Exactly. Until the courts start charging people with using vegetable oil as a fuel...(not the tax evasion part, just for using it as a fuel) then obvioulsy the courts have decided that they are fine with it.

So? The president IS authorized by the constitution and IS elected by the people and accountable to us yet look at all that he has completely gotten away with in the last 8 years.

Aklim posted: http://www.herald-review.com/articles/2007/03/01/news/local_news/1021491.txt

Aklim,
Very interesting story. Do you have any undates on the Wetzel case?

But the reason they were charged was because of taxes and licensing (or lack there of). They were not charged simply because of using vegetable oil. So if they were paying the taxes and licensed they would not have been charged with anything.

The majority of people's arguments on this thread is that running vegetable oil is illegal, yet no one has ever been convicted of it.

Somebody else has to charge you. IRS, DOT, etc, etc then the courts will hear the case. However, how do you figure that until that day happens where they decide, they are fine with it? It just means the enforcement hasn't been there. It doesn't mean that it is legal.

I figure that way because if the court or any part of the government really had a problem with it they would charge someone with it.

All I am saying is that the argument that it is illegal has no leg to stand on unless they are enforcing it, which they are not.

Just like throwing a snowball in Colorado. Would you then tell all the people in Colorado that throw snowballs that they are doing something illegal yet no one is convicted of throwing snowballs?

DUH! You need a course in civics and government.

The President (please capitalize the title out of respect - regardless of how you feel about the current office holder) hasn't and CAN'T "get away with" much of anything - except by issuing an executive order. I forget the exact statistics, but I recall reading that Bush has used that LEGAL way of getting what he wants accomplished FAR, FAR less than the previous holder of the office - FWIW. And BTW, that IS a LEGAL thing for him to do - since legality seems to be what we are talking about here.

Pretty much everything the President does has to be ratified by Congress. Ever heard of the system of "checks and balances" our forefathers were smart enough to put into the Constitution? Many people seem to forget that the invasion of Afganistan, as well as the current war in Iraq, were BOTH sanctioned and approved by the US Congress. So is the funding to continue prosecuting the war.

Most of the members of Congress are just like John Kerrey, Barack O'bama, and that blowhard Ted Kennedy - they were for it - before they were against it. But that is another topic for another day or another thread. Don't go changing the subject again just because your arguments are weak or petering out..

It means they have bigger fish to fry. It means they don't have the manpower to stop you because they have to prioritize.

So if they don't enforce the speed limit in the neighborhood I am in, is going 105 illegal? Enforcement is not a pre-requisite for legality, is it?

Let's not forget the use of "signing statements" by this and other presidents (lower case to reflect my level of respect for both the office, it's current occupant, and the current candidates). I really don't care who burns what in their cars (or if they pay their taxes), but I do have a problem with the current level of executive power in the u.s. (also lower case).

Just curious. Why do you keep comparing this issue to things like thievery and doing 105 in a 35 mph zone? Talk about apples and oranges! You're comparing crimes that harm, endanger, or injure others to someone not paying a few cents per mile in taxes - which we all agree are too high and are unjust in the way they are applied. This issue is more on the order of the law against snowballs than something of the magnitide of endangering the public.

Could it be that you are making these ridiculously exaggerated comparisons because your argument is weak? I believe the there is even a term for that - ever heard of hyperbole?

Yes, it is illegal because they do enforce it. You just didn't get caught.

They don't enforce the illegal use of vegetable oil as a fuel anywhere. Again an apples and oranges situation.

Would you rather I compared it to what Westley Snipes did? Same principle. Oh, that's right, principles are inconvenient at times.

I agree. I also have a problem with a Congress that deadlocks on almost every issue out of partisan obstinacy, and a court system that creates law out of whole cloth by judicial fiat.

HOWEVER, I still love and respect this country and its institutions. All the things you named are the worst there is - except for every other example you can point to anywhere else IMO. There is a reason the USA is the only country in the world with the kind of immagration problem that we have.

On the other hand, if you feel such distaste and distain for our country and its institutions, feel free to go wherever it is that would enable you to feel better about the government that rules over you. I'll chip in for your one-way ticket. ;)

WTF did Westly do now? Sorry, but I don't pay any attention to the entertainment industry...

I hadn't heard either so I quickly googled it.

"Wesley Snipes Gets 3 Years For Not Filing Tax Returns"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/business/25snipes.html?bl&ex=1209268800&en=0f8a35dd4edbbafb&ei=5087%0A