Quatloos is a Marxist Front!

[Joey Smith]

http://www.your-tax-attorney.com/arent- ... sholes/234

[ASITStands]

My first objection is to the mischaracterization that we "... hate tax protestors."

No one I know who posts regularly to Quatloos "hates" anyone calling themselves a "tax protester" but rather only seeks to recovery them out of their unsupportable, legal position.

Over the years, I've witnessed many spirited discussions, and there's always an undertone of trying to reason with those who oppose themselves with "tax denier" views, and always an attempt to help anyone who accepts the fact that paying an income tax is inevitable.

[Lambkin]

One could say that Quatloos regulars indulge in some invective about detax promoters and other fraudsters, scammers and con-men. It doesn't bother me if this is characterized as hate; they deserve every inch of it. But tough love for the ignorant or gullible folks who are scammed is not hate, it is kindness. And I'm often surprised (in a good way) by the extraordinary patience of those who repeatedly extend their hand to the victims of detax scams, even though they often bear a great deal of responsibility for their troubles.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Somehow that strikes me as incitement to bodily harm - that which was posted on that site.

[Famspear]

Hate is a feeling, an emotion. The lion's share of the hatred in this world of tax protesters is from the tax protesters, the scammers, themselves -- not from people who expose those scammers.

With respect to lawyers as a group, there certainly is a lot of irrational hatred directed at lawyers as a group, and tax protester types are among the worst offenders. I have been indirectly threatened a few times by these wackos on the internet. Obviously, it's a bit irrational to threaten someone who posts pseudonymously on the internet; the threat is largely ineffective.

What I see going on in the material to which the link was posted above is projection. It is the author of the material who feels the emotion of hatred. He or she feels hatred toward lawyers who expose his scam.

EDIT: The scammer feels hatred, but is projecting his feeling onto the object of his hatred: the person who exposes his scam. The scammer's mental process is: "It is not I who hate my enemy, but rather my enemy who hates me. Isn't my enemy a bad person for hating me like that?".

[GoldandSilverEagles]

My first objection is to the mischaracterization that we "... hate tax protestors."

No one I know who posts regularly to Quatloos "hates" anyone calling themselves a "tax protester" but rather only seeks to recovery them out of their unsupportable, legal position.

Your missing a bigger point. It's not an issue of being hated, I feel the bigger issue is that Quatloos has the habit of being very disrespectful to those folks. Lots of the Quatloos talk down to TP's like their dirt.

I consider myself a mild version of a tax protestor, and I couldn't care less if it generates "hate" from others. I simply ask that I am respected for my difference in POV, just as other Quatloosians want (and some demand) to be respected for their POV.

Then again, I feel many of the posters on Quatloos are bias, as many of them derive their livelihoods thru the financial inductries the income tax has created.

"Hate" in this manner, IMO is immaterial, and not an important issue, to me. However, being disrespectful to an individual, simple because they disagree with the status quo of a forum, is a bigger issue IMO.

I find that being disrespectful to a new voice of opposition is rampant in this forum when a new member joins into the discussions.

Over the years, I've witnessed many spirited discussions, and there's always an undertone of trying to reason with those who oppose themselves with "tax denier" views, and always an attempt to help anyone who accepts the fact that paying an income tax is inevitable.

Ah....the politics of the mind and the status quo, and don't anyone dare disturb it.

[Famspear]

Your [sic] missing a bigger point. It's not an issue of being hated, I feel the bigger issue is that Quatloos has the habit of being very disrespectful to those folks. Lots of the Quatloos talk down to TP's like their [sic] dirt.

I think you may be missing a bigger point. People who engage in illegal activities are criminals with respect to those activities. Tax protesters who engage in such illegal activities are criminals.

People who do not engage in such activities are not criminals with respect to those activities.

People who are not criminals are in some sense "better" than people who are criminals -- at least with respect to those particular acts which define the criminal as criminals.

There are good guys and bad guys here. We Quatloos regulars are the good guys. The criminals -- the tax protesters -- are the bad guys. In this particular context, it is entirely appropriate for the good guys to "talk down to" the bad guys.

There is another reason why it is appropriate to "talk down to" these people. These people are arrogant know-nothings -- in the context of federal tax law. For example, I know what I am talking about. Peter Hendrickson does not. For a tax protester to come here and presume to "lecture" me on tax law is the height of arrogance and stupidity. The tax protester believes strongly that he is correct. He is wrong. As Dan Evans has said, if you are going to strike the King, you had better kill him. If you are going to presume to lecture knowledgeable people about something you know nothing about, you had better be right. It is entirely appropriate to talk down to these people in this circumstance.

