

It's like saying we have a "voluntary" military draft system because you are free to avoid it by moving to Canada, going to jail - or shooting yourself in the head.

We have a compulsory taxation system. Pure and simple. Calling it voluntary does not make it so. The Browns decided to "unvolunteer" and found out exactly what happens to people who decide not to pay. I am not going to argue that they can claim ignorance of what was going to happen to them - because I don't believe they were ignorant of what could happen to them by refusing to pay. But you are also not going to get to believe we have a "voluntary" system. And if you believe that there is any way to "arrange your financial affairs" so that you pay no taxes - I am sorry but I don't believe you have spent much time actually looking at the tax code. It is virtually impossible for the vast majority of people in this country to do anything at all to get out of paying taxes. The only way to "arrange your finances" for that vast majority is to simply not make any money. If you don't like eating and don't mind living in a hole in the ground then I guess that is an option.

To call this system voluntary based on the definitions and excuses that you have given is a sick joke. It's made all the more pathetic by the fact that you keep trying to defend it and obviously believe in it.

 

[Titan]

That's the worst excuse for "voluntary" I think I have ever heard.

It's like saying we have a "voluntary" military draft system because you are free to avoid it by moving to Canada, going to jail - or shooting yourself in the head.

We have a compulsory taxation system. Pure and simple. Calling it voluntary does not make it so. The Browns decided to "unvolunteer" and found out exactly what happens to people who decide not to pay. I am not going to argue that they can claim ignorance of what was going to happen to them - because I don't believe they were ignorant of what could happen to them by refusing to pay. But you are also not going to get to believe we have a "voluntary" system. And if you believe that there is any way to "arrange your financial affairs" so that you pay no taxes - I am sorry but I don't believe you have spent much time actually looking at the tax code. It is virtually impossible for the vast majority of people in this country to do anything at all to get out of paying taxes. The only way to "arrange your finances" for that vast majority is to simply not make any money. If you don't like eating and don't mind living in a hole in the ground then I guess that is an option.

To call this system voluntary based on the definitions and excuses that you have given is a sick joke. It's made all the more pathetic by the fact that you keep trying to defend it and obviously believe in it.

I have no idea why you're spoiling for a fight.

The definition simply defines the context in which I used the word.

Geez, take a pill.

 

[namedpipes]

I'm not advocating in any way for the current system, just commenting on what namedpipes already conceded...

That the Browns knew what they were doing and the consequences of their actions.

Just so that we're clear, I conceded nothing. We debated two interpretations of the same set of facts. The "facts" were never in dispute.

You might want to look up the definition of the word concede. Google is your friend...