This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Robert James: truth hurts doesn't it parrot. I tell you what I'll do for you. I'll give you one of my email address's and we can have a debate. How about it? Scared? On top of that, you can pick any topic you want to and I'll debate you cold. Still scared? I thought so. (http://conservativebyte.com/2013/07/house-to-vote-onobamacare-delay/#comment-968774861) I agreed to debate Robert James, and told him that I intended to prove that the concept of “forced taxation” did not exist in American jurisprudence. Robert James told me that he would send me the rules of the debate, and on July 19, he did. (http://conservativebyte.com/2013/07/new-law-allows-obama-to-take-over-allmedia/#comment-969792634) Robert James: First of all you probably need to google Oofty Goofty because you have no clue what I just called you. Secondly, we are going to debate on my email address. You know how to debate? 1. First one who name calls loses. 2. Opinions are not allowed unless backed up by facts. 3. You must set aside a least one hour for the debate. 4. You pick any topic you want and I'll debate you cold. 5. There's no googling during a debate. 6. I've done this 100's of times and WILL know when you are googling. Which means you lose. 7. I've heard it all, my wife is calling, I have to go eat, I have to go walk the dog, I've heard them all. 8. I will post your ignorance on this blog when you lose, so everyone can see just how dumb you are. Here you go Oofty Goofty I say we do this Sunday afternoon say around 1 pm, what do you say Oofty Sc5and1@hotmail.com Folks stay tuned, this will be great I made contact with Robert James a.k.a. Scott Campbell by email. wow, glad you found it. As far as judging this, I will be keeping all the post and using them against you on the blogs. Sorry fellow, but I've debated much, much more intelligent people than you'll ever be. Like I said, I do this all the time. I have sent the time and you debate topic to a montage of people who debate daily like me. I have my computer set up so they can all be privy to everything that's written from either side. 1pm yankee time tomorrow, your waterloo Oofty. Nuff' said. Oh, and that's how I'll know, and you no doubt will, be googling your answers. Like I've said, we do this all the time and know all about "speed" as it relates to debating on the net.
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 12:44:03 -0700 From: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Fw: Debate email To: Sc5and1@hotmail.com I'm going to assume that you're getting these and that you aren't, like, dying of old age as I write this. See you in about 21 hours.
----- Forwarded Message ----From: Jamie Hendrickson <email@example.com> To: "Sc5and1@hotmail.com" <Sc5and1@hotmail.com> Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 1:53 PM Subject: Fw: Debate email
Still waiting to hear from you, "Robert James." Are we good to go on the topic?
Not sure how you're planning to "judge" this, but hey, you're the master debater, not me...
----- Forwarded Message ----From: Jamie Hendrickson <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "Sc5and1@hotmail.com" <Sc5and1@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 9:44 PM Subject: Debate email
Hi there, "Robert James," this is "Oofty Goofty," which is, apparently, not name-calling in your book.
1pm Eastern time work for you?
He left it up to me to decide the topic and which side I would present. (http://conservativebyte.com/2013/07/new-law-allows-obama-to-take-over-allmedia/#comment-969812978) Robert James: No, you really did. Now which side of the debate do you want to defend. that's the way you debate dimwit. One side defends one side and the other defends the other. Take your stance. Good grief. I proposed to prove that the concept of “forced taxation,” (which Robert James had referenced in an earlier comment) did not exist in American jurisprudence. I asked Robert James how he intended to enforce Rule 5, which prohibited either of us from using Google during the e-mail debate. (http://conservativebyte.com/2013/07/new-law-allows-obama-to-take-over-allmedia/#comment-969809770) ProudPatr1ot: how do you plan to enforce Rule #5, and why do you think it's worth doing so anyway? Easy, Robert James said... (http://conservativebyte.com/2013/07/new-law-allowsobama-to-take-over-all-media/#comment-969811825) Robert James: Time dimwit, when its uno en uno the response time tells the story. It should never take the other more than 30 to 45 seconds to respond, like I said, I've done this 100's of times The enforcement of Rule 5 seemed to be disqualification. (http://conservativebyte.com/2013/07/new-law-allows-obama-to-take-over-allmedia/#comment-969804922) Robert James: Wow, that didn't take you long to google. See in a debate you would have already lost.
