digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Ahhhh, those wacky Ron Paul supporters. Part 72

notoronpaulians.blogspot.com — Check out this list of "infractions" from this moron. I can't believe that someone is STILL claiming that the income tax amendment wasn't ratified by enough states. Of course, he doesn't even TRY to give any proof of any of this. We should just take his word for it. (It was ratified by 42 states, with only 36 being required, by the way.)

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • bingobongony, on 03/28/2008, -14/+4I also love how they jusy misinterpret laws and then use their misinteerpretation as their baseis for declaring it unconstitutional.

    Sorry, idiots..but your stupidity does not make a law unconsitutional.
    • iainc, on 03/28/2008, -1/+10I know I'm going straight to Hell for this, but ...

      http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Bingobongony_Trolls_all_ ...
      • Quick2822, on 03/28/2008, -0/+7ahaha I love it.

        All his responses to that Digg are the same ones he gives us here..

        WHAT ARE YOU SO LONELY WITH NO FRIENDS?! YOU HAVE NO LIFE? LOL!
    • ragamufin, on 03/28/2008, -0/+6haha another submission from bingo down the drain.
      You know your a ***** troll when you submit an article AND your the first person to comment on it
      pathetic
  • BillORights, on 03/28/2008, -2/+9 Spam out this list of "spamfractions" from this spamospamony. I can't trollieve that spamone is SPAM trolling that the spam troll spamendment wasn't trollified by enough trolls. Of course, spam trolls even TROLL to give any spam of any of this. We should just spam his troll for it. (It was spamatified by 42 trolls, with only 36 being spammed, by the spam.)
    I also love spam they jusy misintrollpret trolls and then use trolls misinteerpretation as their baseis for trolling it spamconstitutional.

    Spammy, trolls..but your spampidity does not troll a spam spamconsitutional.

  • valaw, on 03/28/2008, -1/+5think sec knox said it was ratified, bill benson (?) researched it thoroughly and said it wasn't, but tell me bingo, who is required to pay the income tax.
    • bingobongony, on 03/28/2008, -6/+1We are...the Supreme Corut has rules MANY times that salaries from jobs are income.

      Look, you can play this whiny bitch semantics game all you want, but the amendement was ratified, and the Supreme Court has upheld it EVERY time. Bill Benson did not "research it thoroughly". He made ***** up because he knew worthless ignorant children like yourself would just blindly accept what he said.
      • BillORights, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4Woop, woop, woop angry troll alert!!!!
  • vbullinger, on 03/28/2008, -2/+5http://devas103.inetium.com/troll.jpg
  • Quick2822, on 03/28/2008, -1/+6bingobongony -- show me the passage from the law that says that the average American is required to pay an income tax. That's all you have to do. Just show me the section, the part of the law, anything.. where it says that we are required to pay an income tax.
    • reed311, on 03/28/2008, -5/+4Let me try:

      The federal tax laws are contained in the Internal Revenue Code, also known as Title 26 of the United States Code, which is the compilation of laws passed by the Congress (“Title” basically means “Volume” when applied to the U.S. Code as a whole, so Title 26 is what might more casually be called Volume 26).

      The Internal Revenue Code is the law that requires people to pay taxes (and yes, the Internal Revenue Code is the law -- for more detail on this point click here).

      The most important statutory provision with regard to income taxes is section one of the tax code, 26 U.S.C. § 1. This is the section that actually imposes the income tax. It’s very simply written. If you are unmarried, the relevant provision is § 1(c), which states:

      26 U.S.C. § 1
      There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . who is not a married individual a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
      followed by a table specifying the tax rates on various income amounts. If you are married, you are covered by the similar provision at § 1(a). There are also a couple of other possible filing statuses covered elsewhere in § 1 (such as “head of household”), but the basic point is that section 1 imposes an income tax.

      26 U.S.C. § 61

      [G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
      (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
      (2) Gross income derived from business;
      (3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
      (4) Interest;
      (5) Rents;
      (6) Royalties;
      (7) Dividends;


      • Robjayne, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4So it is a statutory law, that explains how people are found not guilty for tax evasion. It never was passed by all States. That is interesting .
    • bingobongony, on 03/28/2008, -6/+1It odesn't have to name each and every individual who must pay you stupid *****.
      • BillORights, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4You might want to use the spell check you stupid *****!
  • valaw, on 03/28/2008, -1/+4think you need to vist originalintent.org, bingo, but then you really don't want to learn anything, just rattle sabers
  • valaw, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4define taxable income, define individual, define gross income is it a direct tax or indirect tax.income tax is a direct tax and needs to be apportioned. a right cannot be taxed, your labor is a right. corporations can be taxed.16th amendment said a Citizens property, cannot be taxed as an excise tax.define taxpayer, define wages and who pays them. in other words, reed, you don't know what you are talking about.if you want to know the truth, go to originalintent.org
    • bingobongony, on 03/28/2008, -7/+1I don't have to define it. The Surpreme Court already has done that. MANY times.
  • kfed2, on 03/28/2008, -0/+2If there was a law stating that everybody had to pay income tax to me, would it be any different than paying it to the IRS? From a legal standpoint, no. Is it a good idea to give 1 organization the right to take from others to fund whatever it wants under the threat of force? What if, instead of IRS, we forced every body to pay income tax to a church, or a foreign country? The fact that most everybody disagrees with some aspect of federal spending is morally important, but not considered legally.
    The income tax may be valid legally, but then again, so was slavery. Black people used to be 3/5Th human by supreme court ruling. My point is that you have to consider the philosophical implications of the law when you decide whether or not to obey it. Technically the founding fathers were guilty of treason and deserved to be executed.
    Unfortunately for the government, you cannot change moral right and wrong with legislation. No amount of court rulings would have made slavery good.
  • kfed2, on 03/28/2008, -0/+4That said:
    Bingo enjoys having everybody posting on his site. That is most likely his motivation for putting these up.
    http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Bingobongony_Trolls_all_ ...
    Just bury and report as offensive when he cusses you out and he should be gone in a day or 2.
  • valaw, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1the supreme court has reviewed it many times and it says there are taxpayers and non taxpayers and title 26 is not written for non taxpayers.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.