IRS gives wrong information about taxes

[Reager]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IRS gives wrong information about taxes

No.

So people should be allowed to violate the law and not be punished? That's a very interesting position. And you live on what planet?

I'm referring to the very subject of this thread! The IRS is giving out bad information, and that could easily result in people being fined or imprisoned if it causes them to make major mistakes on their tax returns! NO ONE should be subjected to that kind of tyranny.

No one is imprisoned for simply making a mistake on their tax return. You correct the mistake, and possibly pay a fine plus interest. The only time someone would go to prison is for the crime of tax evasion, which is a deliberate and dishonest failure to pay taxes.

The argument can be made that it is unfair to punish people who rely on an erroneous statement by the IRS, but lots of laws work that way. Suppose a policeman erroneously states that the age of consent in your state is 13. Actually, the age of consent is 16. You then proceed to knowingly engage in sexual intercourse with a 14 year old and are arrested for statutory rape. Should it be a valid defense to statuory rape that you relied on the policeman's mistaken statement of the law?

Yes.

No, but they can see what you have.

The point, which you fail to acknowledge, is that the government cannot *arbitrarilly* take money from my bank account without my knowledge or consent. You may not agree with all of the laws and regulations that exist, but don't pretend they dont exist.

And that's why we shouldn't have one.

We shouldn't have an income tax because then the government will know how much you earn. Well that's an airtight argument if I've ever heard one...

Mine says it's "Extreme harshness or severity." I'd say this definitely qualifies!

I know, it's absolute torture filling out those tax returns. Ask John McCain, the Viet Cong had nothing on the IRS.

Mike

 

[EvilYeti]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IRS gives wrong information about taxes

This is more of your trolling. It just isn't true. For example, when Harry Browne ran for President, he turned down Federal matching funds for his campaign even though he was the first third-party candidate in America's history to qualify for them.


So Harry Browne didn't drive on federal roads, or eat meat approved by federal inspectors either?

You live in America you take advantage of benefits the Federal Government provides. If the Libertarians had any integrity, whatsoever, they would live offshore and campaign from there.


Because they DIDN'T. They did fund and develop ARPAnet, but that isn't the internet. The internet is a collection of independent networks which was looking for a good way to connect themselves together.


Har, har, har! Looks like shanek doesn't know the history of the internet, or how it even works. Not surprising. Those independant networks have to be connected together and THATS the internet. In this case that network was NSFNET, I know cause I've worked with the guy who built it out. From his bio:

"... the NSFNET backbone became the core interconnection network for the Internet, which enabled the Internet commercialization several years later. The NSFNET was key for driving the Internet technology from a DARPA research project which, in the wake of GOSIP and X.25, seemed on its way into oblivion in the mid-80s, towards an operationally accepted and commercialized globally available environment."

NSFNET is the true precursor to our modern internet, not ARPANET and was funded entirely by the National Science Foundation (hence the name NSFnet).
There would be no internet without NSFNET, the commercial world was not interested in taking the risk in building something of that scale out without a prior proof that such a thing could work. Even then many telecommunications companies had to be drug, kicking and screaming, into the Internet age. I know that as well, as I worked at one of the biggies!


The TCP/IP standard developed with ARPAnet is what they ended up using, but it could just as easily have been any other protocol. They only used TCP/IP because the government got themselves out of it! That's right, the government opened up the protocol and then completely left it to the private sector! And most of the things you actually use the internet for were not in place at that time. TCP/IP itself was very different, and it was only through the collective cooperation that the numerous problems with TCP/IP began to be fixed. Many of them are still there. So we're still having to work to fix all of the problems with ARPAnet, problems which weren't there in any of the other protocols they could have used.


Oh Gawd, you are so completely and totally wrong, about everything, as usual, again.

TCP was INVENTED by Vint Cerf at Stanford, a PRIVATE school! So any problem you have with that protocol is the fault of the private sector! I'm sure if you knew that you would have said TCP was perfect until the Gummint broke it.

Don't take my word on it, read the the history here

What other protocols could have been used? How are they better? Are you claiming the Internet would work better if it used IPX? How would you know anyway, you have an art degree for chrissake! Do you really think you know more about developing WAN protocols than the folks who invented the Internet?

