Exploring 1962 University of Mississipi integration. It is a must see program for America.
Props to you James.

If you have netflix, you can watch all 30 of these programs streaming. These documentaries are very well done.

God bless him.

It seemed pretty one sided to me.

I have not watched these but IMO ESPN is too concentrated on race.

---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:

It seemed pretty one sided to me.

---------------------------------------------

In what way?

Love the "U" the most of them all (especially Hill the WR part).

Certain topics may have that undertone but not all topics are about race.

---------------------------------------------
--- LoofForHeels78 wrote:

I have not watched these but IMO ESPN is too concentrated on race.

---------------------------------------------

Particularly the part regarding the Rebel mascot. I don't recall a segment where the documentary interviewed anyone who provided a basis for why maintaining the Rebel mascot would be a good idea. The history of our country includes many southern individuals who rose up against the attempt by northern industrialists to reduce the sovereignty of the individual states, and this oppressive national government is what the "rebels" stood against. Because some people are so fixated on associating everything "southern" with racism and slavery the University was forced to abandon its symbol in the name of "political correctness".
---------------------------------------------
--- UNCSteve wrote:



---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:

It seemed pretty one sided to me.

---------------------------------------------

In what way?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------
--- LoofForHeels78 wrote:

I have not watched these but IMO ESPN is too concentrated on race.

---------------------------------------------

that piece was part of the 50th anniversary of the Ole Miss integration and undefeated football team, i believe. it's an old 30/30 episode i believe but since it's Black History Month, i suppose they're re-showing it.

maybe instead of feeling "uneasy" you should look at it as a history lesson or learning opportunity to educate one's self?

and I think if you look at the interrelationship of sports, race and social history in this country, all 3 have been uniquely intertwined with one another

Quite a leap to decide I was "uneasy".
I actually love history, just not ESPN. :)
Have a good day
---------------------------------------------
--- NCU77 wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- LoofForHeels78 wrote:

I have not watched these but IMO ESPN is too concentrated on race.

---------------------------------------------

that piece was part of the 50th anniversary of the Ole Miss integration and undefeated football team, i believe. it's an old 30/30 episode i believe but since it's Black History Month, i suppose they're re-showing it.

maybe instead of feeling "uneasy" you should look at it as a history lesson or learning opportunity to educate one's self?

and I think if you look at the interrelationship of sports, race and social history in this country, all 3 have been uniquely intertwined with one another

---------------------------------------------

Makes me often wonder if Silent Sam's days are numbered...

---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:

Because some people are so fixated on associating everything "southern" with racism and slavery the University was forced to abandon its symbol in the name of "political correctness".

---------------------------------------------

+1




---------------------------------------------
--- dnaiel wrote:

Exploring 1962 University of Mississipi integration. It is a must see program for America.
Props to you James.

---------------------------------------------

I wonder where anyone would get the idea that the Southern cause had anything to do with slavery? Maybe it was from this 'Declaration' published by the Mississippi legislature on January 9,1861 in order to explain that State's decision secede from the Union:



A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.




---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:

Particularly the part regarding the Rebel mascot. I don't recall a segment where the documentary interviewed anyone who provided a basis for why maintaining the Rebel mascot would be a good idea. The history of our country includes many southern individuals who rose up against the attempt by northern industrialists to reduce the sovereignty of the individual states, and this oppressive national government is what the "rebels" stood against. Because some people are so fixated on associating everything "southern" with racism and slavery the University was forced to abandon its symbol in the name of "political correctness".

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

It's pathetic that anyone could see it any other way, than the one you clearly pointed out Bethel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:

I wonder where anyone would get the idea that the Southern cause had anything to do with slavery? Maybe it was from this 'Declaration' published by the Mississippi legislature on January 9,1861 as Mississppi seceded from the Union:



A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.




---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:

Particularly the part regarding the Rebel mascot. I don't recall a segment where the documentary interviewed anyone who provided a basis for why maintaining the Rebel mascot would be a good idea. The history of our country includes many southern individuals who rose up against the attempt by northern industrialists to reduce the sovereignty of the individual states, and this oppressive national government is what the "rebels" stood against. Because some people are so fixated on associating everything "southern" with racism and slavery the University was forced to abandon its symbol in the name of "political correctness".

