OMgz, such idiocy. - Page 2 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-15-2007, 06:13 PM   #11
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,978
Country: United States
EPA Press Releases

I get RSS feeds from the EPA on latest press releases, and many lately have been grants to local jurisdictions for alternative fuel production (including Bio-D). What gives? Can't the consumer produce this without requiring a grant??? It seems like they're encouraging this behavior, but the DOJ is finding a problem with it. Typical -- the branches aren't working together for the greater good.

RH77
__________________

__________________
rh77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 07:19 PM   #12
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 358
Country: United States
That's because the branches only work for the good of the corporations. Ever hear of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act? It declares causing more than $5k worth of profit loss to animal enterprises (meat companies, animal testing labs, etc.) through even legal means is considered terrorism. There are 6 people sitting in prison right now because of this law for running a website called "Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty" that was about the animal abuse at Huntingdon Life Sciences, an animal testing lab. They are serving up to 6 years in prison for operating a website. Technically, SVO boy and I are terrorists under this law for being vegan.

The government is also sending undercover agents to monitor such dangerous national security threats as quaker meetings and peace vigils.
__________________

repete86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 08:06 PM   #13
Registered Member
 
omgwtfbyobbq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,516
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by repete86 View Post
There are 6 people sitting in prison right now because of this law for running a website called "Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty" that was about the animal abuse at Huntingdon Life Sciences, an animal testing lab. They are serving up to 6 years in prison for operating a website.
That's when you know what you're doing is effective.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormulaTwo
I think if i could get that type of FE i would have no problem driving a dildo shaped car.
omgwtfbyobbq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 10:41 PM   #14
Registered Member
 
The Toecutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 612
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to The Toecutter
Quote:
I wonder how those prosecuting this sleep at night.
I read that article on hightimes yesterday.

It's probably pretty easy for the prosecuters to sleep at night since for them to do their job effectively, they have to feel that the law is automatically justified merely because the law exists. Otherwise, prosecuters(and defense lawyers) wouldn't be able to find logical consistency in the arguments they make. Our whole justice system is one gigantic logical fallacy, yet generally presupposes itself as infallable.

Quote:
(I don't use (illegal) drugs myself, but busybodies abound on all sides, and the only way to get rid of the ones that annoy me personally is to get rid of the whole lot of 'em.)
In today's world, the 'busybodies' and the robber barons have virtually become the same entity. when they say it's for our own good, their usually raking in money off of it behind the scenes. In fact, that's exactly what's going on with the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war in Iraq, ect.

Quote:
Idiocy is boasting that you have broken the law and then being surprised that you are charged with breaking the law.
Maybe those charged with the crime aren't necessarily surprised, but instead outraged and disgusted that such a law exists. Unjust laws deserve to be ignored.

Quote:
There are 6 people sitting in prison right now because of this law for running a website called "Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty" that was about the animal abuse at Huntingdon Life Sciences, an animal testing lab. They are serving up to 6 years in prison for operating a website.
And that is why the Founding Fathers gave us the 2nd amendment, to protect all the others. Too bad people are too scared to band together and ENFORCE their rights with arms if necessary for fear of having a Waco-like event unfold, eh? Law enforcement is choosing to risk their lives for their 'law', so my moral qualms with someone defending their rights from those hired to arrest and detain are few. The only reason these people are in prison is because they let someone come over and cuff them. It is quite obvious that the legal methods available were not practical to asserting their 1st amendment right to free speech. But then again, most people are afraid of death(or worse), and we know the FBI is just waiting to bust up a group that bands together to protect themselves from their own government.

Whatever the case may be, I hope they are set out of prison and that their website is kept operational. This is absolutely deplorable for patriots such as these to be assaulted for excersising a right acknowledged and garunteed by our own constitution.
The Toecutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 11:33 PM   #15
Supporting Member
 
Hockey4mnhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 760
Country: United States
if enough people do it hopefully give up on it
__________________
Hockey4mnhs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2007, 12:46 AM   #16
Supporting Member
 
cfg83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,779
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Toecutter View Post
...

Maybe those charged with the crime aren't necessarily surprised, but instead outraged and disgusted that such a law exists. Unjust laws deserve to be ignored.

