Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pitiful Paul Thomas

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Pitiful Paul Thomas

    Paul, little boy Paul - you are the one with those evil emotions. For you,
    my feelings are mostly pity. Really, you need help - why not get some?

    ak



  • #2
    Pitiful lies from Andy

    It's amazing that you have any feelings at all. You tell lies so easily,
    without remorse.


    On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
    "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
    free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
    "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."

    On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
    "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
    can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."

    On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
    "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
    to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
    to be part of the National Guard."



    Care to provide proof of these statements?

    You lied Andy, LIES, Lies, and more lies.

    It doesn't really matter why you lied. Out of fear, spite, hatred, anger,
    envy, stupidity, bigotry, jealousy........doesn't matter really..........the
    facts are, you lied.

    Why you have to change the subject away from your lies is obvious. The
    truth hurts.

    But you can "straighten me out" by providing proof that your statements
    aren't lies.

    And you have justified all your lies by saying:
    "Just because I can't "prove" it, doesn't mean that it never happened"
    Andrew Kilpatick Sun, 10 Apr 2005


    How sad that you have an existance like that.




    --
    Paul A. Thomas, CPA
    Athens, Georgia



    Comment


    • #3
      Pitiful pitiful Paul


      "Paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
      news:[email protected]
      It's amazing that you have any feelings at all.
      Well I do have feelings, Paul. Trolls have a hard time understanding that.
      And believe it or not, I realize that you have feelings Paul - even though
      you don't mind stomping on the feelings of others that you don't agree with.
      This "how dare you question what I tell you" mentality of yours is a
      problem, and your lack of respect for others suggests some internal problem
      that a professional should help you work through, Paul. Could drugs be your
      problem? Drugs - whether in liquid or solid form - are know to make people
      act the way you come off Paul. Your posts appear to become more aggressive
      and illogical later in the evening. So yes, I suspect you might be into some
      chemical stuff that doesn't really make you responsible for what you post.
      But whether or not you have a personal drug problem, we know that some
      people at IRS (just like everywhere, maybe worse - maybe not) have drug
      problems. And the problem there is that IRS management appears to want to
      stick their heads in the sand and not really bring such problems under
      control. Like the drug ring that operated out of the regional IRS center (in
      Covington, KY) and was broken up by local police. The police noted that IRS
      was not cooperative with the investigation. Clearly, when drugs get into the
      work place, lots of bad decisions are being made, and dishonesty increases.
      It's not an unusual phenomenon these days. But IRS goes into full denial on
      the issue of addressing their drug problems. Officially, there is none. Drug
      testing is the obvious answer. Drug testing is common in the real world
      ("private sector"), so why won't an organization as critical to our country
      as the tax collection system get the dope addicts out? There is no excuse
      for IRS not weeding out their dopers. I suspect that this is a difficult
      subject for you to objectively address, Paul. But why don't you give it a
      try?

      ak



      Comment


      • #4
        Pitiful Andy, pitiful Mrs Kilpatrick.


        "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
        Well I do have feelings,

        But not about your lies. You feel that you are justified in lying. Right?
        "Just because I can't "prove" it, doesn't mean that it never happened"
        Andrew Kilpatrick Sun, 10 Apr 2005


        So any and all lies are fine with you, even those, or especially those, that
        you can't prove.

        Maybe you are adicted to lying. Maybe it's a mental problem you are
        struggling with. Maybe the embarassment of admiting that you lied is too
        much for you. Maybe it's a power thing with you.

        Face it, you lied.



        --
        Two Reasons Why It's So Hard To Solve A Redneck Murder:
        1. All the DNA is the same.
        2. There are no dental records.
        --------------------------
        Paul A. Thomas, CPA
        Athens, Georgia






        Comment


        • #5
          Pitiful Andy, pitiful Mrs Kilpatrick.

          You really don't have any limits, do you Thomas The lowest of the lowest.
          Those in government should cringe every time you fly their flag. You are a
          true, pathetic, lost troll Paul Thomas. What "medications" do you take to
          live with yourself? They must be very strong.