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Don't you suppose somebody at Ole Miss - let's say the football coach for one - might have figured out that the 'some people' he's referring to below might include the African-American athletes they're desperately trying to recruit to come play for their university ?

[Ole Miss had the 10th ranked recruiting class in 2013 ... 23 / 26 recruits are African-American]


---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:

..... Because some people are so fixated on associating everything "southern" with racism and slavery the University was forced to abandon its symbol in the name of "political correctness".

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

I'm going to let the race pimps have their field day with this one.

This isn't about "race pimps" this is about HUMAN DECENCY, idiot!!!!!!!

---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:

I'm going to let the race pimps have their field day with this one.

---------------------------------------------

Why am I an idiot?! And what is decent about a sovereign entity, the state of Mississippi, being told how they should act within their own state by residents of a different sovereign state or the national government? And, if this sovereign entity, the state of Mississippi, fails to act as these non citizens decree they should then the national government will send armed troops into this sovereign entity and forcibly require the sovereign entity to act as they decree? You consider this ethical or "decent"? Or, are you planning to make the asinine argument that the state of Mississippi is not a sovereign entity? Because if you do you will have opened your keyboard to remove any doubt that you, my friend, are an idiot or ignorant or both.

---------------------------------------------
--- spacemt1 wrote:

This isn't about "race pimps" this is about HUMAN DECENCY, idiot!!!!!!!

---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:

I'm going to let the race pimps have their field day with this one.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

-- Official Declaration of the State of Mississippi upon seceding from the United States on January 9, 1861.

A) Can the State of Mississippi declare War on a foreign country ?

B) Can the State of Mississippi enter into a Treaty with a foreign country ?

C) Are their limitations on the extent to which the State of Mississippi can interfere with interstate commerce ? For example, could the State of Mississippi enforce a law that forbid a store in MIssissippi from selling goods manufactured in another state ?

D) Could the State of Mississippi impose and collect property taxes on land or buildings owned by the United States government ?

E) Please explain how you square the concept of 'state sovereignty' with the National Fugitive Slave Act ?



Is it possible that someone who was not an idiot and not ignorant might hold the understanding that "state sovereignty" was not a permanent, "all or nothing" concept --- but rather, "state sovereignty" should be thought of in terms of something that is shared with the Federal government in complex and sometimes inconsistent ways, and furthermore, questions of state versus Federal sovereignty have and continue to evolve over time ?


---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:

Or, are you planning to make the asinine argument that the state of Mississippi is not a sovereign entity? Because if you do you will have opened your keyboard to remove any doubt that you, my friend, are an idiot or ignorant or both.

A) No it cannot, nor should the national government take "war type" actions against a sovereign state, such as Mississippi, just because the leaders of said national government do not agree with the way in which the sovereign state of Mississippi allows or does not allow access to the sovereign state of Mississippi's state institutions.

B) Not that I am aware of. Not sure what this proves.

C) Interstate commerce, through the purported "Commerce Clause" of the constitution cannot be abridged by any entity or party. The Commerce Clause has been bastardized repeatedly by the judiciary to the point that a farmer growing wheat in his own backyard for personal consumption could be found in violation of the Commerce Clause's provisions, which is lunacy to the umpteenth degree.

D) No, the US government is exempt from taxation levied by any sovereign entity.

E) I have yet to fully examine the National Fugitive Slave Act, but will do so today and get back to you on that.


Do you take the position that the state of Mississippi, or NC for that matter, are not separate sovereign entities from the voluntary federal republic that is the United States, as laid out by the US Constitution? Would you also attempt to make the claim that the Confederate States of America were not a separate sovereign entity from the United States after the ratification of this new union pursuant to the secession of said states from the United States, and that entry into the CSA was an act of war perpetrated by the US government in an attempt "colonize" or otherwise take through aggression and assimilate the CSA sovereign states back into a union which these states' elected representatives had just voted to leave?