For a tax protester to come here as many do and presume to "lecture" us is a showing of disrespect. It is entirely appropriate for us to disrespect people who show disrespect in this way.

We know what we are talking about. The tax protesters do not.

[Famspear]

A few more thoughts:

In some sense, none of us are equals. The playing field is not really level. With respect to tax law, for example, tax protesters come here with a decided disadvantage. They are morally wrong, they are legally wrong, and they are incorrect in their positions, and they are arrogant as well.

We are unequal in other ways. Our aptitudes vary from person to person, our experiences vary. Some of us are lawyers, some accountants, some have experiences in other complex fields. It is the height of arrogance for tax protesters who have no training, no experience, no credentials in the field of tax law to presume to be superior to us -- and many, many protester do assume that false "air" of superiority in their postings here and on other web sites. Again talking down to these people in this situation is entirely appropriate.

This is not a game. People like Peter Hendrickson and Irwin Schiff are not heroes, or patriots, or anything like that. Their activities have helped ruin the lives of other people. I have personally communicated with a few family members of tax protesters -- family members whose lives have been affected by this criminal activity.

Quatloos is a web site that exposes illlegal scams. Yes, we do talk down to those who participate in those scams.

[LPC]

No one I know who posts regularly to Quatloos "hates" anyone calling themselves a "tax protester"

I find them amusing, pitiful, and annoying, in turn.

[wserra]

Quatloos has the habit of being very disrespectful to those folks.

You may have a point that the forum can be counterproductively caustic. I regret it when I have been. There is nothing inconsistent between being pleasant and being right. Still, when discussing important matters, is it more valuable to be right or to be pleasant? And how about when the person being treated "disrespectfully" is him/herself aggressively wrong? Do you remember the subject of politicians and escrow accounts?

I would like to have the patience of Job, but working 70-hour weeks makes it tough, and no one is paid to post here.

Lots of the Quatloos talk down to TP's like their dirt.

Not that you are such a person - but how should someone who deals in criminality for fun and profit be treated?

I simply ask that I am respected for my difference in POV

Suppose Ernst Krebs, the schmuck who sold extract of apricot pits - actually largely cyanide - as a cure for cancer, were to appear in a medical forum. Should he be "respected for his difference in point of view"?

[Nikki]

Sometimes, it takes being seriously smacked upside the head to properly reconfigure the misfiring neurons.

At least one FORMER (now legally recovered and financially recovering) tax evader required serious abuse on this forum before she opened her ears and took the appropriate advice to significantly reduce her tax liability.

Those who still adhere to one or more variants of the tax evasion movement will continue to regard us as government shills or lackeys no matter what we do or say.

Oh well, one starfish at a time.

[Famspear]

Then again, I feel many of the posters on Quatloos are bias[ed], as many of them derive their livelihoods thru the financial inductries [sic] the income tax has created.

If I have seen this once, I've seen it a hundred times. No offense, but this is just more tax protester nonsense.

This is essentially saying that because I make my living as a tax lawyer or CPA, my economic interest prevents me from clearly analyzing tax law, or that my economic interest prevents me from reaching the legally correct conclusion about what the law is, or my economic interest leads me to "hide the truth" about what the law is.

Is this the way you people really think? The doctors won't tell the truth about health, because the doctors make their living in the medical field? Accountants don't tell the truth about what the accounting rules are, because they make their living as accountants? The dentists are lying about how "teeth work," because they're trying to maintain their own livelihood?

This is what passes for "logic" in the tax protester community.

[Bill E. Branscum]

My first objection is to the mischaracterization that we "... hate tax protestors."

No one I know who posts regularly to Quatloos "hates" anyone calling themselves a "tax protester" but rather only seeks to recovery them out of their unsupportable, legal position.

Well . . . speaking only for myself, I don't find that characterization to be terribly objectionable. I am not sure that "hate" is the word I would use, nor would I apply any particular word to all those who protest/deny taxes, but I certainly do despise some of the sorry mutts who make a tidy profit knowing full well that they are marching those who believe in them in front of the government machine gun.

Some of these people are delusional. For example, it is hard for me to get all worked up over Eddie Kahn - that poor guy simply doesn't get it. Ask Demo, she's a real hardcase, but she was there for his trial -- how could you "hate" that pitiful soul as he made a fool of himself, and pissed his life away?

