Possible False Flag? Japanese Say Oil Tanker Attacked...

mrtruthify Says:

Aug 24, 2010 - You are a brainwashed hate child!

Ryguy1450 Says:

Aug 7, 2010 - @arvydas0069 You're a black water fuck. Racist piece of shit who couldn't hack it in the private sector. So you had to join up and follow your racist instincts. God is not on your side. Arvy, enjoy ur BMW with blood $. ARVY is Blackwater. MURDERERS GO TO HELL and share it with Imperialist. (Not mutually exclusive.) Also Arvy, you're such a pussy you block me. Worthless grunt Fuck. Please don't come back to America to beg in the streets. Enjoy your PTSD you MURDERER.

1st503rdSGT Says:

Aug 7, 2010 - Terrorist fail. Only managed to dent the thing. Didn't see any Arab juice splatted on the side though. Maybe a US sub hit it.

cyber10art Says:

Aug 7, 2010 - Gojira! Gojira!

arvydas0069 Says:

Aug 6, 2010 - This stupid fucking brainwashed Muzzie blew himself to hell and all he did was put a square dent in the side of the ship and slightly injure a crewman. FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL you fucking dumb twats Muslims!!! Why do we still let these roam the earth???

EoinJackson Says:

Aug 6, 2010 - Hey! Thanks Alex for accepting my video response!!! ^^^ hope u like it...

sourceoftruth444 Says:

Aug 5, 2010 - ORGANISE PEACEFUL SIT DOWN PROTESTS IN YOUR TOWNS AND CITIES, SIT IN THE STREETS AND SHUT DOWN THE SYSTEM---THUMBS UP IF YOU AGREE!!!!!

Idolcruisefix Says:

Aug 3, 2010 - @SadegoGG i gotta go, i'll get back to this mealstrom of bullshit later. economic enslavement is real and you (witting or un-witting) are a minion of the ones who print our money with zero oversight.

SadegoGG Says:

Aug 3, 2010 - @Idolcruisefix I just described the definition of income more thoroughly above.

SadegoGG Says:

Aug 3, 2010 - @Idolcruisefix Why don't you go read the case?

SadegoGG Says:

Aug 3, 2010 - @Idolcruisefix There is not a single decision in the history of the United States in which any judge has ever even suggested that Congress cannot tax wages and salaries generally. And, if the salaries of state employees can be taxed by Congress, it is ludicrous to suggest that ordinary salaries paid by private employers might have some kind of immunity from tax.

SadegoGG Says:

Aug 3, 2010 - @Idolcruisefix Tax protesters sometimes find and quote those decisions, not realizing (or not caring) that the decisions represent relatively short-lived experiments in inter-governmental immunities and are simply not relevant to federal taxes on incomes unrelated to any governmental activity.

SadegoGG Says:

Aug 3, 2010 - @Idolcruisefix So, over the years, the Supreme Court has considered the possibility that certain types of income from government-related activities might be constitutionally exempt from income tax, but eventually decided that no such exemptions existed.

SadegoGG Says:

Aug 3, 2010 - @Idolcruisefix -In Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393 (1932), it was held that the income from land owned by a state and leased to a private corporation could not be taxed if the lease was part of a “governmental function.” That holding was reversed by Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., 303 U.S. 376 (1938).

SadegoGG Says:

Aug 3, 2010 - @Idolcruisefix -In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, (1895), the Supreme Court held that interest on the debts of state and local governments could not be taxed. That holding was reversed in South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988).

SadegoGG Says:

Aug 3, 2010 - @Idolcruisefix -Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920), held that the compensation received by federal judges could not be subject to income tax because Article III of the Constitution states that the compensation of judges ‘shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.’ Evans v. Gore was over-ruled by O’Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939).

SadegoGG Says:

Aug 3, 2010 - @Idolcruisefix -In Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. 113 (1870), it was held that Congress could not tax the salary of a state employee. That holding was explicitly overruled by Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466, 486-487 (1939).

SadegoGG Says:

Aug 3, 2010 - @Idolcruisefix (i.e., the relationship between the federal and state governments) or the separation of powers within the federal government, and all of those decisions were over-ruled by later decisions and are no longer good law. For example:

SadegoGG Says:

Aug 3, 2010 - @Idolcruisefix If the states had the power to tax wages, salaries, and other incomes from employment, then the Congress of the United States had the same power. (For other examples, see the cases cited in the discussion of whether a tax on wages is a “direct tax.”) There have been a few Supreme Court decisions that have found incomes that Congress did not have the power to tax. However, all of those decisions arose out of considerations of federalism

SadegoGG Says:

Aug 3, 2010 - @Idolcruisefix (quote cont) As the present levy [imposed by Alabama on wages paid] has all the indicia of a tax, and is of a type traditional in the history of Anglo-American legislation, it is within state taxing power, and it is immaterial whether it is called an excise or by another name.” Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co., 301 U.S. 495, 508-509 (1937).

SadegoGG Says:

Aug 3, 2010 - @Idolcruisefix (quote cont) such levies, including taxes on the exercise of the right to employ or to be employed, were known in England and the Colonies before the adoption of the Constitution, and must be taken to be embraced within the wide range of choice of subjects of taxation, which was an attribute of the sovereign power of the states at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and which was reserved to them by that instrument.

SadegoGG Says:

Aug 3, 2010 - @Idolcruisefix And, before and after the adoption of the Constitution, several states imposed taxes on professions, vocations, or employments. As explained by the Supreme Court: “Taxes, which are but the means of distributing the burden of the cost of government, are commonly levied on property or its use, but they may likewise be laid on the exercise of personal rights and privileges. As has been pointed out by the opinion in the Chas. C. Steward Machine Co. Case [301 U.S. 548 (1937)],

SadegoGG Says:

Aug 3, 2010 - @Idolcruisefix In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton had stated that the Congressional power to tax would be “concurrent and coequal” with the power of the states to tax (Federalist #32) and the Supreme Court has agreed that “The subject-matter of taxation open to the power of the Congress is as comprehensive as that open to the power of the states....” Chas. C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581 (1937).

SadegoGG Says:

Aug 3, 2010 - @Idolcruisefix Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus, limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion.” License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 471 (1866) (emphasis added).

SadegoGG Says:

Aug 3, 2010 - @Idolcruisefix Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Iredell; emphasis added). In a later decision, the Supreme Court confirmed these conclusions, stating that: “It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution with only one exception and only two qualifications.