IPv3 has its share of problems and limitations to be sure, hence the development of IPv6. And guess what, lots of Gummint funds helped develop that as well! Federal and private industry worked together on that, which shows how valuable both FEDERAL and PRIVATE research is.

 

[Solitaire]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IRS gives wrong information about taxes

The funny thing about Libertarians is, they really have a problem with Gummint collecting taxes, but they don't have a problem with taking advantage of the things they pay for.

Shanek himself is a big fan of the Internet, yet I never hear rant about the Gummint funding the development of it.

Or roads, never hear them complaining about the roads...

Oh, no!
He has done so in the past and on many occasions.

 

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Rich people will just start giving eachother gifts. They will probably have administrations to make sure the gifts they give to eachother are of the same value on the free market. A steel manufacturer gives 400 thousand dollars worth of steel to a sports car manufacturer and the sports car manufacturer just gives him a 400 thousand dollar sports car in return. No sales tax is paid, since no selling took place, just 'mutual acts of friendship'. From the perspective of the government, there is no trade, just people helping eachother out.

Any barter in the united states is converted into hard cash equivalents
by the inland revinue service and taxed appropirately.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IRS gives wrong information about taxes

So people should be allowed to violate the law and not be punished?

I'm saying that things like that shouldn't even be a law in the first place.

That's a very interesting position. And you live on what planet?

I'm glad you think that it's unthinkable to not enforce the rule of law. Let me ask you this: Why do you not extend this same logic to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land?

No one is imprisoned for simply making a mistake on their tax return.

I said fined or imprisoned. And you can be fined for the tiniest of mistakes.

I have to send in estimated taxes. If I don't send in the right amount—even if I've followed their math to the letter and made no mistakes—I still have to pay an extra fine PLUS the surplus amount I still owe!

Tell me THAT makes sense!

The argument can be made that it is unfair to punish people who rely on an erroneous statement by the IRS, but lots of laws work that way. Suppose a policeman erroneously states that the age of consent in your state is 13. Actually, the age of consent is 16. You then proceed to knowingly engage in sexual intercourse with a 14 year old and are arrested for statutory rape. Should it be a valid defense to statuory rape that you relied on the policeman's mistaken statement of the law?[/qoute]

This case isn't comparable because the cop in question is not specifically designated as someone who can answer legal questions. The IRS agents surveyed were.

The point, which you fail to acknowledge, is that the government cannot *arbitrarilly* take money from my bank account without my knowledge or consent.

Arbitrarily, meaning that it must follow certain rules. And guess who makes the rules?

There are rules that state the government can rummage through your bank account if you make a cash transfer of more than $10,000.00. Under the Patriot Act, if you belong to a group the government designates a "terrorist organization"—and the law is vague enough that organizations that “appear to be intended...to influence the policy of a government” qualify. It's vague enough to apply to almost anyone.

You may not agree with all of the laws and regulations that exist, but don't pretend they dont exist.

I'm not. I'm just not pretending that they're Constitutional or in any way justified.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IRS gives wrong information about taxes

So Harry Browne didn't drive on federal roads, or eat meat approved by federal inspectors either?

When was he given a choice in the matter?

You live in America you take advantage of benefits the Federal Government provides. If the Libertarians had any integrity, whatsoever, they would live offshore and campaign from there.

Shut up, troll.

Har, har, har! Looks like shanek doesn't know the history of the internet, or how it even works.

I was INVOLVED in much of it, troll.

Those independant networks have to be connected together and THATS the internet.

But that's NOT the ARPAnet.

In this case that network was NSFNET,

No, it wasn't. It was mostly the large telecommunication providers. The TECHNOLOGIES used in NSFnet became used in the Internet backbone, but a) that's not the same thing, and b)not until the NSF cast it off entirely to the private sector and had nothing further to do with it.

"... the NSFNET backbone became the core interconnection network for the Internet, which enabled the Internet commercialization several years later. The NSFNET was key for driving the Internet technology from a DARPA research project which, in the wake of GOSIP and X.25, seemed on its way into oblivion in the mid-80s, towards an operationally accepted and commercialized globally available environment."

Oh, this is ironic, since in another thread you accused me of doing what you just did—quoting a source that supports my argument instead of yours!

Yes, it WAS going to go into oblivion (and another protocol selected for the Internet) UNTIL the NSF spun it off into the private sector. And you see the words "several years later" up there?