---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:


A) Can the State of Mississippi declare War on a foreign country ?

B) Can the State of Mississippi enter into a Treaty with a foreign country ?

C) Are their limitations on the extent to which the State of Mississippi can interfere with interstate commerce ? For example, could the State of Mississippi enforce a law that forbid a store in MIssissippi from selling goods manufactured in another state ?

D) Could the State of Mississippi impose and collect property taxes on land or buildings owned by the United States government ?

E) Please explain how you square the concept of 'state sovereignty' with the National Fugitive Slave Act ?



Is it possible that someone who was not an idiot and not ignorant might hold the understanding that "state sovereignty" was not a permanent, "all or nothing" concept --- but rather, "state sovereignty" should be thought of in terms of something that is shared with the Federal government in complex and sometimes inconsistent ways, and furthermore, questions of state versus Federal sovereignty have and continue to evolve over time ?


---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:

Or, are you planning to make the asinine argument that the state of Mississippi is not a sovereign entity? Because if you do you will have opened your keyboard to remove any doubt that you, my friend, are an idiot or ignorant or both.

---------------------------------------------

You seem to think that "sovereignty" is some fixed, theoretical or legal concept for which there is 'correct' understanding that can be derived in some logical fashion.

I would argue that, particularly in our federal system, the notion of 'sovereignty' or 'state sovereignty' is a complex, sometimes inconsistent and fluid concept defined partly by law in some logical fashion and partly simply by politics in the messy way that political issues resolve themselves. Furthermore, the shared sovereignty system between the Federal and state governments is something that has and is evolving over the course of time; and for the most part has evolved in the direction of greater power for the national government at the expense of state governments.


Your notion that our federal republic was/is 'voluntary' in nature was an issue settled by the Civil War. This is consistent with the concept that at least part of what constitutes 'sovereignty' is settled in a purely political fashion - with 'war' simply being the 'continuation of [politics] by other means.' (Clausewitz). At the time of secession and since then there have been inumerable words written arguing the legal right of the southern states to secede. Ultimately, the 'rightness' of those arguments was settled in the living room of the McLean House at Appomattox Courthouse -- period, end of discussion.

I would also add that Lincoln correctly recognized the ultimate futility of any democratic system of government wherein the losing side always has the option of withdrawing and therefore why a 'voluntary' federal republic would be little more than one step removed from anarchy.


from Lincoln's First Inaugural Address:

"From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?

Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left."




---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:


Do you take the position that the state of Mississippi, or NC for that matter, are not separate sovereign entities from the voluntary federal republic that is the United States, as laid out by the US Constitution? Would you also attempt to make the claim that the Confederate States of America were not a separate sovereign entity from the United States after the ratification of this new union pursuant to the secession of said states from the United States, and that entry into the CSA was an act of war perpetrated by the US government in an attempt "colonize" or otherwise take through aggression and assimilate the CSA sovereign states back into a union which these states' elected representatives had just voted to leave?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

You have just exemplified why we disagree on this subject and it will be impossible for us to agree. You take the position that the principle of sovereignty, especially in the Federal and state system, is "evolving". I reject this position. The Constitution and the US Federal system it created were not designed to "evolve" except through the amendment process. The founding fathers knew there would be people like you that would come along and even spoke out against your kind. Several founders even refused to sign the Constitution because they did not feel there were not enough protections against people like you (George Mason being one).

I'm not going to change your opinion on this in this forum and you sure as Heel are not going to change mine, so I'm going to go watch Blue Dawn videos and prepare tax returns now.

Good day.

---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:

You seem to think that "sovereignty" is some fixed, theoretical or legal concept for which there is 'correct' understanding that can be derived in some logical fashion.

I would argue that, particularly in our federal system, the notion of 'sovereignty' or 'state sovereignty' is a complex, sometimes inconsistent and fluid concept defined partly by law in some logical fashion and partly simply by politics in the messy way that political issues resolve themselves. Furthermore, the shared sovereignty system between the Federal and state governments is something that has and is evolving over the course of time; and for the most part has evolved in the direction of greater power for the national government at the expense of state governments.