...
Bingo :

Fully Informed Jury Association
http://www.fija.org/

Quote:
Juries protect society from dangerous individuals and also protect individuals from dangerous government. Jurors have a duty and responsibility to render a just verdict. They must take into account the facts of the case, mitigating circumstances, the merits of the law, and the fairness of its application in each case. The recognition of the authority and right of jurors to weigh the merits of the law and to render a verdict based on conscience, dates from before the writing of our Constitution, in cases such as those of William Penn and Peter Zenger. Should this right ever be suppressed, the people will retain the right to resist, having an unalienable right to veto or nullify bad and oppressive laws, and in fact then would be morally compelled to do so.
This is my pet peeve. What is the historical purpose of a jury? At the start of the USA, jurors were told that they were present to judge the merits of the case AND the merits of the law. They were expressly present to make sure that the application of the law was just. If they thought the law was unjust, they had the right of JURY NULLIFICATION. The judge was required to tell them of this right. This is still true today.

In the late 1800's, it was illegal to strike. Workers, however were striking anyway. When juror's heard of the inhuman conditions they were working under, they exorcised their right of jury nullification and found the strikers not guilty.

This happened so much that eventually the US Supreme Court (corrupt back then too) passed a loophole. Judges were no longer required to tell jurors that they had the right of july nullification.

Today jurors are basically told that even if they don't agree with the law, they must not let their personal feelings get in the way of their judgement. Defense lawyers, if they so much as squeek "jury nullification", can be reprimanded by the judge.

When I am on jury duty, and a lawyer or judge asks me if I can enforce the law even if I don't agree with it, I say NO. And then I promptly infect the jury pool with the reason why. And then I'm kicked off the jury pool.

CarloSW2
__________________
Old School SW2 EPA ... New School Civic EPA :

What's your EPA MPG? http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp
cfg83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2007, 06:46 AM   #17
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_Ryland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,325
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to GasSavers_Ryland
From http://www.liquidsolarpower.com/DieselLikesChinese.htm

"In Wisconsin, the question has arisen as to whether the state should begin to tax biofuels the same way it taxes gasoline. So far, however, authorities there have ruled that vegetable oil bought as homemade fuel from a garage is not subject to tax."


http://www.biodieselnow.com/blogs/methods/default.aspx


"Currently (April 2005), the first 400 gallons of homemade biodiesel is exempt from Federal excise taxes. Anything over 400 gallons is subject to the normal tax rate. You will need to check your State Tax Code for exemptions on State Excise Taxes."

I haven't been able to find anything saying that you have to pay taxes on homemade fuel, or that you don't have to... at least not in any of the state law web sites, but I sugest that you check for your self for your own state.
GasSavers_Ryland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2007, 01:21 PM   #18
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 557
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by rh77 View Post
I get RSS feeds from the EPA on latest press releases, and many lately have been grants to local jurisdictions for alternative fuel production (including Bio-D). What gives? Can't the consumer produce this without requiring a grant??? It seems like they're encouraging this behavior, but the DOJ is finding a problem with it. Typical -- the branches aren't working together for the greater good.

RH77
There is no inconsistency between supporting the increased production of biofuels, and the requirement of taxes being paid on that biofuel.
Wheat farmers get subsidies. Does that mean the pre-made sandwich I buy for lunch should be exempt from my state's meals tax? And if I should brown-bag my own tax-free sandwich I made at home, and sit at a sidewalk cafe to eat it, should the cafe owner not be compensated in some form?
Lug_Nut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2008, 08:24 AM   #19
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 110
Country: United States
I don't filter WVO. It just get's screened for food chunks. The BD get's filtered though.
I only make 399.9 gallons or less per quarter. If you make more than that then you are considered a processor and need to have a licence and pay taxes.

I'm not going out this weekend to collect WVO.
__________________
http://www.maxxgraphix.net
maxxgraphix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2008, 09:28 AM   #20
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 557
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxxgraphix View Post
I only make 399.9 gallons or less per quarter. If you make more than that then you are considered a processor and need to have a licence and pay taxes.
Having a license to do some work or paying a tax on some part of that work is not a 'blank check' implication of permission to do anything else that might require a different license nor does it pretend to offer some legal impunity from paying other taxes on other goods or services.

My wife's home business is data processing. She pays a quarterly tax based on her 'process' output. Can she be exempted from having to pay federal and state fuel tax, too?
__________________

Lug_Nut is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.