A somewhat faulty analogy, since any schmuck who sorta looks like Superman could do that much. Now, if he bent a hefty chunk of steel in his bare hands and she still refused to believe (equivalent to this joker still refusing to believe that it’s the law after being convicted and sent to jail for breaking it), you’ve got something. 
Maybe Ed issued a signing statement declaring that the law (U.S. Tax Code) as written didn’t apply to him.
After all, that approach works for the current occupant of the White House…
He wants paralegals, but No Lawyers. Heh…
“Send para-legals, guns and money!”
Just doesn’t have the same rhythm to it.
I’m reminded of the final scene from the Marx Brothers’ Duck Soup, where Freedonia is under attack by Sylvania and Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho) gets on the radio:
RUFUS T. FIREFLY: Calling all nations! Calling all nations! We have three men and a woman under siege! Send help! If you can’t send help, send two more women!
Say, what ever happened with this story? Is Brown’s house still under siege? I can’t find anything recent by googling his name, nor by searching the archives of the New Hampshire Union-Leader.
With all due respect, no, you did not establish anything of the sort. You asserted that it was the case, which is not the same thing.
While I acknowledge that tax evaders usually have some sort of tortured rationalization, I will have to respectfully disagree with you. I think they’re actually just greedy and don’t want to pay taxes because they want to keep the money, and they use tortured rationalizations to justify it.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0228-10.htm Evasions comes from all directions.
But still the same reason-greed.
You can think all you want. But you have no proof. It is a belief, and one that is unsupported. My proposition is, at least, supported by evidence. :dubious:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070414/REPOSITORY/704140315
I’m sure they’re just fine.
What evidence is that? You’re just presenting opinions.
The only difference is that my assessment of human nature is one hell of a lot more grounded in reality.
I liked the line, “You do not need Social Security!” Why did I picture him in a long hooded cloak, waving his hand and saying, “You don’t need Social Security…these aren’t the droids you’re looking for?”
The person in question takes a stance: Don’t pay taxes. You assert that this stance is grounded in a personal desire to avoid paying money. I assert that this stance appears grounded in a personal aversion to the concept of anyone having to pay income tax to the federal government.
In support of your assertion you offer nothing. In support of my assertion, I offer the statements of the person in question, which support my assertion. That, friend, is evidence. It may be evidence you choose to disbelieve, but it is evidence. Should the matter be being heard in court, for example, if the burden of proof was upon you, you would lose; if it was upon me, you would have to make an argument to convince the court that the evidence was unbelievable, i.e., provide something to counter it besides, “I don’t believe him, and neither should you.”
Further, simply look at the lengths to which Ed Brown is willing to go to keep from paying federal income tax. Your normally impecunious person isn’t willing to bar the door and threaten to shoot anyone who tries to come and get him simply to avoid taking out the old wallet. When people get like this, some underlying misguided principle is at stake, something that takes them out of the realm of reason into the realm of fantasy.
My statement holds; if you wish to punch holes in it, feel free. But bring some evidence, or some dazzling logic, else you are simly putting your fingers in your ears and saying, “I don’t hear you…”
This tends to support DSYoung’s position in the above post.
If they can afford that much LSD, they can afford to pay their taxes.
It appears their aversion is to the concept that there IS a federal government.