Your notion that our federal republic was/is 'voluntary' in nature was an issue settled by the Civil War. This is consistent with the concept that at least part of what constitutes 'sovereignty' is settled in a purely political fashion - with 'war' simply being the 'continuation of [politics] by other means.' (Clausewitz). At the time of secession and since then there have been inumerable words written arguing the legal right of the southern states to secede. Ultimately, the 'rightness' of those arguments was settled in the living room of the McLean House at Appomattox Courthouse -- period, end of discussion.

I would also add that Lincoln correctly recognized the ultimate futility of any democratic system of government wherein the losing side always has the option of withdrawing and therefore why a 'voluntary' federal republic would be little more than one step removed from anarchy.


from Lincoln's First Inaugural Address:

"From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?

Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left."




---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:


Do you take the position that the state of Mississippi, or NC for that matter, are not separate sovereign entities from the voluntary federal republic that is the United States, as laid out by the US Constitution? Would you also attempt to make the claim that the Confederate States of America were not a separate sovereign entity from the United States after the ratification of this new union pursuant to the secession of said states from the United States, and that entry into the CSA was an act of war perpetrated by the US government in an attempt "colonize" or otherwise take through aggression and assimilate the CSA sovereign states back into a union which these states' elected representatives had just voted to leave?

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

No Mas .... No Mas

Hey -- I can't blame you -- if I tried to carry on an informed discussion of 'state sovereignty' in the context of the South and the Civil War and segregation -- and I'd never heard of The National Fugitive Slave Act, I'd quit too.



I'm not really sure what you mean by the 'principle of sovereignty'. I am referring to the 'facts on the ground' in terms of the respective roles and powers of the Federal versus state governments. There is no question that this has and is changing almost constantly over the course of American history. It is evolving now as issues over the Obama health care reform program are played out in state legislatures, adminstrative bureaus and the courts. There is no Constitutional Amendment that is going to define the respective Federal and state roles in the implementation of The Affordable Care Act.

The idea that the only venue where issues of state versus federal 'sovereignty' are to be found or played out is in the Constitution or through the Constitutional amendment process is simply false. There are innumerable examples in American history where issues of Federal - state sovereignty are resolved in court cases, statutory legislation and even decisions of administrative bureaucracies.

Outside of the legal environment - Civil War itself is undoubtedly the most dramatic example of how issues of 'sovereignty' have been addressed in some non-Constitutional way. As I stated before you can find whole books laying out the case for the legality of secession by the Southern states. Whether those arguments are compelling or not - they're ultimately irrelevant. The issue was settled decisively and finally on the battlefields of the Civil War.


Another obvious example of the evolution of Federal versus state sovereignty in American history is the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education case. Here the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a court case that racial segregation in state schools violated the U.S. Constitution and required state and local governments to integrate public school systems. This led to a whole history of Federal courts controlling public schools in certain respects .... busing .... use of federalized National Guard troops to protect black students in newly integrated schools .... etc. Again we have an example where state government 'sovereignty' - in this case with respect to public education - was radically altered by the Federal government as a consequence of a court case and long history of subsequent enforcement actions. There was no Constitutional Amendment in 1954 that mandated school desegregation.

The "No Child Left Behind Act" is an example of a Federal statute attached to Federal tax dollars leading to greater Federal government involvement and authority over public schools - an area that in the distant past which was entirely within the purview of state governments. No Constitutional amendment here, yet we see significant adjustment in the Federal versus state government role in education. In the nineteenth century the idea that the national government had any role to play in local public education would have been a non-starter.



oh ... and The National Fugitive Slave Act and 'state sovereignty' ? Let's just say that's a prime example of -- 'Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.'


---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:

You have just exemplified why we disagree on this subject and it will be impossible for us to agree. You take the position that the principle of sovereignty, especially in the Federal and state system, is "evolving". I reject this position. The Constitution and the US Federal system it created were not designed to "evolve" except through the amendment process. The founding fathers knew there would be people like you that would come along and even spoke out against your kind. Several founders even refused to sign the Constitution because they did not feel there were not enough protections against people like you (George Mason being one).

