Trump? please don't repost the WHOLE ARTICLE, we all know what you are talking about, thanks......... this is...smart Ponce :)
Printable View
Trump? please don't repost the WHOLE ARTICLE, we all know what you are talking about, thanks......... this is...smart Ponce :)
Sorry ponce ....I'll try not to post the whole article next time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponce
Its just out of habit.
I forgive you my son hahhahhahah, hope that you are not older than 73.7 years old or you would give me pau pau hahahahaha, have a nice day.
The denial is strong with those ones.
I should apologize for calling you nice?Quote:
Originally Posted by 7th trump
If I get into that habit I might start apologizing to welfare people for making them take EBT cards. Heck! I might even start apologizing to Democrats because they are losers (but NICE losers).
You really cant comprehend can you palani?Quote:
Originally Posted by palani
I didnt ask you to appologize to me.....I dont need nor want your appology.
What I said was you pulled a dishonest act over everyone as if they are stupid enough to not catch it.
And when caught you didnt even appologize to them for fooling them.
I said this before about you palani and I'll say it again.....you are not an honest trustworthy person.
I am not a person at all. Thank you very much.Quote:
Originally Posted by 7th trump
OH shit, I see a fight in the horizon........so......I am sorry to both of you for whatever.......kiss kiss and thanks.
V
Naw.........not going to be a fight Ponce.
If palani believes hes not a "person" then let him believe that nonsense.
He also claims to be "homeless" and yet probably lives in a house...so take him with a grain of salt.
I read about fallacies such as this all the time by people who claim this and claim that in the legal word.....they all always end up in the same ending.....fail!
For instance, in Title 26 (Internal Revenue) you come across the term "individual" defined as a tax payer so what these hoots claim is they are not an "individual" and therefore are not required to pay taxes........yes its magical to these people!
The funny thing is these same people get hauled into tax court and find themselves getting default judgments against them and later the IRS takes them to yet another court where they are found to be "individuals" per the tax code because they are having taxes taken out of the pay.....and they go to jail.
What they never realize is their problem is "social security"......these pathetic goons want their cake (welfare and retirement....free stuff) and eat it to (not having to pay for it).
Once you earn 3121(a) "wages" you are entitled to immediate benefits right from the beginning.
Its like car insurance. The insurance company's don't refund your monthly premiums because you didn't get into an accident to claim damage every month.
Well its the same with Social Security. Once you earn 3121(a) "wages" theres no going back until you completely stop participating.
They participate in Social Security as an "individual" all year long and then claim fraudulent tax returns at the end of the year.
While all year long they were covered under Social Security....whether or not they claimed any of the AVAILABLE immediate benefits of Social Security.
Palani is just 1 type of these people....his premise is "fiat" paper money.......when it has absolutely no bearing on the purpose of signing a W4 for Social Security "employment".
And the sad thing is in Title 26 all the impositions and authorization to deduction and withholding from your pay check is under Subtitle C "employment" taxes.....Hmmmm.... imagine that!
But you cannot tell these people anything because they have locked themselves up in a world of make believe and it hurts their ego to admit they were wrong.
A little bit humbling thyself goes a long way.
And with my own experience God will not show you a thing until you humble yourself before Him.
If they want to fool themselves ....well God doesn't have a problem piling on the foolishness they want to surround themselves with.
He will pile it on.....deep and high!
Its ironic to read palani's posts because he claims hes not a "person" (which is a statutory term) and wont give any credence to the term. Yet if you really think about it if he claims hes not a "person" then hes giving credence to statutes.
You actually wasted all that time typing out that nonsense?Quote:
Originally Posted by 7th trump
Person is defined here by Hobbes circa 1660. Chapter XVI.
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl3...tml#CHAPTERXVI
Show me a statute.