constitutional mechanics 101

we commonly inherit national constitutional frameworks that were created within very different contexts to that which we are presently experiencing. thus what made sense many years past, now shapes our experience in ways which often are not comfortable.\r\nthis zone is for the exploration of evolving new constitutional agreements that best serve the needs of an expanding and evolving populous.
group membership permissions:
open (public) group

who can see this group?
(show / hide) more from this group

share using

more videos in this group

total: 2

liking what we do here?

this site is advert free. your donations assist with keeping us online - click below to help us meet our technology costs


Carol, Another Callous Criminal at the Canadian Revenue Agency

    ura soul

    If you've never spoken with someone who exhibits psychopathic behavior, such as a complete lack of empathy, then speak to a bureaucrat. They are a callous bunch of criminals. While I don't believe they are all psychopaths/sociopaths, they certainly behave in a similar way, they just don't give a damn, they really just don't care. This call is with Carol, she is the one behind the attack. She doesn't break any ground, nothing new, she uses all the same lines we've come to expect. So this may be educational for those new to this site, it is also more evidence these people are callous criminals deserving of neither respect nor compliance. She insists the rules created by people called "legislators" apply to Keith because he's physically in Canada, but when asked for proof she can only repeat her claim. She claims the proof is the income information. So I have her confirm this, then ask how the reported income proves their laws apply. She responds with: I'm not going to get into any detax arguments with you. And there is your evidence of Carol's dishonesty. She lies that I'm argument with here when I only asked her to prove her claim. I point out I'm not arguing and she states she is not going to answer my questions. Keep in mind I only asked for the proof she said she had. That is evidence of not only dishonesty but of bad faith. I ask a few more times after pointing out she is not answering and the sum of her claim the law apply is really nothing more than her saying: They do. Carol is unable to demonstrate how the income report proves the laws apply and she knows she can't. If she could, then she would have given the proof. She then defaults to the standard line to divert attention by claiming my asking for evidence is a "debate." This is dishonest to say the least. Her supervisor is conflicted though. When I spoke to her supervisor, Ron, he's just as callous. He makes the claim, "I don't need evidence." When I tell him I need to write that down, he gets upset and asked if I was recording. I tell him I'm writing his admissions down, but I can understand why he doesn't want such admissions recorded. I asked him if he thought is was dishonest to claim a question of evidence was a debate and he said it was dishonest. So I asked him if it was dishonest when Carol did it to me. He said no, it was not. Nice contradiction Ron, what a way to remove any doubt you are a callous, dishonest criminal. He lied about having his supervisor call also. But you can't expect anything less from people who force us to pay them.

    you can join the community to leave a comment