I'm not going to change your opinion on this in this forum and you sure as Heel are not going to change mine, so I'm going to go watch Blue Dawn videos and prepare tax returns now.

Good day.

Wow, just wo, . this is a whole can southern worms being opened up here. States Rights, slavery, and football. Lots of,questions here.

Okay then what is the current tax value of a slave?
Is it still 3/5's of a ( white male) person or are they just a price-fixed commodity?
Were WWII, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam Nam War, the Bush Wars all illegal because MS, NC, SC, NY, MN et al didn't each issue their declarations of war.
Is the Interstate Highway system illegal?
Women's Rights, Civil Rights, Gay Rights are they all illegal as well because they were legislated at the Fedral level instead of the state houses?
Does the evolution of thought just simply stop because of the Missouri Comprimise?
Can the NCAA be justified because of it's. national focus rather what's right for MS?
Is Texas even a state, what about Alaska and Hiawaii, since surely Jeff Davis wasn't consulted on these radical "national" expansionism?
Should there be no FEMA?
Is every state on it's own when natural disasters strike?
Do you recommend your client's ignore Federal tax laws, in lieu of state taxes.

Tell me you're just trolling and that you don't truly believe all this stuff you're saying....


---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:

Why am I an idiot?! And what is decent about a sovereign entity, the state of Mississippi, being told how they should act within their own state by residents of a different sovereign state or the national government? And, if this sovereign entity, the state of Mississippi, fails to act as these non citizens decree they should then the national government will send armed troops into this sovereign entity and forcibly require the sovereign entity to act as they decree? You consider this ethical or "decent"? Or, are you planning to make the asinine argument that the state of Mississippi is not a sovereign entity? Because if you do you will have opened your keyboard to remove any doubt that you, my friend, are an idiot or ignorant or both.

---------------------------------------------
--- spacemt1 wrote:

This isn't about "race pimps" this is about HUMAN DECENCY, idiot!!!!!!!

---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:

I'm going to let the race pimps have their field day with this one.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

Okay then what is the current tax value of a slave? - a slave is not a depreciable asset under the Tax Code, currently

Is it still 3/5's of a ( white male) person or are they just a price-fixed commodity? - the 3/5's your reference was ONLY used in the Constitution to count the number of Representatives apportioned to each state and was a compromise THE NORTHERN states proposed in order to keep a majority in the US House of Representatives as THEY did not want slaves counted as full citizens because this would have given the Southern states a numbers advantage in the US House of Representatives. NOWHERE did this state that a slave was only 3/5's of a person.

Were WWII, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam Nam War, the Bush Wars all illegal because MS, NC, SC, NY, MN et al didn't each issue their declarations of war. - Neither Vietnam nor the "Bush Wars" were wars. We can argue about whether they were legally entered into or not, but that argument would not hinge upon the issuance of declarations of war by individual states as this is one of the VERY FEW items the Constitution allows the national government to take on behalf of the States.

Is the Interstate Highway system illegal? - I don't know, but it was definitely a redistribution of wealth from some states to others through the Federal purse.

Women's Rights, Civil Rights, Gay Rights are they all illegal as well because they were legislated at the Fedral level instead of the state houses? - rights are never illegal, this is a pure contradiction. Now, if you want to argue as to whether "civil rights" includes a requirement that a private employer interview a minority for every job opening or that "women's rights" includes a requirement that every woman be given 6 weeks of paid leave from her job after giving birth or "gay rights" includes a requirement that a homosexual couple be allowed to enter into a "marriage" under state law we can argue those, but a true RIGHT, as defined by the Constitution and endowed by the Creator, cannot be illegal.

Does the evolution of thought just simply stop because of the Missouri Comprimise? Not sure what you asking

Can the NCAA be justified because of it's. national focus rather what's right for MS?- The NCAA is a voluntary organization. Any institution that voluntarily remains in the cartel is subject to the cartel's rules.

