Show of HandsShow of Hands

Comments: Add Comment

02/15/18 8:02 am

Let's ask Trump that one. He infamously suggested not paying his taxes makes him smart. Maybe not paying makes you a genius. LOL

Zod Above Pugetropolis
12/03/17 7:13 pm

A civic duty. It is the bare minimum expected, no patriotism required or implied.

Finny Conservative Lesbian
12/03/17 4:13 pm

Maybe if they didn’t spend it all on entitlements

Finny Conservative Lesbian
12/05/17 1:01 pm

At least our military generates revenue back into the money supply

12/03/17 2:41 pm

Keeping as much as you can is patriotic. If you let them, government will take everything you have and throw it away.

outlaw393 Hail Loki
12/03/17 12:29 pm

Taxes are theft

Jazzy5 USA
12/03/17 12:24 pm

There is nothing wrong with paying your taxes.
It’s the right thing to do.
What Government does with my taxes, is not patriotic. They Waste it!

Robert97206 Portland Oregon
12/03/17 12:09 pm


But i do see avoiding taxes as unpatriotic...

TrueLiberalism Constitutionalist
12/03/17 9:30 am

We revolted for the purpose to not pay taxes. In our constitution was also written that no direct tax should be made but the 16th amendment ruined that, didn't it?

12/03/17 9:45 am

The revolt was over taxation without representation. The 16th Amendment was ratified by the required number of states after lengthy debate. The Presidents during that time we’re both Republicans. I know, pesky little facts that kind of deflate your point.

TrueLiberalism Constitutionalist
12/03/17 10:01 am

Do you even know how the ratification process for an amendment works? The president plays absolutely no part in it. I know, pesky little facts deflate your point.

12/03/17 10:18 am

Well actually I do. The President, as leader of his party, can work with Congress to propose Amendments, use his bully pulpit to encourage states to ratify the proposed Amendment and signs the ceremonial certification.

TrueLiberalism Constitutionalist
12/03/17 10:27 am

Yet he has nothing to formally do with the ratification process, it is all up to the States and Congress. Sadly, the 16th amendment was proposed by a republican as part of a scheme that backfired. The amendment is in direct violation of Article 1 Section 9 Clause 4.

Alcerus fascist
12/03/17 11:19 am

Amendments literally cannot be in violation of the Constitution. Any amendment made nullifies whatever previously contradicts it. Take prohibition, for example. The amendment that legalizes alcohol is contradictory to the amendment that prohibits it.

TrueLiberalism Constitutionalist
12/03/17 12:28 pm

Indeed, but that doesn't make an Amendment a legitimate law.

Alcerus fascist
12/03/17 5:24 pm

The amendments are part of the US Constitution, which is the "law of the land" as it were. We base all other laws around the constitution, and erase laws if they go against it. There have been trials around people denying other their constitutional rights.

Constitutional amendments are kind of like "anti-laws". Rules that set limits for government power and prevent certain laws from being created and actions from taking place. I'd certainly consider a constitutional amendment to be a law.

TrueLiberalism Constitutionalist
12/03/17 5:26 pm

That's not what I meant. When I said "legitimate" I did not mean it as if it is or isn't the law, it most certainly is. I meant it as if the law/amendment is right and just, which it is not.

Alcerus fascist
12/03/17 5:30 pm

Okay that's fair, I was mostly replying to when you said the amendment is in violation of a clause in Article I. My main point was that even though that may be, it's still a legal law that's in place. I respect your right to disagree with it though.

TrueLiberalism Constitutionalist
12/03/17 5:37 pm

Yes, it's in violation of what the law should be. Sadly the only reason that this plunder is now the law is because for some reason the states and congress made this an amendment.

Kay41 the Midwest
12/03/17 9:29 am

I don't see it as patriotic, I just see it as necessary.