          Your "how dare you question what I tell you" mentality shows off your
          problem, and your lack of respect for others. It suggests some internal
          problem
          that a professional should help you work through, Paul. Could drugs be your
          problem? Drugs - whether in liquid or solid form - are know to make people
          act the way you come off Paul. Your posts appear to become more aggressive
          and illogical later in the evening. So yes, I suspect you might be into some
          chemical stuff that doesn't really make you responsible for what you post.
          But whether or not you have a personal drug problem, we know that some
          people at IRS (just like everywhere, maybe worse - maybe not) have drug
          problems. And the problem there is that IRS management appears to want to
          stick their heads in the sand and not really bring such problems under
          control. Like the drug ring that operated out of the regional IRS center (in
          Covington, KY) and was broken up by local police. The police noted that IRS
          was not cooperative with the investigation. Clearly, when drugs get into the
          work place, lots of bad decisions are being made, and dishonesty increases.
          It's not an unusual phenomenon these days. But IRS goes into full denial on
          the issue of addressing their drug problems. Officially, there is none. Drug
          testing is the obvious answer. Drug testing is common in the real world
          ("private sector"), so why won't an organization as critical to our country
          as the tax collection system get the dope addicts out? There is no excuse
          for IRS not weeding out their dopers. I suspect that this is a difficult
          subject for you to objectively address, Paul. But why don't you give it a
          try?

          ak



          Comment


          • #6
            Pitiful Andy, poor Mrs Kilpatrick.


            "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
            You really don't have any limits, do you Thomas The lowest of the lowest.

            ...........for pointing out your lies?

            I plead guilty.



            Your "how dare you question what I tell you" mentality shows off your problem, and your lack of respect for others. It suggests some internal problem

            Yet, I question, nay, challange your statements about me and my "beliefs",
            and you say "How dare you!!"

            You are funny, in a sad pathetic way.

            Just prove these statements to be true:

            On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
            "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
            free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
            "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."

            On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
            "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
            can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."

            On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
            "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
            to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
            to be part of the National Guard."


            C'mon Andy. It should be simple to do.......if you didn't lie.



            --
            Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
            ----------
            Paul A. Thomas, CPA
            Athens, Georgia
            taxman at negia.net




            Comment


            • #7
              Pitiful Andy, poor Mrs Kilpatrick.

              You really don't have any limits, do you Thomas? Paul Thomas, the lowest
              scum of the scum. Those in government should cringe every time you fly their
              flag. You are a true, pathetic - a lost troll Paul Thomas. What
              "medications" do you take to live with yourself? They must be very strong.

              ak


              Comment


              • #8
                Pitiful Andy, poor Mrs Kilpatrick.


                "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                You really don't have any limits, do you Thomas? Paul Thomas, the lowest scum of the scum.


                ...........for pointing out your lies?

                I plead guilty.



                Care to prove that I said what you claim I said? Or do you just want to
                deflect the light from your lies?

                I know they are lies Andy. You know they are lies too.

                The only question is, are there any posts of yours that are truthful?



                --
                Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
                ----------
                Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                Athens, Georgia
                taxman at negia.net


                Comment


                • #9
                  Paul Thoms - what does he believe in? (besides money)


                  "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                  news:[email protected]
                  ..........for pointing out your lies?
                  Paul - it's nice that you respect the 2nd Amendment for the meaning that the
                  original authors had in mind when it was written - even with your snipes at
                  me for mentioning the 2nd amendment as the last resort protection from
                  extreme IRS abuse. I was not threatening people who work for IRS at all,
                  just saying that they had an obligation to respect due process (legal
                  procedures prior to forceful actions), and that the 2nd Amendment was
                  written to assure that government power never circumvented due process. You
                  were critical of that, and you and your good buddy Frank seemed to have a
                  problem with the right of citizens to bear arms. But if you say that's not
                  what you were saying - so be it.

                  Now Paul - would you like to discuss a real subject on taxes and IRS, or
                  continue your childish tantrum?

                  How about issues regarding the way some IRS folk like to dodge
                  responsibility? You never touched on the "signed for" games at IRS or the
                  failure of IRS to even sign return receipt correspondence, as required by
                  the US Postal Service. Do you agree that when someone at the IRS fouls up
                  someone's life unjustifiably, the individual who failed to do their job
                  properly (as well as the government) should be responsible? Do you agree
                  that negligent IRS individuals, not just the taxpayers, should pay when the
                  IRS violates the laws of Congress and even their own interpretations of the
                  law? Do you agree that IRS folks passing problems created by their own
                  people from one representative to another (the infamous IRS "shuffle") is
                  simply an unacceptable tactic for avoiding individual responsibility at IRS?
                  Shouldn't IRS stop blaming Congress for bad decisions made by people at
                  Internal Revenue? Wasn't the "we are just the messenger" excuse a bunch of
                  bull? Or do you really believe IRS has is hands so tied by Congress that
                  they cannot find just and honest solutions to problems created by IRS
                  interpretations of law? Got any thoughts, Paul? ak


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Paul Thoms - what does he believe in? (besides money)


                    "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                    Paul - it's nice that you respect the 2nd Amendment for the meaning that the original authors had in mind when it was written - even with your snipes at me for mentioning the 2nd amendment as the last resort protection from extreme IRS abuse.