Is Texas even a state, what about Alaska and Hiawaii, since surely Jeff Davis wasn't consulted on these radical "national" expansionism? - yes, they were admitted to the United States through the Constitutional process

Should there be no FEMA? - No, nor should there be a Federal Dept of Education, EPA, or many other departments and/or agencies

Is every state on it's own when natural disasters strike? - Yes, as well as the citizens of those states in rebuilding their private property for which there is insurance available to mitigate the risk of los

Do you recommend your client's ignore Federal tax laws, in lieu of state taxes. - No, I recommend they comply with both and advocate to their elected officials on any changes they desire to the Internal Revenue Code


---------------------------------------------
--- McauleyStreet wrote:

Wow, just wo, . this is a whole can southern worms being opened up here. States Rights, slavery, and football. Lots of,questions here.

Okay then what is the current tax value of a slave?
Is it still 3/5's of a ( white male) person or are they just a price-fixed commodity?
Were WWII, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam Nam War, the Bush Wars all illegal because MS, NC, SC, NY, MN et al didn't each issue their declarations of war.
Is the Interstate Highway system illegal?
Women's Rights, Civil Rights, Gay Rights are they all illegal as well because they were legislated at the Fedral level instead of the state houses?
Does the evolution of thought just simply stop because of the Missouri Comprimise?
Can the NCAA be justified because of it's. national focus rather what's right for MS?
Is Texas even a state, what about Alaska and Hiawaii, since surely Jeff Davis wasn't consulted on these radical "national" expansionism?
Should there be no FEMA?
Is every state on it's own when natural disasters strike?
Do you recommend your client's ignore Federal tax laws, in lieu of state taxes.

---------------------------------------------

I believe every word of it, am a Ram's Club member and season ticket holder. No troll here.
---------------------------------------------
--- CCjkt wrote:


Tell me you're just trolling and that you don't truly believe all this stuff you're saying....


---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:

Why am I an idiot?! And what is decent about a sovereign entity, the state of Mississippi, being told how they should act within their own state by residents of a different sovereign state or the national government? And, if this sovereign entity, the state of Mississippi, fails to act as these non citizens decree they should then the national government will send armed troops into this sovereign entity and forcibly require the sovereign entity to act as they decree? You consider this ethical or "decent"? Or, are you planning to make the asinine argument that the state of Mississippi is not a sovereign entity? Because if you do you will have opened your keyboard to remove any doubt that you, my friend, are an idiot or ignorant or both.

---------------------------------------------
--- spacemt1 wrote:

This isn't about "race pimps" this is about HUMAN DECENCY, idiot!!!!!!!

---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:

I'm going to let the race pimps have their field day with this one.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

NCTaxguy wrote:

Do you recommend your client's ignore Federal tax laws, in lieu of state taxes. - No, I recommend they comply with both and advocate to their elected officials on any changes they desire to the Internal Revenue Code
__________________________________

I know this is off topic here -- but I was just curious -- how is this Sidney Lowe business a criminal (felony?) thing ? Without knowing the law or anything about his personal situation - I would have assumed this would be some type of civil matter, that the person could get resolved by paying the tax and some penalty. How does it get over to being a criminal matter ?

He failed to file his return, which is a willful act and subject to criminal punishment.

I tell all of my clients, it is not illegal to not pay, it is illegal to not file.

If you file and don't pay the only remedies are civil. If you willfully fail to file, first the civil penalties are applied, and if you continue to evade then the criminal penalties apply.

Because Sid is a public figure they get a double benefit, they get to collect unpaid tax AND subject a perpetrator to public scrutiny to build public perceptions to continue to file AND pay.
---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:

NCTaxguy wrote:

Do you recommend your client's ignore Federal tax laws, in lieu of state taxes. - No, I recommend they comply with both and advocate to their elected officials on any changes they desire to the Internal Revenue Code
__________________________________

I know this is off topic here -- but I was just curious -- how is this Sidney Lowe business a criminal (felony?) thing ? Without knowing the law or anything about his personal situation - I would have assumed this would be some type of civil matter, that the person could get resolved by paying the tax and some penalty. How does it get over to being a criminal matter ?

---------------------------------------------

I would have thought they would give him a chance to resolve this is some civil action .... before they go the criminal route ? Though I must say I have no factual basis for thinking this.

