Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Osborn F Enready · Jul 20, 2005, 07:12 pm

Dirty Name said:
If there is a single issue you believe I have sidestepped, bring it on. I'm right here, and I haven't ducked anything. Let me know what issue I haven't addressed.

I say:
Same one you copped out on before.

Show me a link, a source, for an OFFICIAL UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT that outlines the plan of society management through tax breaks. ANY official document of ANYTHING RELATED to that, would be a step in the right direction.

Last time you showed me a clip of the Constitution (that has NOTHING to do with what your talking about) and a bunch of opinion that I have already heard, which the source was YOU.

I want to see some official source, for what you base your entire argument on. You tell me I am supposed to connect the dots, and I should ASSUME it is right, never mind the unconstitutionality of the income tax.

I think everyone here would love to see where you get your idea of governments place in this, or the laws in which you seem to think exist.

mr.perfecto · Jul 20, 2005, 11:36 pm

Well, Osborn I don't know what Dirty Name is going to say to you, but I have a link for you Osborn (Considering the fact that you probably have already stopped reading my post and started on your reply, this post is mostly intended to serve as a good example for anyone else who has to confront these odd views).

http://thomas.loc.gov

Click on where it says Search Congressional Record. Search for anything you like, and if a bill has been passed about it, you can read the text of the debate on it. As I myself have pointed out before, it isn't as if laws are spontaneously created by random, mindless, purposeless natural forces.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...r102uIH6yR:e0:

Even your boy Thomas Jefferson isn't in agreement with your point of view. Did you even know he had laws passed that showed total disregard for the liberty of the people. Maybe now you can abandon the propaganda-induced history of the United States you've been holding on to. Laws are always created (at least they are always claimed to have been created) for promoting the best interests of society. There is nothing radical about the idea.

Here is just one such law: http://www.answers.com/topic/embargo-act-of-1807

Dirty Name · Jul 21, 2005, 12:15 am

Quote:

Last time you showed me a clip of the Constitution

Wrong. I posted an excerpt of the Declaration of Independence, then went on to explain why your opinion on the legality of the income tax encompasses far more than the issue of gay marriage. So even if you have a valid opinion on the subject of income tax, it still requires you to change the entire system. Until that happens, we're just going to have to work within the law as it exists today. That is the reality of the situation, whether you like it or not.

Quote:

Show me a link, a source, for an OFFICIAL UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT that outlines the plan of society management through tax breaks. ANY official document of ANYTHING RELATED to that, would be a step in the right direction.

Why is this necessary? The very existence of federal marriage benefits are ample evidence that the government engages in some level of "society management." And I have already provided several other similar examples (adoption is one) where the government offers incentives to help influence behavior. I fail to see why a written master plan is required for me to prove something that you already know exists.

Dirty Name · Jul 21, 2005, 12:22 am

Quote:

Well, Osborn I don't know what Dirty Name is going to say to you, but I have a link for you Osborn (Considering the fact that you probably have already stopped reading my post and started on your reply, this post is mostly intended to serve as a good example for anyone else who has to confront these odd views).

Mr. Perfecto, we are surrounded by the enemy on all sides. They can't possibly escape us now.

Osborn F Enready · Jul 21, 2005, 02:18 am

Mr Perfecto said:
Well, Osborn I don't know what Dirty Name is going to say to you, but I have a link for you Osborn.

I say:
Been there, done that. I search all Fed Gov Registries including the National Register. I especially like to focus on older material, such as the info you posted direct link to Jefferson. And also, while we are on Jefferson, he is not my boy, nor have I ever hinted at such. I respect Jefferson for his historical positions, but all people are wrong occassionally. The excerpt you happened to highlight showed the extent of that law, and how fast it was repealed, something that does not often happen in our modern corrupt system, because at the time, many of the Representatives were still not engulfed by the machine of corruption. I also often reference librarys of the forefathers and past presidents, as well as the Federal Reserve Website, The National Digital Archives and of course, the White House website.

You can attempt to insult my intelligence all you wish, but start a thread and we will go issue by issue and I will BURN you. Try me, mouth.

Mr Perfecto said:
(Considering the fact that you probably have already stopped reading my post and started on your reply)

I say:
Nice of you to assume, but as opposed to the usual quote, only you look like the ass.

Mr Perfecto said:
Even your boy Thomas Jefferson isn't in agreement with your point of view.