NSFNET is the true precursor to our modern internet, not ARPANET

NSFnet was spun off from ARPAnet. It's what ARPAnet became when it went from the DoD to the NSF.

There would be no internet without NSFNET,

Bull$#!7. That's like saying there would have been no light bulb without Thomas Edison. Westinghouse had another one that could have been used; Edison just got his used because he got to the patent office first. There were other protocols and other technologies that these companies could have used to connect themselves together.

Are you claiming the Internet would work better if it used IPX?

Why not? IPX actually had a much larger address space, and although it had routing and service advertising problems, so did TCP/IP until it was fixed BY PEOPLE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR!

IPv3 has its share of problems and limitations to be sure, hence the development of IPv6.

What we're using is IPv4. And YOU say I'M ignorant!

Go away, troll.

 

[Reager]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IRS gives wrong information about taxes

I'm saying that things like that shouldn't even be a law in the first place.

You also said that people shouldn't be punished for nonpayment of taxes. If you mis-spoke, just acknowledge it and move on.

I'm glad you think that it's unthinkable to not enforce the rule of law. Let me ask you this: Why do you not extend this same logic to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land?

I do, but what you don't understand, or can't accept, is that the Constitution, like most every law ever written, is open to interpretation. Even the most simple laws, "commandments" you might say, are open for interpretation. You don't agree with the way our Constitution has been interpreted, fine. That doesn't make the government "tyrannical."

I said fined or imprisoned. And you can be fined for the tiniest of mistakes.

I have to send in estimated taxes. If I don't send in the right amount—even if I've followed their math to the letter and made no mistakes—I still have to pay an extra fine PLUS the surplus amount I still owe!

Tell me THAT makes sense!

I won't say it makes sense. But those regulations and the laws authorizing them can be changed if they don't make sense. That doesn't make them tyrannical, they are not the dictates of some totalitarian potentate.

This case isn't comparable because the cop in question is not specifically designated as someone who can answer legal questions. The IRS agents surveyed were.

Which brings me back to my original reply, is the IRS any more likely to give wrong information than any other large beurocracy? Somebody has to take the fall for that mistake, and yeah maybe it would be better if reliance upon on an IRS agent was a legitimate defense to making a mistake on your tax return. But again, the laws can be changed to that effect. We're not talking about tyranny here.

Arbitrarily, meaning that it must follow certain rules. And guess who makes the rules?

The appointed and elected members of government. Any more easy questions?

There are rules that state the government can rummage through your bank account if you make a cash transfer of more than $10,000.00. Under the Patriot Act, if you belong to a group the government designates a "terrorist organization"—and the law is vague enough that organizations that “appear to be intended...to influence the policy of a government” qualify. It's vague enough to apply to almost anyone.

I agree with you. I'll never defend the Patriot Act.

I'm not. I'm just not pretending that they're Constitutional or in any way justified.

You dont think they are constitutional or justified. Others disagree. Some think they are constitutional but unjustified. Others thing they are justified but unconstitutional. Not everyone believes what you do. Sucks, doesn't it?

Mike

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IRS gives wrong information about tax

You also said that people shouldn't be punished for nonpayment of taxes.

I said that as an argument against the existance of the law, not as an argument in favor of civil disobedience.

I do, but what you don't understand, or can't accept, is that the Constitution, like most every law ever written, is open to interpretation.

Here we go again...

I won't say it makes sense. But those regulations and the laws authorizing them can be changed if they don't make sense.

But that process has been abrogated. That makes the Constitution essentially meaningless.

Which brings me back to my original reply, is the IRS any more likely to give wrong information than any other large beurocracy?

No, but no other bureaucracy can fine you or put you in jail.

But again, the laws can be changed to that effect.

How could the law be changed here? We're talking about the internal procedures of a government agency. I don't know of any way of writing the law so that they're responsible and not you. Besides, you'd run into that Sovereign Immunity thing again.

The appointed and elected members of government.

Exactly—the very people we're supposed to be protected from!

Any more easy questions?

Yes: Who watches the watchmen?

BTW, I think you missed this point, probably because I screwed up the quote formatting:

This case isn't comparable because the cop in question is not specifically designated as someone who can answer legal questions. The IRS agents surveyed were.

