Hendrickson called own argument "sophomoric"

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
User avatar
Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1538
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 3:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Hendrickson called own argument "sophomoric"

Postby Quixote » Thu Jul 16, 2009 2:21 am

Res ipsa loquitur

Second, note that the word "common" (or its equivalent) is left out of the definition of "includes" and "including"; creating a sophomoric circular argument. The only "other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" are those that are the same as those used to provide the definition. In other words, the "things" used in the definition are what establish the class to which the "other things" must belong in order to be included under the doctrine of 7701(c), and, as the word is being deliberately defined, the common meaning of the word must be excluded.
Cracking the Code, page 57
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat

User avatar
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: Hendrickson called own argument "sophomoric"

Postby Imalawman » Thu Jul 16, 2009 1:55 pm

Quixote wrote:Res ipsa loquitur

Second, note that the word "common" (or its equivalent) is left out of the definition of "includes" and "including"; creating a sophomoric circular argument. The only "other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" are those that are the same as those used to provide the definition. In other words, the "things" used in the definition are what establish the class to which the "other things" must belong in order to be included under the doctrine of 7701(c), and, as the word is being deliberately defined, the common meaning of the word must be excluded.
Cracking the Code, page 57


And somehow gets from that to "you don't have to pay taxes on your wages". Wow, what an idiot.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown

User avatar
Duke2Earl
Eighth Operator of the Delusional Mooloo
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 11:09 pm
Location: Neverland

Re: Hendrickson called own argument "sophomoric"

Postby Duke2Earl » Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:07 pm

Was that in English? It seems like word salad to me.
My choice early in life was to either be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politican. And to tell the truth there's hardly any difference.

Harry S Truman

User avatar
Red Cedar PM
Burnished Vanquisher of the Kooloohs
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:10 pm

Re: Hendrickson called own argument "sophomoric"

Postby Red Cedar PM » Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:02 pm

Quixote wrote:Res ipsa loquitur

Second, note that the word "common" (or its equivalent) is left out of the definition of "includes" and "including"; creating a sophomoric circular argument. The only "other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" are those that are the same as those used to provide the definition. In other words, the "things" used in the definition are what establish the class to which the "other things" must belong in order to be included under the doctrine of 7701(c), and, as the word is being deliberately defined, the common meaning of the word must be excluded.
Cracking the Code, page 57


I think (please correct me if you disagree) what he is trying to say is that because the definition of includes in IRC 7701(c) does not include the term "common" that means that you can throw the common meaning of the term includes out the window... Which is a mind-numbingly stupid argument.
"Pride cometh before thy fall."

--Dantonio 11:03:07

Grixit wrote:Hey Diller: forget terms like "wages", "income", "derived from", "received", etc. If you did something, and got paid for it, you owe tax.

User avatar
Duke2Earl
Eighth Operator of the Delusional Mooloo
Posts: 589
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 11:09 pm
Location: Neverland

Re: Hendrickson called own argument "sophomoric"

Postby Duke2Earl » Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:26 pm

You may very well be right as to what he means but I can't tell for sure after wasting entirely too much of my time reading and rereading the paragraph. I though the gems that Congress foists off on us were hard to understand but this goes to another level entirely.
My choice early in life was to either be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politican. And to tell the truth there's hardly any difference.



Harry S Truman

ASITStands
17th Viscount du Voolooh
Posts: 1087
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:15 pm

Re: Hendrickson called own argument "sophomoric"

Postby ASITStands » Thu Jul 16, 2009 7:55 pm

Duke2Earl wrote:You may very well be right as to what he means but I can't tell for sure after wasting entirely too much of my time reading and rereading the paragraph. I though the gems that Congress foists off on us were hard to understand but this goes to another level entirely.


Maybe the "final solution" to the 'Cracking the Code' phenomenon is to employ Pete Hendrickson as a member of the House Committee that 'codifies' the Statutes at Large?