I say:
Lets compare notes, and I'll bet he shares about 93% of my views, in documented history. Bring it.
Start a thread.

Mr Derfecto said:
Maybe now you can abandon the propaganda-induced history of the United States you've been holding on to.

I say:
LOL, me, propaganda..... ROFLMAO...that's rich!

OK, GAUNTLET/............................... I just laid it out.

Start a thread, go issue by issue, we'll debate. Prepare to be buried in facts and I will conveniently stack your glossed over lies at the side of the hole as you dig it yourself. Once again, BRING IT.

Osborn F Enready · Jul 21, 2005, 02:29 am

Dirty Name said:
Wrong. I posted an excerpt of the Declaration of Independence, then went on to explain why your opinion on the legality of the income tax encompasses far more than the issue of gay marriage. So even if you have a valid opinion on the subject of income tax, it still requires you to change the entire system. Until that happens, we're just going to have to work within the law as it exists today. That is the reality of the situation, whether you like it or not.

I say:
I already said I would drop the tax issue in this thread so as not to SHIFT the TOPIC. You want to start a thread on the legality of income tax? BRING IT! But I will only debate if you agree to do as ALMOST EVERY OTHER DEBATER DOES, which is source your information, which you still haven't figured out how to do.

Dirty Name said:
Why is this necessary?

I say:
Well I see now, that the rules have changed again for the site, but it used to say that all people should try to SOURCE their arguments, in order to provide a BASIS for their argument other than their opinion. Common sense.

Dirty Name said:
I fail to see why a written master plan is required for me to prove something that you already know exists.

I say:
Why not? When someone alleges conspiracy, that is what everyone wants to see, a master plan and a buttload of proof. Since what you claim is happening is "widely known" and "accepted by all" it should be FAIRLY EASY TO SOURCE, but yet you still can't and won't because it DOESN'T EXIST.

If I were as cynical and blind as some of those who cast stones at "conspiracy theorists" I would tell you to go and get your tin-foil hat, since you have no facts or sources to back your case.

You love to use the cop out as "it's commonly accepted" or "commonly known", yet it is only COMMON in your mind.

NEXT.

Dirty Name · Jul 21, 2005, 10:54 am

Quote:

Quote by: Osborn F. Enready

Since what you claim is happening is "widely known" and "accepted by all" it should be FAIRLY EASY TO SOURCE, but yet you still can't and won't because it DOESN'T EXIST.

I am absolutely stunned that you have discredited yourself so blatantly, when all it would have required for proof for you to visit www.google.com and type the search terms in for yourself.

You claimed that I am "making up" my case that the federal government actively engages in social engineering through the granting of tax breaks. I cited the FACT that there is a $10,000 tax credit available to those who adopt, which you claim "DOESN'T EXIST."

Here is my first link, specifically for you, because I believe you might benefit more than anyone else here:

http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

And now for the links you apparently can't find on your own:

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/...ids/P37251.asp

http://tax-credit.adoption.com/

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...07-adopt_x.htm

I do hope you will shut your pie hole now.

**Matt W** · Jul 21, 2005, 11:37 am

Dirty Name, keep the insults (and the tinfoil hat links) out of this. If you want to argue something, the onus is on you to prove it, not other posters.

Dirty Name · Jul 21, 2005, 11:42 am

Quote:

Dirty Name, keep the insults out of this. If you want to argue something, the onus is on you to prove it, not other posters.

Apparently everyone is blind here.

**Matt W** · Jul 21, 2005, 11:44 am

No, everyone is not blind. The links are good, but the manner you have presented them in in BS & insulting. Keep your condecension on a leash.

belverron · Jul 21, 2005, 12:43 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Dirty Name

You claimed that I am "making up" my case that the federal government actively engages in social engineering through the granting of tax breaks. I cited the FACT that there is a $10,000 tax credit available to those who adopt, which you claim "DOESN'T EXIST."

It is good that you could provide evidence of this tax break, but you gave three almost identical links that have nothing to do with marriage, the topic of this thread. The fact that government provides an incentive to take children out of government-funded social services shouldn't surprise anyone, nor should it be taken as evidence of social engineering. It's just good business sense.

italiangm · Jul 21, 2005, 12:53 pm

Quote:

Quote by: belverron

The fact that government provides an incentive to take children out of government-funded social services shouldn't surprise anyone, nor should it be taken as evidence of social engineering. It's just good business sense.