We agreed to begin our hour-long debate at 1pm Eastern time on July 21. Per Robert James's rules, any response sent more than 45 seconds after an opponent's message would be considered a violation of Rule 5: “See in a debate you would have already lost.” At 1pm, I sent this e-mail to “Scott Campbell,” the name attached to the Hotmail account provided by Robert James. From: Jamie Hendrickson <email@example.com> To: Scott Campbell <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 1:00 PM Subject: Debate about the existence of "forced taxation" in American jurisprudence Mr. Campbell, I propose to prove that the concept of "forced taxation" does not exist in American jurisprudence, and as evidence, I cite: 1. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which explicitly allows Congress to levy taxes in accordance with a long history of social contract theory. 2. More than 200 years of American case law in which "forced taxation" has never been upheld by a court, and a litany of cases dismissing similar arguments by self-styled "sovereign citizens," including Johnson v. Commissioner, Wikoff v. Commissioner, and in the specific case of a claimant arguing for sovereignty within the nation/state of Texas, Maxwell v. Snow. 3. The Sixteenth Amendment, which overturned Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. and explicitly allowed for the imposition of direct federal income taxes. 4. 1955's Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. which clarified the mechanisms by which tax exemptions could be legitimately claimed by private entities. 5. The long history of failed attempts to protest taxation within a representative system of government as illegitimate, from the Whiskey Rebellion to Thoreau to, well, you. As the Fifth Circuit court put it in 1984's Crain v. Commissioner, "We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit. The constitutionality of our income tax system---including the role played within that system by the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Court---has been long established....[Petitioner's argument] is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic jibberish." To prove me wrong, all you have to do is cite a single case of American jurisprudence in which the doctrine of "forced taxation" is invoked by one of the litigants and upheld by the court. Per your inane rules, you have 45 seconds to cite case law to this effect.
-j At 1:01pm Eastern time, I sent Mr. Campbell the following message. Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:01:15 -0700 From: email@example.com Subject: Re: Debate about the existence of "forced taxation" in American jurisprudence To: firstname.lastname@example.org It's now 1:01pm, and I've received no response. You lose. Looking forward to posting this. -j At 1:04pm Eastern time, more than three minutes past Robert James/Scott Campbell's Rule 5, I received this response. From: Scott Campbell <email@example.com> To: Jamie Hendrickson <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 1:04 PM Subject: RE: Debate about the existence of "forced taxation" in American jurisprudence
You are suppose to present your topic so the Judges know and then provide your opening statements. That gave way to this... Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:05:41 -0700 From: email@example.com Subject: Re: Debate about the existence of "forced taxation" in American jurisprudence To: firstname.lastname@example.org First of all, you've already violated the 45-second rule. You lose by rules you made up.
Secondly, the judges should know the topic by 1) your earlier correspondence with them, 2) the subject line of the email, and 3) the body of the email.
I'm gonna get to work on posting this now, thanks.
-j From: Scott Campbell <email@example.com> To: Jamie Hendrickson <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 1:18 PM Subject: RE: Debate about the existence of "forced taxation" in American jurisprudence
Where did you go?
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:24:14 -0700 From: email@example.com Subject: Re: Debate about the existence of "forced taxation" in American jurisprudence To: firstname.lastname@example.org Getting on with my life. Where'd you go in the twelve minutes it took you to respond to my initial email?