                    The Second Amendment doesn't allow for you to shoot folks you don't like.

                    I was not threatening people who work for IRS at all,
                    Bull****. You just claimed you would shoot an IRS employee.



                    just saying that they had an obligation to respect due process (legal procedures prior to forceful actions), and that the 2nd Amendment was written to assure that government power never circumvented due process.

                    No, it was not.

                    The Second Amendment isn't for you to shoot folks that are enforcing laws
                    you don't understand, or don't agree with.


                    You were critical of that,
                    As I should be.

                    But if you say that's not what you were saying - so be it.

                    Andy, don't change the subject, which is........your lies.

                    On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                    "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
                    free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
                    "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."

                    On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                    "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
                    can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."

                    On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                    "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
                    to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
                    to be part of the National Guard."


                    Care to admit you lied? Or would you care to provide proof that you did not
                    lie?


                    How about issues regarding the way some IRS folk like to dodge responsibility?


                    How about your responsibility to tell the truth?

                    Where is your responsibility?

                    Are are you just another irresponsible person, telling lies as you please?

                    Yes, I believe these words of yours tell it all:
                    "Just because I can't "prove" it, doesn't mean that it never happened"
                    Andrew Kilpatick Sun, 10 Apr 2005


                    Let us get through with the issue of your lies, your deciet, your
                    dishonesty, your lack of morals, your unethical actions, and all the baggage
                    that you must carry because of it.

                    And who the hell is "Paul Thoms" anyway?

                    I bet he donated money to that "Doug McMillan" guy.

                    What a joke you are.




                    --
                    Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                    Athens, Georgia


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Paul Thoms - what does he believe in? (besides money)


                      "Paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                      news:[email protected]
                      "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                      Paul - it's nice that you respect the 2nd Amendment for the meaning that the original authors had in mind when it was written - even with your snipes at me for mentioning the 2nd amendment as the last resort protection from extreme IRS abuse.
                      The Second Amendment doesn't allow for you to shoot folks you don't like.
                      Never said it did - JERK.
                      I was not threatening people who work for IRS at all, Bull****. You just claimed you would shoot an IRS employee.
                      Liar.
                      just saying that they had an obligation to respect due process (legal procedures prior to forceful actions), and that the 2nd Amendment was written to assure that government power never circumvented due process. No, it was not.
                      The Second Amendment isn't for you to shoot folks that are enforcing laws you don't understand, or don't agree with.
                      It allows people to defend (as in DEFEND) themselves against unlawful
                      attack. PERIOD!
                      You were critical of that, As I should be.
                      You are back to saying people cannot defend themselves in their own homes.
                      Attacks without due process are not lawful. IF IRS or any other government
                      agent wants to talk with me, all they have to do is ring the doorbell, Paul.
                      If they want to come charging through the door, they had better have
                      probable cause and a warrent. Even then, all they have to do is ring the
                      doorbell.
                      But if you say that's not what you were saying - so be it. Andy, don't change the subject, which is........your lies.
                      Thomas - you are the stinker making things up.

                      ak


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Paul Thoms - what does he believe in? (besides money)


                        "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                        The Second Amendment doesn't allow for you to shoot folks you don't like. Never said it did - JERK.
                        Yes Andy, you did indicate that you had some right to shoot someone because
                        you didn't like what they are doing. The words from your computer read, in
                        part
                        "me for mentioning the 2nd amendment as the last resort protection from
                        extreme IRS abuse"

                        Maybe you have in mind throwing your Second Amendment rights at them (it
                        won't hurt much, as it's just one small line) when they come in to audit
                        you, or maybe you'll mention your Second Amendment rights when your bank
                        acount is levied, but that isn't what you meant.

                        "and that the 2nd Amendment was written to assure that government power
                        never circumvented due process"

                        Really? Do you know what the Second Amendment says Andy? There isn't
                        anything in there about "protection from extreme IRS abuse" or to "assure
                        that government power never circumvented due process". Nope. That is
                        something you made up. Another fabrication. Another of your lies

                        Just like these little snippets of yours:

                        On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                        "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
                        free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
                        "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."

                        On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                        "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
                        can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."

                        On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                        "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
                        to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
                        to be part of the National Guard."


                        All made up..........lies.........**** lies.........


                        I was not threatening people who work for IRS at all, Bull****. You just claimed you would shoot an IRS employee. Liar.
                        These aren't your words?
                        "the 2nd amendment as the last resort protection from extreme IRS abuse"

                        Again, I ask, how do you intend to protect yourself from "extreme IRS abuse"
                        with your Second Amendment? Clearly, you intend to shoot them.


                        The Second Amendment isn't for you to shoot folks that are enforcing laws you don't understand, or don't agree with. It allows people to defend (as in DEFEND) themselves against unlawful attack. PERIOD!

                        Actually, the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about "unlawful attack".
                        But it does prove that you plan to shoot someone, an IRS employee most
                        likely, who is performing their job in a manner in which you do not condone.


                        You are back to saying people cannot defend themselves in their own homes.

                        Not if you are planning to shoot someone who is just doing their job. The
                        Second Amendment doesn't give you that right, in or out of your home.


                        Attacks without due process are not lawful.
                        And the Second Amendment doesn't give you the right to shoot someone who is
                        doing their job in a manner in which you don't agree.

                        IF IRS or any other government agent wants to talk with me, all they have to do is ring the doorbell, Paul. If they want to come charging through the door, they had better have probable cause and a warrent.

                        Or what, you'll shoot them? That's comforting to know.


                        And who the hell is "Paul Thoms"?

                        Another of your "friends"?



                        --
                        Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                        Athens, Georgia





                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Paul Thoms - what does he believe in? (besides money)


                          "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                          It allows people to defend (as in DEFEND) themselves against unlawful attack. PERIOD!
                          Amendment II

                          A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
                          the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.



                          Nothing in there about "unlawful attack". Are you making **** up again?

                          Here are a few other things you made up:

                          On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 00:33:08 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                          "The most ludicrous interpretation of this is that for "the security of a
                          free State" someone must belong to a government organization in order to
                          "keep and bear Arms." Of course, that's what the JERK thinks."

                          On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:02:31 GMT - "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                          "No Paul - it was based on what you posted some time ago. But you probably
                          can't remember it. But that's OK. We understand."

                          On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 04:06:01 GMT "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                          "Thomas - and you did make a post suggesting that
                          to keep personal fire arms in the home, one needed
                          to be part of the National Guard."


                          Of course, lying has become natural to you. You justify your lies with this
                          statement "Just because I can't "prove" it, doesn't mean that it never
                          happened".

                          "Paul Thoms"??? Who is that?

                          Keep on telling lies Andy. It's clear that all your posts are just lies.


                          --
                          Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                          Athens, Georgia


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Paul Thoms - hung one on last night


                            "Paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                            news:[email protected]
                            "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                            It allows people to defend (as in DEFEND) themselves against unlawful attack. PERIOD!
                            Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Nothing in there about "unlawful attack". Are you making **** up again?
                            You must have hung a good one on last night little boy Paul Thomas, CPA.

                            ak


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Paul Thomas - &quot;interprets&quot; what others say, to say what he wants to make it


                              "Paul" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                              news:[email protected]
                              "AK" <[email protected]> wrote
                              The Second Amendment doesn't allow for you to shoot folks you don't
                              like.
                              Never said it did - JERK. Yes Andy, you did indicate that you had some right to shoot someone
                              because
                              you didn't like what they are doing. The words from your computer read,
                              in
                              part "me for mentioning the 2nd amendment as the last resort protection from extreme IRS abuse" Maybe you have in mind throwing your Second Amendment rights at them (it won't hurt much, as it's just one small line) when they come in to audit you, or maybe you'll mention your Second Amendment rights when your bank acount is levied, but that isn't what you meant. "and that the 2nd Amendment was written to assure that government power never circumvented due process" Really? Do you know what the Second Amendment says Andy? There isn't anything in there about "protection from extreme IRS abuse" or to "assure that government power never circumvented due process". Nope. That is something you made up. Another fabrication. Another of your lies
                              You must be the one who makes all those "interpretations" of IRC for IRS,
                              Paul Thomas - jerk CPA. You lie, and then claim others said what you made
                              up. You are a real sicko Thomas. ak

                              "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people
                              always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use
                              them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress,
                              initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first
                              Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

                              "The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may
                              have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification
                              of the Constitution.)

                              "The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of
                              all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the
                              several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources
                              will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James
                              Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)


                              http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm



                              Comment

                              The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                              Working...
                              X