 

[EvilYeti]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IRS gives wrong information about taxes

Shut up, troll.


Touched a nerve, eh Zippy? Why don't you stop suckling on the government teat?


I was INVOLVED in much of it, troll.


You sir, are a liar and a fraud.

From your resume:

Instructor--New Horizons Computer Learning Center May 1996 to Present
Instruct individuals and corporate employees in the use of various software packages. Learn new software thoroughly and quickly to be able to instruct, answer questions, and help with specific problems. Help design coursewear for new classes.

Graphic Artist--Gaston Graphics July 1995 to February 1996
Design and produce printed graphics to customers' specifications. Produce a variety of different jobs on tight deadlines.

Intern--CAE-Link January 1995
Work with a team of artists and programmers to produce computer-based training programs. Design graphic illustrations and title screens to exacting specifications.

Student Consultant--St. Andrews College Computer Center Fall 1993 to Spring 1995
Help students with questions or problems. Analyze/diagnose equipment problems. Repair equipment, replace parts, build computers from parts. Set up and run campus network and BBS.

Typesetter--Harmon Publishing April 1991 to July 1993
Lay out format and set type for master pages. Work with a limited equipment setup, tight deadlines, and exacting specifications.

Wheres the part about you being involved in the creation of the internet? Did you accidently leave that part out? You were a college freshman when NSFNET was being built! In college you were a friggen art major! A search of the RFC archives at http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/ turns up no mention of a "Shane Killian". Stop lying you pathetic wannabe poser.


No, it wasn't. It was mostly the large telecommunication providers. The TECHNOLOGIES used in NSFnet became used in the Internet backbone, but a) that's not the same thing, and b)not until the NSF cast it off entirely to the private sector and had nothing further to do with it.


The lines were leased from the big phone companies as that was cheaper then laying new cable across the country. The telecommunications companies had no interest in carrying data traffic, they just lent the wires to the NSF.
In no way was the NSFNET "cast off", it was a research project not a business venture. It worked, so the principals moved on to other projects and left it to the private sector to commercialize their discoveries. Thats how all research works, public and private. Would you rather the government ran the Internet?


Oh, this is ironic, since in another thread you accused me of doing what you just did—quoting a source that supports my argument instead of yours!


You can't understand written English. NSFNET "enabled the Internet commercialization several years later". Do you know what "enabled" means? How can you not understand that the modern internet is an offshoot of an NSF funded research project?


Yes, it WAS going to go into oblivion (and another protocol selected for the Internet) UNTIL the NSF spun it off into the private sector. And you see the words "several years later" up there?


Its a free market and the private sector could use any protocol they wanted. They chose TCP/IP, it wasn't forced on them.


NSFnet was spun off from ARPAnet. It's what ARPAnet became when it went from the DoD to the NSF.


I know that. The modern internet has more in common with NSFnet than ARPAnet. They were both Gummint projects.


Bull$#!7. That's like saying there would have been no light bulb without Thomas Edison. Westinghouse had another one that could have been used; Edison just got his used because he got to the patent office first.


You are playing what-if games and claiming special knowledge again. You could just as well argue that the transistor would have eventually been invented at a public University instead of Bell Labs. You could argue the same about every invention in the private sector.

That not my point regardless. My point is good research is done is BOTH the public and private sectors. Public sector research is VERY important these days as most of the major private research orgs. are being downsized. There are also new research groups, like CalIT2 that are funded by private AND federal funds. Who gets the credit for their discoveries? Does it really matter?


There were other protocols and other technologies that these companies could have used to connect themselves together.


But they didn't, so it doesn't matter. That was the decision of the private sector. My father was working at AT&T at the time and tried to convince them to build out an IP backbone similar to NSFnet, the management refused. They couldn't see a use for it.


Why not? IPX actually had a much larger address space, and although it had routing and service advertising problems, so did TCP/IP until it was fixed BY PEOPLE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR!

TCP WAS INVENTED BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR YOU YUTZ! Why can't you understand that? It was invented by Vint Cerf at Stanford! Any problems fixed by the private sector were caused by the private sector! And many public sector employees worked on it as well. In fact, the Internet is as textbook example of how greats things can come from the public and private sector working together.


What we're using is IPv4. And YOU say I'M ignorant!