Further evidence that the adoption tax credit has nothing to do with marriage and is of questiionable value to children is that the credit doesn't apply to adoption of a spouse's child.

And then, in another example of chicanery, if one qualifies for the adoption credit, they get to take it even if the adoption does not go through.

And finally, the income ceiling for disallowing the adoption credit is a bit over $150k.

Yeah. This is about marriage and children. *rolls eyes* LOL

Osborn F Enready · Jul 21, 2005, 12:56 pm

Dirty Name said:
And now for the links you apparently can't find on your own:

I say:
And isn't it funny how not ONE of those links suggests, or hints at homosexuals NOT being allowed to participate based on "society development".

Not one talks about the importance of keeping homosexuals out of the "society development" programs.

Not one that I looked at specified (Man Woman only) couples.

I give you credit though, at least you are trying to source your argument.....
Kudos.

I will give you the fact that government has tried to ease the burden of those who try to raise children (whether that is right or wrong/constitutional or unconstitutional or not) but because they ( the government) feels it is just, I want to know on what grounds they deem homosexuals UNFIT for being granted the SAME benefits. And when I see those grounds, I want to know how they were challenged, because if they weren't, THEY WILL BE.

You act as if you and Mr. Perfecto are representing the majority here, and I think as the retorts show, you aren't representing even a large MINORITY.

Dirty Name · Jul 22, 2005, 12:19 am

Quote:

but you gave three almost identical links that have nothing to do with marriage, the topic of this thread

Tell that to your friend Osborn. He's the one who insisted on them.

Dirty Name · Jul 22, 2005, 12:20 am

Quote:

And isn't it funny how not ONE of those links suggests, or hints at homosexuals NOT being allowed to participate based on "society development".

It's hilarious. Because you didn't ask for that. You asked for proof that the government engages in social engineering. Nice try with the old bait and switch though.

Dirty Name · Jul 22, 2005, 12:23 am

Quote:

Further evidence that the adoption tax credit has nothing to do with marriage and is of questiionable value to children is that the credit doesn't apply to adoption of a spouse's child.

And then, in another example of chicanery, if one qualifies for the adoption credit, they get to take it even if the adoption does not go through.

And finally, the income ceiling for disallowing the adoption credit is a bit over $150k.

Yeah. This is about marriage and children. *rolls eyes* LOL

Again, tell your friend Osborn. I only posted those links to illustrate that the government attempts to influence behavior through tax breaks.

jai_lyn7249 · Jul 22, 2005, 02:59 pm

i personally dont believe in same sex marriages but have nothing two people of the same sex being together as long as the dont flaunt it around and keep it private...
of course my views are with god the whole same sex thing is totally immoral but i think i will allow god to judge
i am a women who loves men and i dont think i could ever, ever see myself with another women we would kill each other it is hard to live with a man much less another women..........
i cant even live with my own mother..................LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cephus · Jul 22, 2005, 03:22 pm

Quote:

Quote by: jai_lyn7249

i personally dont believe in same sex marriages but have nothing two people of the same sex being together as long as the dont flaunt it around and keep it private...
of course my views are with god the whole same sex thing is totally immoral but i think i will allow god to judge
i am a women who loves men and i dont think i could ever, ever see myself with another women we would kill each other it is hard to live with a man much less another women..........
i cant even live with my own mother..................LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's all well and good, but do you take your own advice? What about people who, theoretically, don't like the idea of opposite sex people being together? Could they demand that you don't flaunt it around and keep it private? Why not?

Prometheus · Jul 22, 2005, 03:27 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Cephus

That's all well and good, but do you take your own advice? What about people who, theoretically, don't like the idea of opposite sex people being together? Could they demand that you don't flaunt it around and keep it private? Why not?

I agree. The stipulation not to "flaunt" is probably over the top.

Although I thonk what whe is getting at is the couples who make a big deal out of the homosexuality just to offend people. Hetero couples don't do that (no oneout there is really offended by hetero marriage). Most people who aren;t hetero are already pretty tolerant.

You can;t legislate "flaunting", but I think it will stop anyway once it is more commonplace.