He was given multiple opportunities to resolve it civilly. Criminal prosecution only begins after a notice of delinquency, a notice of assessment and other civil actions are taken.

Obviously, he disregarded all of these actions and chose to continue to willfully evade.

I wouldn't be surprised if it is found out that he had given power of attorney to someone that failed to file the returns and this party was receiving the notices that were disregarded.
---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:

I would have thought they would give him a chance to resolve this is some civil action .... before they go the criminal route ? Though I must say I have no factual basis for thinking this.

---------------------------------------------

maybe he had the guy Warwick Davis used on "Life's Too Short" - HBO

Apparently, the War's not quite over.

From today's WSJ ... news from Memphis Tn.:



Park Sheds Confederate Name, Drawing Ire

"A leafy park in downtown Memphis, Tenn., until a few weeks ago was named in honor of Nathan Bedford Forrest, the Confederate lieutenant general. But the park—home to a large statue of Gen. Forrest astride his horse as well as the graves of the general and his wife—has just been renamed Health Sciences Park by the Memphis City Council, a move that has set off the latest battle in the South's continuing culture clash over the Civil War.

The council made the switch Feb. 5, days after learning of a bill introduced in the Tennessee Legislature that if passed would prohibit renaming any parks or monuments honoring war veterans, including Confederates. The council voted quickly to strip Gen. Forrest's name from the park, as well as change the names of two others, Confederate Park and Jefferson Davis Park, which honored the Confederacy's president."



So we have African-American politicians changing the names of city parks to rid them of references to Confederate generals and leaders.

But NCTaxguy thinks the Ole Miss football program - which relies on appealing to African-American football players - should continue to be represented by Johnnie Reb and the Stars and Bars waving in the stands. I'm not totally convinced this is the best idea I've read on IC.

Taxman. Download this. And study.

www.stcloudstate.edu/affirmati...ToolsChange.pdf

This may prove to the most racist comment in this entire thread. ;)

---------------------------------------------
--- BethelRegiment wrote:




But NCTaxguy thinks the Ole Miss football program - which relies on appealing to African-American football players - should continue to be represented by Johnnie Reb and the Stars and Bars waving in the stands.
---------------------------------------------

I read two pages and got the gist.

Are there racist people? Of course. Are some white? Yep. But some are also black, Hispanic, Asian or Native American.

Racism and bigotry cannot be legislated away, they are a function of a society that includes more than one race. The only way to eradicate racism is to eradicate all but one race (you choose whichever one you want to be the successor race). I don't believe this is a good idea. It's better we all learn to rationalize that some people just won't like us because of the color of your skin and ignore those people, keep our heads down and keep grinding to our goals.

---------------------------------------------
--- bucinor wrote:

Taxman. Download this. And study.

www.stcloudstate.edu/affirmati...ToolsChange.pdf

---------------------------------------------

I commend you NCtaxguy! Very well said on all of your post and I applaud you for standing up for what you believe in.

I hope you might understand why other people might have less than total fealty to the 'sovereignty' of a 'sovereign entity' where more than half of its residents could never be citizens, would never be able to vote, and were merely 'property' of the minority of state residents who were in control. Maybe that was a 'decent' state of affairs that merited preservation, but somehow I don't think most people will see it that way. Perhaps you could take it up with the 23 African-Americans that made up about 90% of Ole Miss' top ten recruiting class this year and see if they think that was a way of life that merits glorification today.

---------------------------------------------
--- NCtaxguy wrote:

Why am I an idiot?! And what is decent about a sovereign entity, the state of Mississippi, being told how they should act within their own state by residents of a different sovereign state or the national government? And, if this sovereign entity, the state of Mississippi, fails to act as these non citizens decree they should then the national government will send armed troops into this sovereign entity and forcibly require the sovereign entity to act as they decree? You consider this ethical or "decent"? Or, are you planning to make the asinine argument that the state of Mississippi is not a sovereign entity? Because if you do you will have opened your keyboard to remove any doubt that you, my friend, are an idiot or ignorant or both.