Oh you got me, my entire argument is invalid because I hit the 3 instead of 4. You are pathetic.

Go away, troll.

As soon as you stop lying and making ignorant statements I'll leave.

 

[Reager]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IRS gives wrong information about tax

I said that as an argument against the existance of the law, not as an argument in favor of civil disobedience.

Sorry, it sounded like you were saying that there should be no consequences for nonpayment of taxes. I guess I misunderstood.

Here we go again...

Rolling your eyes in the face of reality is a futile gesture.

But that process has been abrogated. That makes the Constitution essentially meaningless.

I think our Constitution, and our nation, is doing quite well after 200 years. Things aren't perfect, but then, they never were.

No, but no other bureaucracy can fine you or put you in jail.

The IRS does not put people in jail.

How could the law be changed here? We're talking about the internal procedures of a government agency. I don't know of any way of writing the law so that they're responsible and not you. Besides, you'd run into that Sovereign Immunity thing again.

Huh? Adminstrative regulations are changed all the time. All agencies of government have authorizing statutes that can be changed by Congress. I don't know what you're talking about.

Exactly—the very people we're supposed to be protected from!

Yes: Who watches the watchmen?

Tell me, what does it feel like being born 200 years too late?

BTW, I think you missed this point, probably because I screwed up the quote formatting:

I didn't miss it. Here's my reply again:

"Somebody has to take the fall for that mistake, and yeah maybe it would be better if reliance upon on an IRS agent was a legitimate defense to making a mistake on your tax return. But again, the laws can be changed to that effect. We're not talking about tyranny here."

Mike

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IRS gives wrong information about taxes

As soon as you stop lying and making ignorant statements I'll leave.

Oh, goody. You found ONE resume—COMPLETELY OUT OF DATE—that I had put up when I was looking for a job as a graphic artist. Why would someone put up computer activity done on an independent basis on such a resume?

No, I didn't put up my work on steganography, or contributions to IPv6, or my contributions to integrating BitNet to what was to become the internet, because a) they were irrelevant to the job I was seeking at the time, and b) it wasn't actual employment I got paid for and so didn't count as experience.

Good for you. You found something completely irrelevant to tear me personally down with. I hope it feels good and a boost to your pathetic little ego. But it still doesn't change the FACTS. I was there for much of it; I saw most of it, and was even a minor contributor to some of it. The fact that I did it independently of the career I decided to seek YEARS later means nothing.

You're a troll. Go away.

 

[Tormac]

JJ taunted

"Shanek, how does it feel to be without a single supporter, with everyone jeering at you? Not nice?

Well, if you start listening as much as you talk, start showing manners, stop accusing people who shred your points of being a "liar" and of "spreading filth", and start showing some genuine respect for those who have more experience and knowledge, you might find that you develop an ally or two.

Or isn't that what you want? Do you want to be a martyr to your religion? Do you think that money cares about you?"


While I am sure that shanek can stand up for himself, I have to ask what in this thread warrented this personal attack?

shanek brought up a problem in the complexity of the tax code. The fact that the government can not be relied on to accuratly answer honest questions about the convoluted tax code in this country in indicative of a problem (at least IMHO).

I had always been impressed with the level of general maturity in this forum (at least compaired to the car forums that I also frequent).

 

[Tormac]

The notion that Harry Browne specifically, or Libertarians in general are hypocritical if they call for a limited government, and yet use public roads really strikes me as ludicrous.

It is an attempt to get a straw man accepted as reality. The Libertarian party has never suggested that the government has no place in providing services for the public. That the Libertarian party calls for smaller government in general is true. That the Libertarian party would like to seem a simplified tax code that is easier to enforce, and understand is also true. That the Libertarian party has called for an end of government support for public roads is something that I must have missed. Either that or it is wrong.

 

[Tormac]

From the article at http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=98063

AccountingWEB US - Sep-5-2003 - The good news is that taxpayers are using the 500 taxpayer assistance centers the Internal Revenue Service has set up around the country. The bad news is there's about a 50-50 chance they will get incorrect answers to their tax law questions.

As I have noted in other threads, I used to train new hires in a call center that did phone support help for AT&T's @home cable modem service. I will be the first to admit that neither I, nor any of my trainees were perfect. I do not expect any mortal to be so.