Cephus · Jul 22, 2005, 03:34 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Prometheus

Although I thonk what whe is getting at is the couples who make a big deal out of the homosexuality just to offend people. Hetero couples don't do that (no oneout there is really offended by hetero marriage). Most people who aren;t hetero are already pretty tolerant.

You don't get out much, do you?

Just go to the mall and watch people. Most of the teenagers act like they're getting ready for an orgy. I've lost count of how many down-the-throat grope-a-thons I see in public places on a regular basis and I think that most people are. A lot of kids do it on purpose to 'freak the mundanes'. They're out there trying to offend people. I've seen both gay and straight couples doing the same thing.

Has nothing to do with tolerance, has to do with common sense and decorum, both of which have taken a nosedive in recent years.

View Poll Results: In my opinion, homosexual marriage is
A civil rights issue. Anyone should be able to marry anyone	317	43.78%
A distraction from the real issues of government	88	12.15%
An unacceptable redefinition of a traditional concept	75	10.36%
Morally wrong since homosexuality is morally wrong	97	13.40%
A private matter between the couple and their minister	63	8.70%
Other-I will explain below	59	8.15%
A celebration of diversity	25	3.45%
Voters: 724. You may not vote

Jul 20, 2005, 07:12 pm	#1161 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	Dirty Name said: If there is a single issue you believe I have sidestepped, bring it on. I'm right here, and I haven't ducked anything. Let me know what issue I haven't addressed. I say: Same one you copped out on before. Show me a link, a source, for an OFFICIAL UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT that outlines the plan of society management through tax breaks. ANY official document of ANYTHING RELATED to that, would be a step in the right direction. Last time you showed me a clip of the Constitution (that has NOTHING to do with what your talking about) and a bunch of opinion that I have already heard, which the source was YOU. I want to see some official source, for what you base your entire argument on. You tell me I am supposed to connect the dots, and I should ASSUME it is right, never mind the unconstitutionality of the income tax. I think everyone here would love to see where you get your idea of governments place in this, or the laws in which you seem to think exist. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Jul 21, 2005, 02:18 am	#1165 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	Mr Perfecto said: Well, Osborn I don't know what Dirty Name is going to say to you, but I have a link for you Osborn. I say: Been there, done that. I search all Fed Gov Registries including the National Register. I especially like to focus on older material, such as the info you posted direct link to Jefferson. And also, while we are on Jefferson, he is not my boy, nor have I ever hinted at such. I respect Jefferson for his historical positions, but all people are wrong occassionally. The excerpt you happened to highlight showed the extent of that law, and how fast it was repealed, something that does not often happen in our modern corrupt system, because at the time, many of the Representatives were still not engulfed by the machine of corruption. I also often reference librarys of the forefathers and past presidents, as well as the Federal Reserve Website, The National Digital Archives and of course, the White House website. You can attempt to insult my intelligence all you wish, but start a thread and we will go issue by issue and I will BURN you. Try me, mouth. Mr Perfecto said: (Considering the fact that you probably have already stopped reading my post and started on your reply) I say: Nice of you to assume, but as opposed to the usual quote, only you look like the ass. Mr Perfecto said: Even your boy Thomas Jefferson isn't in agreement with your point of view. I say: Lets compare notes, and I'll bet he shares about 93% of my views, in documented history. Bring it. Start a thread. Mr Derfecto said: Maybe now you can abandon the propaganda-induced history of the United States you've been holding on to. I say: LOL, me, propaganda..... ROFLMAO...that's rich! OK, GAUNTLET/............................... I just laid it out. Start a thread, go issue by issue, we'll debate. Prepare to be buried in facts and I will conveniently stack your glossed over lies at the side of the hole as you dig it yourself. Once again, BRING IT. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Jul 21, 2005, 02:29 am	#1166 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	Dirty Name said: Wrong. I posted an excerpt of the Declaration of Independence, then went on to explain why your opinion on the legality of the income tax encompasses far more than the issue of gay marriage. So even if you have a valid opinion on the subject of income tax, it still requires you to change the entire system. Until that happens, we're just going to have to work within the law as it exists today. That is the reality of the situation, whether you like it or not. I say: I already said I would drop the tax issue in this thread so as not to SHIFT the TOPIC. You want to start a thread on the legality of income tax? BRING IT! But I will only debate if you agree to do as ALMOST EVERY OTHER DEBATER DOES, which is source your information, which you still haven't figured out how to do. Dirty Name said: Why is this necessary? I say: Well I see now, that the rules have changed again for the site, but it used to say that all people should try to SOURCE their arguments, in order to provide a BASIS for their argument other than their opinion. Common sense. Dirty Name said: I fail to see why a written master plan is required for me to prove something that you already know exists. I say: Why not? When someone alleges conspiracy, that is what everyone wants to see, a master plan and a buttload of proof. Since what you claim is happening is "widely known" and "accepted by all" it should be FAIRLY EASY TO SOURCE, but yet you still can't and won't because it DOESN'T EXIST. If I were as cynical and blind as some of those who cast stones at "conspiracy theorists" I would tell you to go and get your tin-foil hat, since you have no facts or sources to back your case. You love to use the cop out as "it's commonly accepted" or "commonly known", yet it is only COMMON in your mind. NEXT. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Jul 21, 2005, 11:37 am	#1168 (permalink) (top)
Matt W Moderator Location: Reading, UK. Posts: 6,192	Dirty Name, keep the insults (and the tinfoil hat links) out of this. If you want to argue something, the onus is on you to prove it, not other posters. I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. -George Best, on being asked what he did with his footballing fortunes. Last edited by Matt W; Jul 21, 2005 at 11:42 am.