On the other hand, there's Bill Benson. That mutt knows exactly what he is doing - he's a liar, and he's evil. You get sucked into his BS, invest in his Reliance Package and then want him to testify for you -- oh yeah, in a heartbeat, your salvation is on the way . . . but it's cash up front when he steps off the plane.

He's not going to tell you that the Court isn't going to allow him to say one flippin word, they never do; he will just take your money and leave you in the toilet he put you in.

AMF YOYO

Am I wrong to despise the miserable, sociopathic mutts of the Paytriot movement? I will say that the victim who figures it out and strips the hide off one of them with a pair of pliers and a razor would do well to have me on his jury.

[Demosthenes]

Ask Demo, she's a real hardcase, but she was there for his trial -- how could you "hate" that pitiful soul as he made a fool of himself, and pissed his life away?

I agree that he's totally pathetic. I'm also quite content that he, as an active scam promoter who has ruined the lives of hundreds of his victims, is rotting in prison.

[ASITStands]

Ask Demo, she's a real hardcase, but she was there for his trial -- how could you "hate" that pitiful soul as he made a fool of himself, and pissed his life away?

I agree that he's totally pathetic. I'm also quite content that he, as an active scam promoter who has ruined the lives of hundreds of his victims, is rotting in prison.

When you look closely at each one of these cases (promoters included), there was a time when they could have reversed course, accepted the truth about the legality of the income tax and made every attempt they could to help others out of the mess they created.

It could have been the first time they received a notice of deficiency after making all the "right arguments" with no avail. Or, it could have been when the notice of federal tax lien was filed against their residence or business, or maybe when a levy took their paycheck.

Later, when they were first notified of a criminal investigation against their activities, it could have caused a "Come to Jesus!" moment but only if they were willing to be honest.

Most simply refused! Maybe it was a real misconception, or maybe it was the fact they had too much invested in the business end of the promotion, or maybe it was just stubbornness.

For whatever reason, and in some cases, it's just plain inability to read and comprehend, most of the promoters, and many of the followers, simply ignore the warnings and proceed.

Do they deserve anything more than an attempt to reason with them and recover them out of their delusions? At some point, they become surly, and it's too easy not to be kind.

I promote neither ignorance nor disrespect, but most of those who come to Quatloos lose their own respect once they get backed into a corner from which they can't reason.

I think I agree with 'Nikki!' Sometimes a smack up the side of the head does best.

[Brandybuck]

Is this the way you people really think? The doctors won't tell the truth about health, because the doctors make their living in the medical field? Accountants don't tell the truth about what the accounting rules are, because they make their living as accountants? The dentists are lying about how "teeth work," because they're trying to maintain their own livelihood?

I have indeed heard people make exactly those claims about exactly those groups.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

Quatloos has the habit of being very disrespectful to those folks.

I will be deal with Famspear later. I will address your post first.

You may have a point that the forum can be counterproductively caustic. Amazing, the words of intelligent reason.

I regret it when I have been. There is nothing inconsistent between being pleasant and being right. Still, when discussing important matters, is it more valuable to be right or to be pleasant? However, one can disagree, without being/becoming disagreeable in making their point. Tact.

And how about when the person being treated "disrespectfully" is him/herself aggressively wrong? Do you remember the subject of politicians and escrow accounts?
Yes, and I do make mistakes myself.

I would like to have the patience of Job, but working 70-hour weeks makes it tough, and no one is paid to post here. Sounds like you need some physical outlets.

Lots of the Quatloos talk down to TP's like their dirt.

Not that you are such a person - but how should someone who deals in criminality for fun and profit be treated? Not all TP's are that way. I am one, to a degree, but I have not made a business enterprise out of it. In fact I know lots of them who do not. That's a pretty strong and inaccurate blanket statement to say about TP's as a whole. [/b]

I simply ask that I am respected for my difference in POV

Suppose Ernst Krebs, the schmuck who sold extract of apricot pits - actually largely cyanide - as a cure for cancer, were to appear in a medical forum. Should he be "respected for his difference in point of view"?

Should we respect doctors who prescribe Warfarin? (also known under the brand names Coumadin, Jantoven, Marevan, and Waran) This poison was initially marketed as a pesticide against mice and rats and mice. It is still popular for this purpose, although more potent poisons have been brought to the market place.

If one wants a safer blood thinner, garlic is an excellent blood thinner.