He certainly has the ambiguity down pat. Maybe better than the current code-writers.

User avatar
Thule
Tragedian of Sovereign Mythology
Posts: 694
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:57 am
Location: 71 degrees north

Re: Hendrickson called own argument "sophomoric"

Postby Thule » Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:58 pm

ASITStands wrote:Maybe the "final solution" to the 'Cracking the Code' phenomenon is to employ Pete Hendrickson as a member of the House Committee that 'codifies' the Statutes at Large?


How about a three-man comitee; Blowhard, Joe Haas and David-Wynn:Miller. That would be amusing.
Survivor of the Dark Agenda Whistleblower Award, August 2012.

Paul

Re: Hendrickson called own argument "sophomoric"

Postby Paul » Thu Jul 16, 2009 11:36 pm

This misinterpretation of "includes" is fairly common. They twist "otherwise within the meaning of the term defined" to mean "otherwise within the meaning of the expressly included items." So when "state" is said to "include D.C.," it means that state can also mean anything else that is "within the meaning of D.C.," but nothing else. Same with saying "employee" includes government employees or corporate officers for purposes of withholding. The fact that this makes "includes" a term of exclusion, and it would be much easier to say that outright if that's what Congress wanted, doesn't bother most tps. It's actually rather intelligent of PH to try to justify that interpretation by saying that, if Congress meant 7701(c) to mean what most people think it means, they would have said "ordinarily within the meaning".

User avatar
The Operative
Fourth Shogun of Quatloosia
Posts: 885
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:04 pm
Location: Here, I used to be there, but I moved.

Re: Hendrickson called own argument "sophomoric"

Postby The Operative » Fri Jul 17, 2009 12:25 am

I guess that Hendrickson doesn't realize that his interpretation of "includes" makes the definition within the IRC more obtuse than it already is. In other words, if the terms within the definition are supposed to establish a "class" of items that are subject to the definition, what defines the "class"? For example, it is obvious that an EPA employee is a government employee. However, what about those people that work at EPA offices but are contracted by Lockheed Martin? I am sure that there are several other examples that would also confuse Hendrickson's "class".
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.

ASITStands
17th Viscount du Voolooh
Posts: 1087
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:15 pm

Re: Hendrickson called own argument "sophomoric"

Postby ASITStands » Fri Jul 17, 2009 1:30 pm

The Operative wrote:I guess that Hendrickson doesn't realize that his interpretation of "includes" makes the definition within the IRC more obtuse than it already is. In other words, if the terms within the definition are supposed to establish a "class" of items that are subject to the definition, what defines the "class"? For example, it is obvious that an EPA employee is a government employee. However, what about those people that work at EPA offices but are contracted by Lockheed Martin? I am sure that there are several other examples that would also confuse Hendrickson's "class".


Interesting observation! In the effort to distinguish the word, "includes," and thus, "clarify" the tax code, Hendrickson makes it more ambiguous by creating a new definition of "class."

User avatar
Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1538
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 3:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Re: Hendrickson called own argument "sophomoric"

Postby Quixote » Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:33 pm

ASITStands wrote:
The Operative wrote:I guess that Hendrickson doesn't realize that his interpretation of "includes" makes the definition within the IRC more obtuse than it already is. In other words, if the terms within the definition are supposed to establish a "class" of items that are subject to the definition, what defines the "class"? For example, it is obvious that an EPA employee is a government employee. However, what about those people that work at EPA offices but are contracted by Lockheed Martin? I am sure that there are several other examples that would also confuse Hendrickson's "class".


Interesting observation! In the effort to distinguish the word, "includes," and thus, "clarify" the tax code, Hendrickson makes it more ambiguous by creating a new definition of "class."


Which is exactly what Hendrickson wants. Hendrickson needs ambiguity. That's why he avoids any discussion of IRC §61, which is crystal clear and blows his theory out of the water.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat


Return to “Public Archives -- Read Only”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest