Wesley Snipes: Playing out a role created by white male Libertarians.

Sorry, but I can't see it any other way. We all hear from these Libertarians who come on DU and try to sell every possible argument to do away with taxes. The latest was that the IRS was improperly established. It seems our friend Snipes, took the bait. Read the incredible article:

Snipes trial offers IRS perfect script

Wesley Snipes' Trial Offers Perfect Script for IRS to Discourage Anti-Tax Activists

Even Hollywood couldn't have written a more ideal script for the Internal Revenue Service than actor Wesley Snipes' tax-fraud trial.

At a time when millions of Americans are buckling down to prepare their taxes, Snipes is being cast as a villainous example of the dangers of joining with Internet-fueled activists who claim the IRS has no authority to collect taxes.

Snipes, the star of the "Blade" films and "White Men Can't Jump," is on trial with two tax protesters in one of the biggest criminal cases in IRS history, and the agency hopes the media attention on the matter will dissuade others in the "tax avoidance" movement from trying to outwit the government.

"People who do it openly and notoriously, you've got to go after them," said Sheldon Cohen, who was IRS commissioner and general counsel in the 1960s. "Not because he's that important or the amount of money is that important, but because there are others who may be foolish enough to follow."

More:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Snipes_trial_offers_IRS_perfect_scr_01292008.html

... have much sympathy for the "income taxes are illegal" crowd.

This argument has been shot down in court a zillion times.

And it's about to get shot down again.

fly out of US airports, rely on the State Department when he's out of the country, etc.

If these nutjobs forego paying for this stuff, then I hope to hell they don't ever use it, either.

Maybe Snipes ain't hip on the endless wars & shredding of the Constitution he's been paying for through his taxes.

anti-tax versions of that thought can be especially heinous.

... IMO, paying taxes to the federal guv is somewhat like giving a $100.00 weekly allowance to an obese child who promptly and faithfully spends every dime on Twinkies and Ho Ho's. Also, I can't get too happy about taxes while the guv refuses to return my lands to my people.

you're assessment at all about taxes.

the government is there to work for all of us -- and the government is an ''obese child'' like the moon has a man in it.

pure fantasy.

it has problems like any institution created by man will have.

it's being energised about oversight and reforming those institutions and making sure that they work that is job of all of us.

This is post-rationalization by Snipes, IMO. After he got caught, he tried to justify what he did in his own mind, and to make something of a defense in an open-and-shut case. Wrapping one's selfish actions in some glorious 'campaign' against injustice is a classic.

there was a couple in my area who were just some greedy, shady skinflints who bent over backward trying to hide their money...then when they got caught, it was all "it's not that we are greedy and don't care; we are part of that anti-tax movement! or something..."

I would have honest respect for someone who pulled a Thoreau, rather than plain old stinginess..

as his tax accountants.

Sid

Ayn Rand was female and one of their greatest darlings.

And Snipes did what he did on his own accord - he made tens of millions of dollars anc chose not to pay tax on it.

If he didn't know how risky that is, then he's a real idiot, regardless of his color or gender.

for pointing out the OP's obvious hatred of that which is white or male.

Libertarianist were part of the Angry White Male sect. That will always be their origin.

have gotten so comfortable using "white male" as such a negative they do not realize how offensive and hypocritical it is to hear it over and over again with such impunity, even if it may have some truth in it. It is like many of the other "stereotypes" that people find offensive in here about women, people of color, the gay and lesbian community etc.

others. And it will have to be drilled in, until people begin to understand why the Republican party has always been attractive to white males. It IS an agenda, and one that can only be seen clearly, if you're able to see how they work the social networks to their advantage, based on the kind of behavior that most people would recognize as prejudicial to diverse interests.

I am really really tired of hearing about which group has had a monopoliy on suffering and when you make these vast generalizations about groups of people you ignore the reality of the individual. Everyone suffers. I know black lesbians who are joyful and happy and I know white males who have gotten the shit end of the stick when it comes to life.

And when your attitude is that we are going to punish or "pelt" a group of people simply because, through no fault of their own, were born into a group that tends to have more privilege, how do you justify that? You have just become what you hate.

There is no such thing as perfect equality for all. We certainly should strive for it, but these problems exist across the globe. They have existed for all time and will most likely will exist in the future.

This childish and illogical attitude that white males are immune to suffering and that people of color, women, the poor, or gay and lesbian people are perfect and do not abuse, hurt or cause suffering is ludicrous.

PS What would make you happy? That all white males are ground beneath your heel?

I'm living at ground zero of a white male good ole boy network that has been allowed to run amok. You want to live in denial? Go ahead. I wish I could.

It exists, and if you want to defend them, I'm here to tell you, you will lose. It's just a matter of time before they get exposed.

All I ask is that they be punished in the same way that you would punish a community that did the same thing, if they were latinos or blacks.

or corporate america. I am responding to your irrational all or nothing, black and white illogicity. I am all for exposing people. I just don't label everyone who is part of that group.

What don't you understand?

You don't sound like anyone who has been on DU for any period of time. This issue is not going away. There are social networks in this country which have given the bush administration its power as well as corporate America. These networks include good ole boy networks which are composed primarily of white males.

Many of the strategies they use to strengthen their power rely on policies which exploit ethnic groups which would challenge them. You see, these good ole boy networks rely on secrecy and loyalty. They want to pick who wins and who loses. The Southern Strategy is the most obvious example. You know why these white groups don't like ethnic groups? Because we see them for what they are. Crooks. And we don't like their backroom dealings which generally means at some point down the road, we're going to get victimized by their greed, or by their mistakes.

Sorry if it offends you, but it's a reality. It's a good ole boy's club, and the only progressive that seems to have the balls to recognize it, is Michael Moore. So you'll excuse me if I take his word, over yours. That you see yourself in the line of fire means that you don't understand the problem.

I do not disagree with your politics... I disagree with your justification of labeling all white men with your stereotypes... I do not disagree with Michael Moore on much.

As for whether or not I have been on DU, what does it matter whether I have or not. Time in DU is not reflective of anything substantial. But I have been on DU for years FYI. More importantly I have been serving others my entire adult life. What have you done?

to see. When Michael Moore came out with a book called Stupid White Men, did you write him a letter telling him how offended you were? Or did you immediately understand specifically WHICH white men he was talking about? Please answer the question.

with little to no consequences. Whether or not I agree with it is irrelevant. I have read Michael Moore and I realize he is not a self hating white man. He is a satirist. I do not know you and can only base my observations on your comments. He can say it cause he is a white male. If a women said it or a black person wrote it it would be a different story.

My Italian friends can mock their culture, but me, as an Irishman cannot do it. My friends who are black can drop the N word, but God forbid if a white guys does it. This is part of society and you do not have to have a PhD in Sociology to get it.

Just because MM does it does not mean it is right. Imus can be fired for saying "nappy headed ho's" but Whoopie Goldberg can name her production company ONeHo productions and it is ok.

If these white males groups were powerless, then I would be considerate enough to worry about hurting their feelings. But they are not. They are the problem and they need to be dealt with. The only adjustment I would make on your behalf is to further identify them as "conservative" white males. I don't know why that would be necessary on this board since there have been more than ample articles identifying this issue.

But just because I'm not white doesn't mean I don't have the right to speak about what Michael Moore has seen. In fact, I have more right because I am on the receiving end of their blunders. Coming on to DU and speaking about it is an attempt to break from this "victimization" as you call it. What would you prefer? That I kept quiet? It isn't going to happen.

And I disagree with you, it was not satire, but social commentary on his part.

you obviously have an issue with comprehension, or you clearly just want to continue to justify your bias. It isn't just white males. Women, people of color (especially as they rise in the socio-economic realm), and any other disenfranchised group (log cabin republicans come to mind) participate in supporting the power structure. If you think that the entire republican party is "white male", you are being foolish. The Democratic party has many white males and you seem to ignore this.

My issue has never been to defend the indefensible but to point out that you are as guilty of racism and sexism as the "white males" you rant against. Goodbye and good luck.

I don't understand how you could have been on DU for this long without ever hearing before that racism is at the core of the Republican party. Look up the term, "Southern Strategy," it's been discussed amply on this newsgroup. And as we continue to gather information, it only solidifies my position. When a group so much wants to retain power based on their color and culture, it's a bit ridiculous for the rest of us to avoid talking about it for fear of hurting their feelings.

You were at a disadvantage from the beginning, without realizing it. I'm as inside the enemy camp as any one can get to this issue.

And there are a lot more of us out there - Oh, and we're not gay either and we don't do it out of "guilt".

He spent his life working at the department of Labor trying to protect workers' rights, and I learned about social justice from him - a WHITE MALE.

We live in TEXAS and happen to have more than a few WHITE MALE liberal democrat friends, too.

My brother is a libertarian-leaning type, but we're working on him.

Your generalizing and stereotyping are really ugly and wrong.

Seems like you've got a lot of resentment to work through.

The good ole boy network and Libertarians are primarily a white male oriented group. Get it? To join and be part of the group, it works in your favor to be WHITE AND MALE. This isn't news to anybody, but apparently, you.

Because you obviously are not capable of seeing what I or others are saying.

This is my guess based upon your name of The Backlash Cometh. You thrive in victimhood. You justify your hateful attitude because someone hurt you at some point in your life and you are hanging onto it dearly and will not let go. You will paint everyone from the "white male" group with the same broad brush and feel justified in seeing everyone as part of that group as above suffering.

My suggestion is you get some counseling and work towards some level of happiness. Victims who do not work towards survivorhood will often become the abusers they hate. You are well on the road.

I cannot change who I am. I acknowledge that I have enjoyed a certain amount of privilege as a white male and I have worked hard to offer that opportunity to others, but I am not going to feel guilty about it either or allow others like you who have an axe to grind, to lash out at whomever you think deserves it, simply because they are in a group you despise. Time to grow up.

waste your time defending them, have at it. You want to defend the Southern Strategy as your own? The Republicans used buzz words to ensure that their white constituents understood that their programs would defend Anglo versus diversity interests. That's what you want to identify with?

A real progressive wouldn't get hung up with this because they would understand that the agenda is CONSERVATIVE. But you don't seem to recognize that. Why not, if you've been on DU for so long?

What my backlash is about, is holding those networks, which are white, to the same legal ramifications that ethnic groups would have to face, if they played the same illegal games.

I am now convinced you have either a LD or mental health issues. I have never once defended them. I simply pointed out your stereotyping of all white males and your racist and sexist comments. I happen to be a white male. Some who are part of my group are evil, but many are good men.

White males happen to be in power. If women ran the show or african americans or the poor took control there would be abuses as well. This is not a phenomenon specific to only white men.

What you do not get is that it is not about WHITE it is about POWER

to maintain a way of life that does not mingle well with people of other cultural backgrounds. They are prejudiced in that regard. The color and the power are one and the same -- to them. And if you can't see that, then the problem is yours.

I don't put ALL white males in one category, and most liberals seem to understand that, because they understand that Republicans are very prejudiced about maintaining that power within anglo circles. They know that it isn't just about power, but keeping that power within anglo groups where they have access to ways to skirt the law.

for clarifying what I meant. I have been in social services my whole life. My father and my father's father were long time democrats who worked for equal rights for women and blacks.

I will "expose" the radical hypocrites on this board and other "progressive" boards for their unprogressive approach to labeling all white men the same. They are as ignorant as those they claim to fight against.

Good job.

don't really understand the issue.

Regardless, bonedaddy didn't claim to be in the same boat as anyone.

We're just calling BS on your characterization that "white male libertarians" somehow coerced Wesley Snipes into not paying taxes, not to mention the obnoxious generalization that somehow all white men are a party to discrimination, old-boy networks, etc. etc.

I don't for a second pretend that I'm in the same boat as a black man, but that doesn't mean I'm part of the white male power elite either.

This is my last post to you on this because to be honest, your posts make my head hurt.

That's what happens when you start thinking out of the box.
Though, frankly, the issues discussed in this subthread are not novel to DU.

So let's start by clearing something up. Always read carefully and don't try to reframe someone's comments. I never said that white male Libertarians coerced Wesley Snipes, so if that's what you're upset about, you're fighting with your own incorrect perceptions. Read my posts very carefully and read the article again. What the article says is what I agree with. Wesley adopted for his defense, a tax evasion idea which has been circulating on the internet. No one coerced him, but the idea is not novel. It is an idea that Libertarians have been floating around and the majority of them are white males. That's a fact.

you are... Do us all a favor and look up the psychological term "projection"... The very thing you claim the "white male" does, you do with great justification and self righteouness.

You are just being offended by a word, without listening to the rest of the dialog. There is no way to discuss this issue without referring to them as white men, since they make it an issue by using prejudice to decide who is in their inner circle and who is not. I cannot ignore the obvious, and I can't for the life of me, figure out how you've been on DU for so long without having your conscience raised before now.

Republicans recoil at the term, "diversity," and they have tried to make this everything, but a racist issue, but there agenda exposes them. They are racists. If you want to call me a racist for pointing out that they are white males who are bent on using discrimination to facilitate business deals, and to call in favors when those deals blow up in their faces, then so be it. I'm as racist as Michael Moore. I can live with that.

I think the angry, white male moniker is pretty much the center of the libertarian's target demographics...

At the VERY LEAST say that Snipes is accountable for his actions. This "playing the role white male libertarian" nonsense reduces him to not having to be responsible for his own behavior. I think that when black people behave badly call it as it is. Don't turn them into victim puppets who are somehow influenced by that devious "white male" sexist racist spew that is so often acceptable on DU.

In DU, if you are female, black, poor, non-heterosexual you are not responsible for your behavior and it is somehow the accountability of white, racist, rich, hetero America. Absolute nonsense.

his poor judgement. This "role" he's playing, he is doing on his own. No agent is selling it, and no lawyer is recommending it.

detailing exactly who, nowadays, falls into the White Male Network? Do you have to get a card or something, write for LewRockwell or is outward appearance good enough to gain entrance?

And as far as the tax debate, I am revolted by what my federal tax dollars go towards (JDAMs, Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers) even if it is a pitance of $18K.

improperly established is a Libertarian ideal. If you agree with that premise, then you may be in the club. As is the belief that the banking system is all hocus-pocus so we shouldn't be collecting taxes because of it.

And you're in the White Male Network if you want to cut all social programs that might help ethnic groups and the poor; and feel that minority owned construction companies can't do quality work, so all contracts should go to white owned contractors; or if you feel that whites are generally more intelligent than hispanic and blacks. Oh, and if you believe that it's okay if the city has a core of private good ole boy developers which it allows to cut deals behind doors, and if the infra-structure they build is crappy, that the homeowners should pick up the cost for repairs instead of the city requiring their good ole boy developer to fix it.

Can Dems be in this White Male Network? In Florida, the answer is in the affirmative.

then you may be onto something. Wesley's argument is that there should be NO taxes collected. The only way that argument would hold, is if there was a revolution to follow that would result in the dissolution of our country. So, I think your comparison has limitations.

As the saying goes, I have no dog in this fight, just observations.

Annually, near tax day, there is a group of resisters/protesters that meet at the National Press Club and they then march in front of the IRS building in D.C.

These groups took to the Internet early, so I have run across the various factions materials of resisters/protesters, for years. Some of it makes sense, some of it don't.

Also, there is a plethora of articles, cases, and former IRS employees testimonies that keep re-igniting the resolve of these groups.

If you give consideration to acts of this admin the pass seven years, things like signing statements, wire tapping, terra, terra, then FEMA was gone and then HS, etc. Some of the protesters/resisters arguments are not tinfoil. What I hear some of them saying is, when the institution of the IRS was erected it was done similarly to the Patriot Act, FISA, or any of the things we rail about today that is not constitutional.

Given, the history of this country. When it want the population to act collectively against its own self-interest, they put a minority's face on the issue to ensure consent.

But I happen to have had a very bad experience with a Libertarian once, and learned that what he said, and what his true agenda really was, wasn't always apparent. The man was really an anarchist, and what he would do is pit liberal interests, (such as environmental interests), against homeowner's interests, (ie. someone who wanted to knock down every tree in the backyard) to get what he really wanted: Complete anarchy and no regulation.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, do they want to argue whether the IRS was properly established, or do they really want to do away with federal taxes completely? And what would happen to federal regulation, if they succeeded in doing away with taxes? The true agenda is in the last question.

who will attach themselves to causes.

And, I am not discounting the individuals you speak of, they are there.

edit.

"do they want to argue whether the IRS was properly established"

Yes.

"do they really want to do away with federal taxes completely? And what would happen to federal regulation, if they succeeded in doing away with taxes?"

Yes, some do.

But, when you look deeply at the dismantling of the government today, what they ask for is trivia.

It is widely known, that under the control of the CEO pRes, industry leaders have rotated in and out of government positions that regulated their industry.

While these industry representatives held government positions, they REWROTE federal regulations to favor their industry sector. And, America did not fall into chaos. Its only when there is a change to support the populous there is a perception that it will create chaos.

There is a lot of good that government can do and should do. Just because the Republicans have managed to do away with the good, and have inserted nothing but bad government in its place, doesn't mean that we shouldn't work to find a balance. You won't be able to even start fixing what is wrong if you do away with it altogether. The first step is to change the public's perception of government. Perhaps the hardships we are now all facing is what is needed to educate them on that matter. This is the time we should be connecting the dots to show them how the bad legislation got us here, and how the dismantling of good legislation accelerated the process.

Actor Wesley Snipes Acquitted of Tax Fraud, but Convicted of Failing to File a Tax Return


OCALA, Fla. (AP) -- Action star Wesley Snipes was found not guilty of federal tax-fraud and conspiracy charges Friday, but was convicted on three misdemeanor counts of failing to file a tax return.
Snipes and two co-defendants, a delicensed accountant and a tax protest leader, were indicted in 2006. Snipes faced six additional counts of willful failure to file a tax return from 1999-2004, a period in which he signed two contracts for more than $10 million on sequels in the "Blade" trilogy. He was acquitted on three of those and convicted on the others. He could be sentenced to three years in prison after originally facing a possible 16 years.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080201/snipes_tax_trial.html?.v=1

I wonder who set him up.