"Garlic seems to reduce blood pressure and cholesterol levels, dilate blood vessels, and thin the blood, all of which lowers the risk of heart attack and stroke. It’s believed to kill harmful bacteria in the stomach and protect against gastric cancer. It appears to be a potent antioxidant and may boost the response of your immune system. It also works as an anti-inflammatory."

http://www.mothernature.com/Library/Boo ... /23/36.cfm

Can the same be accurately claimed for Warfarin? And yet doctors will push it b4 they suggest taking garlic.

Whenever Dr's push a drug on me, I ask them if they own stock in the drug company that makes the medication(s) they want me to take.

[Pottapaug1938]

GaSE, your laudatory words about garlic thinning blood are all qualified by limiting adjectives ("seems... appears... believed to be"). I would much rather trust the world-class doctors who are keeping my wife alive after ovarian cancer than the anecdotes on the mothernature site. It's not unusual for drugs to be useful and safe in certain doses, and poisonous in others (for example, common aspirin). In the case of warfarin, the type my wife takes (coumadin) give her a dose which is much less than the lethal level. Rat poison, however, gives rats a dose designed to be lethal to them.

[LPC]

Your [sic] missing a bigger point. It's not an issue of being hated, I feel the bigger issue is that Quatloos has the habit of being very disrespectful to those folks. Lots of the Quatloos talk down to TP's like their [sic] dirt.

After being burned.

If you've followed this forum then you've seen many people come here and ask questions, and regulars will answer their questions sincerely and respectfully. And it will turn out that the questioner had no interest in the answers and was just looking to "score points" to justify their preconceived positions.

And then someone else will come here and ask questions, and regulars will answer their questions sincerely and respectfully. And it will turn out that the questioner had no interest in the answers and was just looking to "score points" to justify their preconceived positions.

And then someone else will come here and ask questions, and regulars will answer their questions sincerely and respectfully. And it will turn out that the questioner had no interest in the answers and was just looking to "score points" to justify their preconceived positions.

Do I need to go on?

Yes, we try not to judge (that we not be judged), but once someone has shown their "true colors" can you really blame us for letting them know what's what?

I consider myself a mild version of a tax protestor, and I couldn't care less if it generates "hate" from others. I simply ask that I am respected for my difference in POV, just as other Quatloosians want (and some demand) to be respected for their POV.

There's a difference between a "point of view" and a misunderstanding of reality.

Then again, I feel many [sic] of the posters on Quatloos are bias [sic], as many of them derive their livelihoods thru the financial inductries [sic] the income tax has created.

When I first started interacting with people on the Internet, I realized that there were some people that I trusted and some people that I did not trust.

And it had nothing to do with identities or credentials or biases.

I realized that I trusted people who (a) if they said things that were verifiable, I found that they were true when I tried to verify them, and (b) if they said things that were not verifiable, those things made sense, and (c) if they said things that were not verifiable, they did not expect me to take their word for it. In other words, they were honest, consistent, and humble.

Tax deniers, by comparison, consistently say things that are demonstrably false, consistently say things that make no sense, and consistently expect me to believe their unsupported and anonyomous word for what they say.

In short, they are charlatans personified.

So you will excuse me if I know the tree by its fruits. (Matt. 7:15-23.)

[GoldandSilverEagles]

GaSE, your laudatory words about garlic thinning blood are all qualified by limiting adjectives ("seems... appears... believed to be").

Never once has an MD ever guaranteed what a prescription drug would do for me. 'This "seems" to be your condition, as it "appears" by my guesstimation. We believe it to be such and such....Here try drug XXX and we'll see if your condition improves....."

Doctors are not god, do not treat them as such. Doctors financially thrive on a sick society. Your health and quality of life is not their responsibility, it is your responsibility.

If they were always so right, and so dependable, then why is their malpractice insurance so high?

Or why even have any?

I would much rather trust the world-class doctors who are keeping my wife alive after ovarian cancer than the anecdotes on the mothernature site. It's not unusual for drugs to be useful and safe in certain doses, and poisonous in others (for example, common aspirin). In the case of warfarin, the type my wife takes (coumadin) give her a dose which is much less than the lethal level. Rat poison, however, gives rats a dose designed to be lethal to them.

And I would much rather trust a food (garlic) which people have safety consumed for centuries and something which is very healthy for your body, than trust a man-made for profit substance which is a known poison.

It's not a difficult choice/determination to make.