However, all the CSR's that I trained had to face the possibility of any call that they handled was being monitored by both their immediate supervisor, a quality control team, and on rare occasions, unknown corporate quality control specialists.

Every month CSR's would face review by their immediate supervisor, with the minutiae of how they handled the calls that were monitored scrutinized. I am very confident that if a CSR at the call center that I worked at consistently (not just 10%, or 25%, but almost 50% of the time) gave out incorrect answers, they would loose their jobs.

I am in no way faulting the IRS call center CSR's. I am sure that they are under trained and over whelmed by an exceedingly complex code of ever changing rules that makes tcp/ip routing simple in comparison. The notion that the tax code is necessarily this complex seems silly to me. That the government could not define "income" in such a way that it could not keep people from cheating on a flat tax system also seems silly.

AT&T did not charge fines or late fees if their customers did not pay their bills on time. If a customer lost service due to an AT&T error, they would be credited on their next bill based on the length of the time that they were down. I am confident that the federal government would not be as lenient with me if I made an honest mistake, based on the information that is wrong 43% of the time.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IRS gives wrong information a

Sorry, it sounded like you were saying that there should be no consequences for nonpayment of taxes. I guess I misunderstood.

That's fine.

Rolling your eyes in the face of reality is a futile gesture.

Except that it's NOT reality! NO ONE has EVER been able to produce ANYTHING from the framers showing they intended the Constitution to be interpreted at all! They were very equivocal in the way they phrased things, and they did add in a process of amendment so that the Constitution COULD be modified if it no longer fit what needed to be done.

I think our Constitution, and our nation, is doing quite well after 200 years. Things aren't perfect, but then, they never were.

I think so, too. But I think it would be even better if the government followed it.

The IRS does not put people in jail.

Tiny nitpick. They can still make the accusation and the government can put them in jail. And it's very hard to defend yourself; you basically have to prove your innocence, an almost impossible task.

Huh? Adminstrative regulations are changed all the time.

Not by a vote of the people.

I didn't miss it. Here's my reply again:

That doesn't seem to respond to my point. Are you conceding that your cop example is invalid?

And are we kidding anyone here, that if this were a private corporation they wouldn't be held liable?

 

[shanek]

That the Libertarian party has called for an end of government support for public roads is something that I must have missed. Either that or it is wrong.

It's something some Libertarians support, but it's not a major issue. Anyway, it's irrelevant because the government has given us no choice in the matter. They've given themselves a monopoly on the roads. Why so many people rail against free market "monopolies" (that aren't really monopolies) but have no problem at all with government monopolies I'll never understand.

 

[EvilYeti]

Anyway, it's irrelevant because the government has given us no choice in the matter. They've given themselves a monopoly on the roads.

Yeah, those bastards. You won't believe some of the other garbage they have in the Constitution. You should read it sometime!

 

[shanek]

Yeah, those bastards. You won't believe some of the other garbage they have in the Constitution. You should read it sometime!

Why is something good just because it's in the Constitution? Aren't you aware that slavery was once codified and enforced in the Constitution?

And what about the fact that the Constitution only gives the government the power to post roads; it does NOT give government the power to prevent others from doing the same?

Oh, right, I forgot—you're a sick troll who has no real interest in rational debate at all. Silly me.

 

[EvilYeti]

While I am sure that shanek can stand up for himself, I have to ask what in this thread warrented this personal attack?

I had always been impressed with the level of general maturity in this forum (at least compaired to the car forums that I also frequent).

as jj defended I shall defend jj.

jj was responding to Shaneks unwarranted accusation that I was spreading filth and trolling this thread. I was merely pointing out that if Shanek was not able to understand something simple like how banks lend money (see the economic recovery thread), that perhaps he was not qualified to be making absolutist statements about complex subjects like government and Constitutional law.

 

[shanek]

jj was responding to Shaneks unwarranted accusation that I was spreading filth and trolling this thread.

It's not unwarranted. As I demonstrated quite clearly in the other thread, your assertion that I don't understand how banks lend money is a LIE. After I posted several sources agreeing with me, AND EXPLAINING WHY THEY AGREE WITH ME, you merely asserted that they said something different, WITH NO EXPLANATION WHY.

You are not interested in rational debate. You're only interested in launching personal attacks to tear your opponent down. It's base and despicable, and reveals you for the troll you are.