Name the Place You Can Pay NO Taxes And Receive A Refund..

Pinworm

Pinworm

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
ahahahhahahahaahhahahhaahhahhahaah..that thing popped out at me after i posted and paged refreshed..perfect..you know, that's how i'd imagine him as well:wink:
Click to expand...
This makes me want to start a shitty band. Gonna call it "Just the Tip"
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
My stats versus their stats with the difference in outcomes based on race. A black person with my stats was overwhelmingly likely to be admitted almost everywhere (the chance was something like 80% versus closer to a 30% chance for a "white" person). Approximately 40% of the slots for my program went to "non-white" people. The "white" population is closer to 75% (Hispanics/Latinos are mostly considered "white" and don't get the same consideration benefit as someone who is "non-white"). The stats of most "non-white" admits were inferior to the stats of most "white" admits. The disparities in admits, credentials, and population proportions suggest that "non-white" people were artificially over-admitted over "white" applicants. Given that I applied to approximately 20 programs, I am certain that I was passed over for a "non-white" applicant with the same stats from a similar socio-economic background at least once and probably more than that (I got into five programs).

As I said then, if affirmative action is going to exist it should not be based on race but socio-economic status. I came from low socio-economic status but the process was blind to that; the process is likewise blind to "non-white" people from high socio-economic status. They got the race-based benefit regardless of socio-economic status. If you think those applicants overwhelmingly come from low socio-economic status, suggesting it doesn't make much of a difference, the data on median family incomes for undergraduate admissions implies otherwise.

I'm sure Buck is going to call all of this racist, but it has nothing to do with racial animosity. I am not whining that "non-white people" "stole" spots "deserved" by "white" people. All I am suggesting is that SES is a better metric in graduate admissions than race, if the goal is to promote people who didn't have access to the same opportunities as people from high SES.
Click to expand...
that sure is a lot of words to tell us that you simply assumed.
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
There was no fictional accounting....I went over it child style for you in the other thread....every statement was fully sourced.
You did not even know US Notes were in existence and that the issuing authority for them and our coins are Treasury.

Here it is again....https://www.rollitup.org/politics/652366-impossible-deficit-falling-well-unemployment.html

Since you admit you are playing with Monopoly Money by being on this site, you might want to rethink the credibility of your statements.

I have no tax protester "friends" and I stand on my own as an individual. It just burns your ass that a butcher knows more than you on the subject so proceed with the butt hurt, it does not phase me in the least....
Click to expand...
You never provided any evidence of your accounting, aside from the fanciful rantings of a crackpot who also rants about fictional names, a concept summarily and scathingly dismissed by the courts.

When you go and try and explain "positive law" to me, when it was I that explained it to you in our first encounter it furthers to discredit you as an individual.....many here DID follow along on that one weather you realize it or not.
Click to expand...
Positive law doesn't discredit me. Some titles of the US Code have been enacted into positive law. The notes accompanying those titles were written by the reviewers prior to enactment by the congress. The title containing your redemption statute has not been enacted into positive law, thus it is based on the texts of the original acts of congress, even if they are contradictory, even if they have been expounded on by the courts.

Fixed that for ya........Enjoy!
Click to expand...
Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money and legal tender. I'm sorry if that spoils the crackpot tax protestor party.
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
where's tokeprep?..seems to have slithered away.
Click to expand...
Excuse me for having a life. I'm actually invited to do things in the real world on Thursday nights. I can guarantee I won't be here tomorrow night, for example, because I have a date and I'll be busy fucking the shit out of a guy. Sorry.

Obviously not sorry though...
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
You never provided any evidence of your accounting, aside from the fanciful rantings of a crackpot who also rants about fictional names, a concept summarily and scathingly dismissed by the courts.



Positive law doesn't discredit me. Some titles of the US Code have been enacted into positive law. The notes accompanying those titles were written by the reviewers prior to enactment by the congress. The title containing your redemption statute has not been enacted into positive law, thus it is based on the texts of the original acts of congress, even if they are contradictory, even if they have been expounded on by the courts.



Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money and legal tender. I'm sorry if that spoils the crackpot tax protestor party.
Click to expand...
I provided the law which states otherwise yet you just go on and on and on as if anyone reads your walls anymore.
All you have ever been able to come up with to support your lawful money theory is a questionable court case...I don't even think it was an article III decision and it spoke of notes that were redeemed.

Btw when you post it up again it will be ignored.

What strain of cannabis you smoking?
Do you grow?
Are you still employed by the government?
:rolleyes:
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
I provided the law which states otherwise yet you just go on and on and on as if anyone reads your walls anymore.
All you have ever been able to come up with to support your lawful money theory is a questionable court case...I don't even think it was an article III decision and it spoke of notes that were redeemed.

Btw when you post it up again it will be ignored.

What strain of cannabis you smoking?
Do you grow?
Are you still employed by the government?
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Your law dates to the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act. Redemption in gold ceased many decades ago. I'm sorry to spoil the party. In the time since, the courts have conclusively declared that Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money. There's nothing questionable about it. I gave you many decisions that weren't from the tax court, as you certainly recall. You dismissed them with your mystical accounting.

I'm not smoking any cannabis. I rarely smoke. I certainly don't grow. That's a federal crime and I cannot afford to be accused of--nevermind convicted of--a federal crime. It would destroy my career.

Are you still employed by a grocery store? I know statutory interpretation is surely part of your on the job training. Right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top