Jul 20, 2005, 11:36 pm	#1162 (permalink) (top)
mr.perfecto Igneous Magma Posts: 632	Well, Osborn I don't know what Dirty Name is going to say to you, but I have a link for you Osborn (Considering the fact that you probably have already stopped reading my post and started on your reply, this post is mostly intended to serve as a good example for anyone else who has to confront these odd views). http://thomas.loc.gov Click on where it says Search Congressional Record. Search for anything you like, and if a bill has been passed about it, you can read the text of the debate on it. As I myself have pointed out before, it isn't as if laws are spontaneously created by random, mindless, purposeless natural forces. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...r102uIH6yR:e0: Even your boy Thomas Jefferson isn't in agreement with your point of view. Did you even know he had laws passed that showed total disregard for the liberty of the people. Maybe now you can abandon the propaganda-induced history of the United States you've been holding on to. Laws are always created (at least they are always claimed to have been created) for promoting the best interests of society. There is nothing radical about the idea. Here is just one such law: http://www.answers.com/topic/embargo-act-of-1807

Jul 21, 2005, 11:44 am	#1170 (permalink) (top)
Matt W Moderator Location: Reading, UK. Posts: 6,192	No, everyone is not blind. The links are good, but the manner you have presented them in in BS & insulting. Keep your condecension on a leash. I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. -George Best, on being asked what he did with his footballing fortunes.

Jul 21, 2005, 12:56 pm	#1173 (permalink) (top)
Osborn F Enready Principled Observer Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 13,873	Dirty Name said: And now for the links you apparently can't find on your own: I say: And isn't it funny how not ONE of those links suggests, or hints at homosexuals NOT being allowed to participate based on "society development". Not one talks about the importance of keeping homosexuals out of the "society development" programs. Not one that I looked at specified (Man Woman only) couples. I give you credit though, at least you are trying to source your argument..... Kudos. I will give you the fact that government has tried to ease the burden of those who try to raise children (whether that is right or wrong/constitutional or unconstitutional or not) but because they ( the government) feels it is just, I want to know on what grounds they deem homosexuals UNFIT for being granted the SAME benefits. And when I see those grounds, I want to know how they were challenged, because if they weren't, THEY WILL BE. You act as if you and Mr. Perfecto are representing the majority here, and I think as the retorts show, you aren't representing even a large MINORITY. Petition of Redress of Grievances: http://www.givemeliberty.org/default.htm Canadian Lawsuit Against Their National Banks: http://www.freewebs.com/classaction/ Osborn F. Enready

Jul 22, 2005, 02:59 pm	#1177 (permalink) (top)
jai_lyn7249 Molten Ash Location: pennslyvania Posts: 68	i personally dont believe in same sex marriages but have nothing two people of the same sex being together as long as the dont flaunt it around and keep it private... of course my views are with god the whole same sex thing is totally immoral but i think i will allow god to judge i am a women who loves men and i dont think i could ever, ever see myself with another women we would kill each other it is hard to live with a man much less another women.......... i cant even live with my own mother..................LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!