Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part III Covfefe

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
14,075
Go and read 26 USC 6103(f)(1) and tell us how Mnuchin has any basis in law to refuse.

He's just stonewalling, he will have to oblige eventually. Probably when he gets sued.
No thanks. I have better things to do.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
14,075
Better things to do... than back up your arguement.

But don't worry, I quoted the relevant part a little up thread. You don't need to struggle with the big scary PDF
In reliance on the advice of the Department of Justice, I have determined that the committee's request lacks a legitimate legislative purpose, and pursuant to section 6103, the department is therefore not authorized to disclose the requested returns and return information
That is the only relevant part.
 

AlmightyBender

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
3,688
Analogy of Mnuchin:
Tax Man: Mr Mnuchin, please give us the tax moneys you owe us
Mnuchin: I politely decline because I believe you will use it to fund the uprising of the lizard people who live in the hollow earth, which is not a legitimate use of my tax dollars.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
35,907
Analogy of Mnuchin:
Tax Man: Mr Mnuchin, please give us the tax moneys you owe us
Mnuchin: I politely decline because I believe you will use it to fund the uprising of the lizard people who live in the hollow earth, which is not a legitimate use of my tax dollars.
I politely decline because I'm waiting for the DOJ to provide me with a letter saying I sprained my groin so I won't need to change in the boys' locker room this term.
 

AlmightyBender

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
3,688
I politely decline because I'm waiting for the DOJ to provide me with a letter saying I sprained my groin so I won't need to change in the boys' locker room this term.
I politely decline because my Oracle told me that 2019 is a year of bad omens so I will wait until the Oracle says it is ok.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,301
OK, I'll rephrase.

"Of course the solution to protecting kids from tools - that are explicitly designed for killing - in schools would be more tools - that are explicitly designed to killing - in schools."

The more available tools that are explicitly designed to kill there are available, the more chance a crazy person is going to pick one up. Or an accidental discharge occurs. Or a suicidal kid gets hold of one of these tools.
Bad things happening or potentially happening isn't adequate justification for denying the rights to any individual in my view. Yours is an understandable emotional argument, but I don't think is a morally consistent argument. I think if you understand non-aggression and individualism then you will understand why your point of view is not in accordance with it. And as a trying individualist I simply think that I will never agree with you on this matter until the end of days. I utterly despise regulation in the face of non-aggression - it is tantamount to shouting guilty to the unproven which is what I think collectivist ideology thrives on.

You might have an argument on threat, but needs a separate discussion. And only until threat can be abolished entirely it doesn't stand that good people are the first to be denied that protection in the face of it.

I quite liked the buy-back program of the Aussies however - at least at face value. I suspect a large portion of potential criminals and their motivation, doing it for the cash, would rather just sell their gun for a quick buck and then be left without one. This transaction, while involving tax I suppose, seems at least voluntary.
 
Last edited:

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
20,418

"Member of border militia that detained 200 migrants at gunpoint told police another member had said, “Why are we...not lining them up and shooting them? We have to go back to Hitler days and put them all in a gas chamber” "
"Armando Garcia/ Delgado Gonzalez"

The typical name of your average Nazi/White supremacist ...
Anyway, unsurprisingly, the comparison is pretty stupid as I don't think many Jews were illegally immigration to Nazi Germany.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
35,907
"Armando Garcia/ Delgado Gonzalez"

The typical name of your average Nazi/White supremacist ...
Anyway, unsurprisingly, the comparison is pretty stupid as I don't think many Jews were illegally immigration to Nazi Germany.
Wait what's the actual point you're making here?
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
35,907

scudsucker

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
4,914
Bad things happening or potentially happening isn't adequate justification for denying the rights to any individual in my view.
Maybe you didn't expound enough on your theory, but "bad things happening or potentially happening" is the reason why we have laws in the first place.

Take, drunk driving. Almost universally accepted as wrong and bad. But only "potentially" will a drunk driver a crash, and only "potentially" will that crash involve another car, and only "potentially" will another person get injured or die.

Yet the general public are denied the "right" to drive drunk.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
35,907
Maybe you didn't expound enough on your theory, but "bad things happening or potentially happening" is the reason why we have laws in the first place.

Take, drunk driving. Almost universally accepted as wrong and bad. But only "potentially" will a drunk driver a crash, and only "potentially" will that crash involve another car, and only "potentially" will another person get injured or die.

Yet the general public are denied the "right" to drive drunk.
It's a libertarian argument. Don't even bother, you're dealing with a cultist.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
20,418
Maybe you didn't expound enough on your theory, but "bad things happening or potentially happening" is the reason why we have laws in the first place.

Take, drunk driving. Almost universally accepted as wrong and bad. But only "potentially" will a drunk driver a crash, and only "potentially" will that crash involve another car, and only "potentially" will another person get injured or die.

Yet the general public are denied the "right" to drive drunk.
Driving a car isn't a right.
 

Gingerbeardman

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
3,635
Maybe you didn't expound enough on your theory, but "bad things happening or potentially happening" is the reason why we have laws in the first place.

Take, drunk driving. Almost universally accepted as wrong and bad. But only "potentially" will a drunk driver a crash, and only "potentially" will that crash involve another car, and only "potentially" will another person get injured or die.

Yet the general public are denied the "right" to drive drunk.
The law against drunk driving doesn't stop you from buying a car. You can still drive on your own property while drunk without breaking any laws, even if you do crash into stuff. Your counter-example is absurd. To make it analogous, you'd have to propose making a law against all cars because some people like to drink.
 
Top