At this point, 24 minutes into the hour-long debate, Robert James/Scott Campbell attempts to advance an argument without refuting the one I've already put forth. From: Scott Campbell <email@example.com> To: Jamie Hendrickson <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 1:34 PM Subject: RE: Debate about the existence of "forced taxation" in American jurisprudence
I will continue. George Washington spoke directly to the tyrannical usurping of taxation without representation and as it was seen from the eyes of the Founders, G.W to Fairfax, 1774----But I see on the one hand, to induce a belief that the government would embrace a favorable opportunity of Repealing Acts which they go on with great rapidity to pass, in order to enforce their Tyrannical System; and on the other, observe, or think I observe, that Government is pursuing a regular Plan at the experience at the Expense of Law and Justice, to overthrow our Constitutional Rights and Liberties" G.W. on forced taxation. To which I responded: Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:37:44 -0700 From: email@example.com Subject: Re: Debate about the existence of "forced taxation" in American jurisprudence To: firstname.lastname@example.org Feel free! You've repeatedly violated your own 45-second rule: you lost this debate in the first sixty seconds, because you chose to make the 45 second rule. The events of 1774 have absolutely no bearing on the history of American jurisprudence because America didn't even declare independence until two years later. Washington was talking about the British system of taxation because the colonies were still colonies. That brought about this response from Robert James/Scott Campbell. Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:41:00 -0700 From: email@example.com Subject: Re: Debate about the existence of "forced taxation" in American jurisprudence To: firstname.lastname@example.org The vents of America from it's founding through he federalist Papers which from which our Constitution was based through and including the declaration of Independence and the Constitution have everything to do with everything in America. These are the documents we were founded on. To my Honorable Opponet Three minutes later, I responded. Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:44:23 -0700 From: email@example.com Subject: Re: Debate about the existence of "forced taxation" in American jurisprudence To: firstname.lastname@example.org
"From its founding" includes events after 1776. You're citing Washington from 1774. Are you trying to be obtuse?
Seven minutes later, Robert James/Scott Campbell decided to start a new e-mail chain for no apparent reason. Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:48:00 -0700 From: email@example.com Subject: [no subject] To: firstname.lastname@example.org As Benjamin Franklin said as an opposition to taxes, "I am doing good for the poor,,,,I think the best way of doing good for the poor is not making them easy in poverty, but leading them or "DRIVING" them out of it. I observed,,,,,,that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they for themselves, and of course became poorer. And contrary to, the less done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." What can more speak to improper and today's forced taxation to social program and entitlements that are, in fact, forced taxes. In evidence, we can see what Franklin warned against and today we are seeing his understanding in fruition. to my Honorable Opponent One minute and 15 seconds later, I wrote this. Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:49:15 -0700 From: email@example.com Subject: Re: To: firstname.lastname@example.org Franklin's personal opinions about the importance of charity have absolutely nothing to do with the legitimacy of taxation in the United States. It's literally right there in the Constitution. Two minutes later, Robert James/Scott Campbell sent this, once again in the original thread, Robert James/Scott Campbell wrote this. Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:50:00 -0700 From: email@example.com Subject: Re: Debate about the existence of "forced taxation" in American jurisprudence To: firstname.lastname@example.org
I am citing the history of America and how it plays into today's forced taxation. Jamie, if you would have read the rules, you would have read that for every time one post late, points are deducted and will be confirmed after the debate. Better hurry, there's 10 minutes left. To my Honorable Opponent “Read the rules?” We went over the rules in the online forum, and there's no mention of points. The rules as Robert James relayed them entailed instant disqualification for breaking the 45-second rule. At 1:52, I responded. Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:52:23 -0700 From: email@example.com Subject: Re: Debate about the existence of "forced taxation" in American jurisprudence To: firstname.lastname@example.org You are citing George Washington from 1774. The colonists didn't declare independence until two years later. The history you're citing is actually the final years of British colonial rule; Washington wasn't talking about American taxation because American taxation didn't exist. If it had existed, "no taxation without representation" wouldn't have had quite the same ring to it. Back in the [no subject] thread, Robert James/Scott Campbell responded to my rebuttal about the relevance of Franklin's opinion. Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 10:51:15 -0700 From: email@example.com Subject: Re: To: firstname.lastname@example.org It absolutely has everything to do with his opinion as the Constitution was composed of and built upon the Founders opinions. At 1:57 pm, Robert James/Scott Campbell started another [no subject] thread, writing this: From: Scott Campbell <email@example.com> To: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com> Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 1:57 PM Subject:
