Yeah? Well,as far as I'm concerned, you're claiming poverty to get out of a bet that you know you'll lose.
There are a wide variety of ways that psychological denial can be expressed by a person who is unconsciously defending or protecting themselves from unwanted knowledge, thoughts, or feelings. What follows is a partial list of denial strategies. Human ingenuity being what it is, I couldn't possibly list all the possible strategies. "Affect Storm" or Exaggerated Emotional Responses This is a hyperemotional response to anything that threatens the veneer of denial or that questions the motivations of the denier. EXAMPLE: Take your pick among the usual ad hominem attacks leveled at anyone who has the audacity to disagree with the person in denial or to question his denial.
I knew you would back out Haroki. You are a big time fraud. We are talking about ideas not money here pal. You are a snakeoil salesmen. That is clear for all to see.You made a ridiculous condition to back out. The old weasel clause Haroki.You don't really believe in your convictions do you Haroki???????
Ha ha ha !!! I'm willing to put money down and you're not..... who lacks conviction? Make the arrangements .
There are a wide variety of ways that psychological denial can be expressed by a person who is unconsciously defending or protecting themselves from unwanted knowledge, thoughts, or feelings. What follows is a partial list of denial strategies. Human ingenuity being what it is, I couldn't possibly list all the possible strategies. "Affect Storm" or Exaggerated Emotional Responses This is a hyperemotional response to anything that threatens the veneer of denial or that questions the motivations of the denier. EXAMPLE: Take your pick among the usual ad hominem attacks leveled at anyone who has the audacity to disagree with the person in denial or to question his denial.
I have no money Haroki. Are you going to fucking bring it up again Haroki. It's a ridiculous claim anyways Haroki. The court system is a fraud to begin with. The odds are so far in your favor that you should give me 100-1 . Now knock off this stupid bet crap. Be a man and stand up for your beliefs for their ownsake. I will make the arrangements if you knock off this weasel clause crap
So what you're saying is every single judge, for the last 200 yrs corrupt? "The court decisions against tax protesters are all rendered by ignorant, corrupt judges who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo because their salaries are paid by the income tax and they are not going to bite the hand that feeds them." There is absolutely no evidence that any of the rulings described in this FAQ were obtained by corruption. And consider the following: The judicial decisions that are cited in this FAQ go back more than 200 years, to 1796, when the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of a tax imposed on a citizen of Virginia for carriages held for personal use. In all that time, there has never been a single judge in the history of the United States to rule that Congress could not impose a tax on individuals living within the states of the United States. No judge in the history of the United States has ever ruled that wages were not income, or that Congress could not tax wages. There have been only six judges in the history of the United States to rule that a tax on certain types of income (from property) might be unconstitutional (in the Pollock decision in 1894), and they were overruled by the 16th Amendment fairly quickly. So, in order to believe that all of the rulings against tax protesters are the result of ignorant, corrupt judges, you must believe that every single judge in the history of the United States has been ignorant or corrupt. That doesnât sound likely. The idea that judges have a vested interest in upholding the income tax is equally absurd. Under the Constitution, federal judges are appointed for life and their salaries can never be reduced. So a federal judge is always going to get paid regardless of how the judge rules. If a judge considered only his or her own self-interest, the judge would rule against the income tax, because then the judge would also not be required to pay any taxes and could keep the full amount of the lifetime salary guaranteed by the Constitution. In short, claims that rulings against tax protesters are tainted by corruption or stupidity are just the whinings of people who refuse to understand that they are wrong.
Or perhaps that they're afaid of the IRS? The court decisions against tax protesters are all rendered by judges who are afraid of being audited by the IRS and so are afraid to rule against the IRS. Ridiculous. Judges rule against the IRS all the time, on all sorts of issues. Judges have even fined the IRS and its agents for violating the law. And yet there is no verified instance of any judge ever getting audited by the IRS following a ruling by the judge against the IRS. In addition, there are known examples of judges being biased against the IRS. The most extreme case was Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. During his many years on the U.S. Supreme Court (and he served longer than any other justice in history), Justice Douglas voted against the IRS at almost every opportunity, frequently dissenting (without opinion) from otherwise unanimous decisions. The accepted explanation of this odd voting record is that he was still angry at having once been audited by the IRS. Justice Douglas was a very strong-willed, outspoken man, and if the IRS has ever taken any other actions against him, he would have let the public know about it. And even if the IRS did audit a judge, what harm could the IRS do? Most judges have little more than their salaries from the government and some investment income. If they report all of their income (as they are required to do) and claim the usual deductions, what can the IRS do? Contrary to what tax protesters think, the IRS canât just go in and fabricate numbers. There has to be some facts that will justify imposing additional taxes. Finally, if the IRS did have a vendetta against a judge, and tried to run the judge through the wringer because of it, could you imagine the public outcry that would result if the judge made the story public? It is sometimes suggested that the IRS is too soft in politically sensitive cases, rather than too hard, because the IRS fears a backlash from Congress if it appeared that any audit or other action were politically motivated. In short, this is just a paranoid delusion.
No weasel clauses apply hoss. I said "make the arrangements." Where is the conditional statement there? There is none, so quit lying and make the arrangements. I merely stating that I believe you to be dishonest when you say that you're broke. And I believe that you're saying this because you'll know you'll lose the bet. Here's your motivation for avoiding the bet - "Why do tax protesters keep violating the laws, and keep litigating, even after it is clear that they have lost and have no valid arguments?" If the assertions addressed in this FAQ are so ridiculous, why do people believe them? One answer, and simplest answer, is greed. People would rather have more money than less, and the appeal of not paying income taxes is enough to make at least some people believe almost anything.
Learn your history Haroki. We have not had an income tax for 200 years. Do you have any clue what the rate of tax was back in 1914? PS. So we are set for the debate Haroki? Do you know the phone number to call tuesday night?