Feds: Banks Should Call Police if Customer Withdraws More Than $5k in Cash

OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
So it's ok for you to tell me to go fuck myself, but you cry like a little bitch when I refer to you as a Klansmen? I actually called you a Klansmen because you told me to go fuck myself and tried insulting my intelligence, so I slapped you back. Figures a hypocritical whining bitch as yourself would find issue with that.

Ok, so you're just here to troll then? Or you do want to actually engage in civil debate? It is completely up to you, I can do either. Bitch.
Click to expand...
Actually, you insinuated I don't care about other people first (to which I told you to go fuc. Then you called me a racist. Seriously.

[quoite]
False equivalency? Do you even understanding the meaning of that phrase? You might want to go look it up you ignorant pile of shit.[/quote]

Yeah, he was trying to equate me with Klansmen. Kind of like you. And then he used some examples where we might agree on a subject to suggest we are the same.

Interesting notion you refer to me as a Klansmen as its you who align with the party who's moral leader thinks it is completely ok to rape and murder women and children. You pedobear loving generalizing militia loving redneck piece of human feces.
Click to expand...
What? I don't have a political party actually. You don't know me. Don't start flinging that retarded political party dung at me. I have no need or want for it. You keep voting for the same guys actively trying to destroy you. I'll vote for no one because there are no parties who represent me where I live. I do vote, I just don't vote for anyone.

Now you are talking out your ass, as usual. You have no fucking clue whatsoever as to what you are talking about, and I suppose you are using your Klansmen senses to think this shit up.

I have college friends that have gone several years not filing taxes, making well over 125k a year, and eventually they get a letter asking to please pay a certain amount by a particular date or else they may start garnishing wages. It is true they will eventually get to you, but you can go years without paying with little a gripe. So once again you are talking out your ass, and at the very least you are being disingenuous like certain Klans members you identify with.

Your a sad piece of shit that tries to play word games in attempts of avoiding the topic at hand or questions asked.
Click to expand...
I'm not playing word games. You are though. Oh, that's so nice, they're merely garnishing wages. And your friend has no choice in the matter. And they can do it because they wield the power to do so. UB is trying to suggest that paying taxes is completely voluntary. Now apparently you are too. You sound like those 'the amendment never passed the IRS has no legal authority' nutters.


So you are saying if there were no gun laws, we would all be safer? Is that really what you think? You can't possibly be that fucking stupid. I mean I know you are dumb sack of shit, but THAT fucking stupid? Only hypocritical Klansmen are that fucking stupid... oh, never mind.
Click to expand...
You can put words in my mouth if you want. But I'd argue gun laws have little effect on safety one way or the other when it comes to day to day life and that many other factors significantly more important come into play. I would argue that giving government control of all the weaponry is a historical recipe for absolute tyranny though, because it always has been.

See, I can play your game too. Bitch.
Click to expand...
You must get punched in the face a lot in real life seeing as how you have no idea how your words offend. It's hilarious to me that you think I started this. You assumed I was a racist who didn't care about people just because I was disagreeing with you.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
Anyone who wanted to deny someone else service for any reason in their privately owned business for starters.
Click to expand...
well, there is a reason we outlawed that. it caused harm. blacks faced higher prices, barriers to entry, and reduced competition. it made it basically impossible for them to travel in the south.

no one has a right to cause harm like that, and especially when it is based solely on the skin color of the person.

but you really are sounding like a klansman though, telling me that white people were made less free by being outlawed from denying service to people on the sole basis of excess melanin.
 
OGEvilgenius

OGEvilgenius

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
well, there is a reason we outlawed that. it caused harm. blacks faced higher prices, barriers to entry, and reduced competition. it made it basically impossible for them to travel in the south.
Click to expand...
I think you are being hyperbolic for the sake of argument here. I'm sure it did make things more difficult though. Again, I don't support government violence so it's hard for me to support laws they enforce.

no one has a right to cause harm like that, and especially when it is based solely on the skin color of the person.

but you really are sounding like a klansman though, telling me that white people were made less free by being outlawed from denying service to people on the sole basis of excess melanin.
Click to expand...
They were. This is an objective truth. And to me, it also means some of them probably live undercover now - whereas they were pretty open about it in the past. I think the idea that racism was conquered by any law is kind of ridiculous. I think you can make an argument the law probably only made those who didn't support it even more bitter. Racism as a practice was dying long before the civil rights movement though.
 
sheskunk

sheskunk

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
so you think it's funny that sloppy seconds thinks its "awesome" that someone goes to jail for a crime that really shouldn't be?
Click to expand...

You made a three paragraph post and than asked what I thought of it. I found your post amusing.

Was there a specific question you had for me?
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
OGEvilgenius said:
I shouldn't even engage with you. You are a master at deception and logical fallacy. Also masterful at ignoring salient points.