As far as the Constitution, it is pointed out exactly what taxes go where and how there should be "equally distributed" The Constitution refers to Taxes specifically. Section---"en todo" ,,,provide for the common Defense and general Welfare (not absolute) of the United States", which backs up my quote from Franklin, "Impost and Excises shall be "uniform throughout the U.S" To establish Post Office and Rad Post Science and Arts and Limited times to Authors and Inventors" To raise and support armies and navy etc etc etc No where does it speak to public welfare or entitlements as have been forced on the American People, in fact it is noted that Americans should vote on all taxes and their usage. At 1:58pm, I replied: If the Constitution lays out how tax revenues are to be spent, how are you planning to argue that taxation is illegitimate in the first place? And at 2:00pm, at the very end of the debate, Robert James/Scott Campbell wrote this in the original email thread: again, this aforementioned quotes are exactly what the Founders based the Constitution and B.O.R on. from the Federalist paper, which were exclusively used to form the Constitution, along with debate and opinions it all plays into the Supreme Law of America. To my Honorable Opponet At 2:22pm, twenty-two full minutes after the debate which Robert James/Scott Campbell said the judges could see on his computer had ended, a man calling himself Joe Bidwell appeared. He explained that he hadn't sent me the rules in time because he'd written in the wrong email address. Apparently, despite doing this “100s of times” in Robert James/Scott Campbell's words, both the copy-paste and forward-email functions confounded Joe Bidwell. Here's our back-and-forth. Hi Joe, I was operating under the rules laid out by the commenter "Robert James," a.k.a. Scott Campbell. Mr. Campbell's rules were clear: any response timestamped more than 45 seconds after any other email is evidence of "Googling" and ground for automatic disqualification. I have no interest in asking for another debate when I won this one in the first 60 seconds.
From: Joe Bidwell <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 2:20 PM Subject: sorry
James, I apologize. I have been sending you emails to the wrong address. For some reason I had been using your wrong first name. I will send you the emails that I sent and as they returned. As are the rules, since you did not receive all the rules, you have the option to let it stand or ask for another debate. again, I apologize, Joe At 3:58pm, someone calling themselves Jim Johnstone chimed in, rendering a verdict. The final point tally, I believe, was 25 for me, Shut Up Stupid Liberal for Robert James/Scott Campbell. Mr. Johnstone's decision and “reasoning” below. From: Jim Johnstone <email@example.com> To: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>; "Sc5and1@hotmail.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 3:58 PM Subject: "Forced Taxation" debate
The topic of this debate was received well and is one that will continue to be debated for time to come. Participant #1- Great topic. But our results are as follows. Taking into consideration that all the rules were not received by Contestant #1, but by his desire to let the dice fall where they may below is our conclusion to the debate: Contestant #1- Opened and listed 5 documents to support his claim.
Contestant #1- was penalized, -5 in Phase 1, -5 in Phase 2, -5 in Phase 3, -15 in Phase 4, and -5 in Phase 6 for a total of -35 points for time limits. Contestant #2- was penalized -10 in Phase 1, -10 in Phase 2, -10 in Phase 3, -15 in Phase 4, and -5 in Phase 5 for a total of -50 points for time limits Contestant #1 - You only used your opening statement and two others to try and prove your point or as rebuttals. You spent most of your time telling Contestant #2 he was wrong, with no verifiable facts. Contestant #2- You used 9 verifiable quotes, 1 opinion back up, and 1 opinion backed up, in direct opposition/rebuttal to "Forced Taxation". It was absolutely obvious that Contestant #1 while having a potentially good topic for debate, wasn't nor did Contestant #1 come prepared for a proper debate. We suggest you spend some time studying how to properly debate and respond. Note that an opening statement puts the onus on the person stating it to also defend it. Just putting up a list is not a debate. Just a starting point. Just because a law is written or an opinion rendered does not mean it is correct, that's why we debate based on facts, history and the intent and writings of the Founders to as their called the Constitution and as they referred to it, "The Supreme Law" of America. As an example of "Forced Taxation" a simple example can be used. The USPS was always intended to have tax pater money spent in order to build them initially and then for them to become sustainable in and of themselves. This has obviously not been the case for many, many decades now, so in order to keep them solvent, the government has "Forced Taxation" on the People to keep them so. The Judges have unanimously and with complete objectivity named Contestant #2 as the winner. We hope to be a part of any of your future debates, Jim
So! Who wants to join Jim and Joe and Robert/Scott's awesome debate club?