Civil rights laws did do that. But then they also did the opposite to some groups as well. The fact is the government, taking money from all the people, was discriminating against minorities. And clearly that is immoral and wrong. I'd argue any discrimination solely on skin color falls under the immoral and wrong category. So of course the government behaving immorally and wrongly - while forcibly taking from everyone in the population - absolutely needed a slap across the face and these laws helped with that.

On the flip side though, many private citizens also had their right to be stupid assholes infringed upon.

So while this might be ok for you - taking something at the expense of something else. It is not for me. I'm a firm believer in non violence to achieve the goals you desire. And this is typical government coercion.

This is why I don't believe the government should have so much power in the first place.
Click to expand...
no law should ever be, that one human is allowed to own another. i don't care what century..it's an abomination.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
right?

they're gonna call the cops every single time some deposits/withdraws $5k?..$10k made sense..$5k? is going to be insane if a bank does this..so you are going to be detained? to be questioned further? a $5k transaction is so common ie as common as the people that frequent mcd's..the cops are gonna be pulling their hair out.
Click to expand...
It's not whether they do or not in every instance. It's that they CAN, whenever they want to.

The cops are going to do what they are told to do by the people that pay them. Most mercenary soldiers do.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
What do you mean by, "threats of force" and "resignation to the status quo"?

I did try to answer your direct questions. If you are not satisfied with my answer, try rephrasing your question.

You are not picking up what I am putting down, and I think you lack the understanding how binding agreements work. By using the resources the government provides, you are implicitly agreeing to their rules. Is this not a concept you either understand and/or agree with?
Click to expand...

No, you are wrong. You're floundering too and building an exception for coercive government to be immune from the same conditions that you or I would be subject to, if we claimed we were making agreements with others.

A binding agreement isn't created in a uni-lateral fashion. The fact that your government employs a uni-lateral term setting policy when creating an "agreement" extinguishes any claim to it being a real agreement. What has been created instead is an edict.

A bi-lateral agreement requires the ability of either party to accept the terms or reject them / not participate. Also, any participant in a real agreement should be free to seek those same services or goods from any other party. You ignore that part when you erroneously state that an agreement can somehow be created when one party sets the terms and the other has no ability to refuse them.

You have described a captive as a willing participant and use the term agreement incorrectly..

If I tell you that you will pay me $500 and I plow your driveway, then you use your driveway that doesn't mean you agreed to the terms does it? No. Your implicit argument fails.

Also, you didn't answer my questions.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Besides, military, natural disaster aid, foreign aid, social welfare programs, corporate governance, programs for cleaner air, cleaner water, police, fire, rescue, and on and on, I suppose not much.

Oh, and roads and public schools.
Click to expand...
They don't provide resources. They administer the appropriation and redistribution of other peoples resources and labor.

Also, you never answered my questions. Can you answer them?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
No it's not. Show me that your citizenship is not based on consensual interaction or relationship. But first explain to me what that means. Do you mean, literally, you want an agent of the government to come to your house and hold your hand while you discuss your citizenship and your rights and responsibilities thereof?

It's my understanding the individuals who issued you your Social Security card and birth certificate are agents of the state. At the very least the individuals who notarized them are. That being said, you should go yet at your parents for getting those issued to you, otherwise you should seriously consider renouncing your citizenship literally. Not "per se".
Click to expand...


No, I don't want anything to do with people that use coercion as part of their business model. So fuck government agents.

The default position you claim is one that all persons are a subservient subject. The default position that I claim is every individual is not a subject, rather a free person. There lies our difference.

You should learn the meaning of the word consent. Clearly you abuse that term and allow it to be distorted.




Also, you still haven't answered the questions I posed several posts back.

I think that means you are unable to answer them.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
@see4

Can you show me any agreements that I or other people made with the purported "leaders" where we agreed to be subjects in the first place?

If you can't wouldn't their assumed authority over me be then based in an assumption they are my superiors and that I have no rights at all?

Show me those agreements please.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
althor said:
So basically every time I go car shopping the feds will get notified? Sounds like some more good government thinking there.
Click to expand...
do you see what happens here?..the screws get put on the little guy because ruling class is known to have money..so you, they will call the police on..the wealthy..meh<shrug>..not so much.

it's only for the have-nots because they may be 'up to something' (control is key here)..why? because they're have-not's and not wealthy so therefore they could possibly be trying to make money on the side..this is not just about money laundering people..the IRS cross references for unreported income..hell, will you look at this person, a have-not, trying to become a "have"..evil incarnate, i know.
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
@see4

Can you show me any agreements that I or other people made with the purported "leaders" where we agreed to be subjects in the first place?

If you can't wouldn't their assumed authority over me be then based in an assumption they are my superiors and that I have no rights at all?

Show me those agreements please.
Click to expand...
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw4.pdf

If you haven't filed one of those out, you are being paid outside the scope of the IRS, otherwise if you filed out that form and signed it, you made an agreement with your, "purported leaders". End of discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top