0
   

Ron Paul on tax reform

 
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 01:56 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Advocate wrote:
The Dems have a major failing;
they have the inability to lie like the Reps.

If thay cud not lie,
then thay cud not deviate from the truth;
consequently, thay cud not be liberal.





( " I did not have sec shul relations with that woman. "

It just depends on what the definition of is is
. )



David
suggestion David, take an MMPI and listen carefully to the results and recommendations.

Therapy can often work wonders.

Is that autobiografical testimony ?
YEs it is, as a former Mental Health Clinician I found that therapy as well as medications often helped the psychotically disabled. You might give it a try.

R u of the Timothy Leary school of thought ?

actually David, I'm more of the Ken Kesey school of thought. once in awhile I have a great notion.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 01:56 pm
I will address the fundamental nature of
the relative concepts of liberal and conservative interpretations,
( which does not necessarily concern politics or economics )
but I don 't have the time now.
I 'll be back in a few hours.


If u r a lawyer,
then u probably know it already.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 02:00 pm
dyslexia wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Advocate wrote:
The Dems have a major failing;
they have the inability to lie like the Reps.

If thay cud not lie,
then thay cud not deviate from the truth;
consequently, thay cud not be liberal.





( " I did not have sec shul relations with that woman. "

It just depends on what the definition of is is
. )



David
suggestion David, take an MMPI and listen carefully to the results and recommendations.

Therapy can often work wonders.

Is that autobiografical testimony ?
YEs it is, as a former Mental Health Clinician I found that therapy as well as medications often helped the psychotically disabled. You might give it a try.

R u of the Timothy Leary school of thought ?

actually David, I'm more of the Ken Kesey school of thought. once in awhile I have a great notion.

I don 't know Mr. Kesey ( that I remember ),
but if it is on topic and u wish to discuss his point of vu,
then please tell us what it is.

David
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 02:59 pm
Regarding "swiftboating," see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 06:31 pm
Advocate wrote:

John, would you define "direct taxes."


Now why would you ask me that question when the same question was asked during the framing of our Constitution and no one rose to answer it? We do know the intentions for which the rule of apportioning direct taxes was agreed upon, and the intentions are what is relevant. As a mater of fact, the most fundamental rule of constitutional law is to carry out the legislative intent of our Constitution as it was contemplated by those who framed and ratified it.

What is irrefutable, judging from the preponderance of historical evidence is, our founding fathers intended that Congress should raise its revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes. But if these sources were found insufficient to meet Congress`s expenditures, and Congress decided to call directly upon the people of the various states in a general tax among the states, each state`s share of the total being raised would be apportioned based upon population size.

So, I would think it is safe to say the definition of a direct tax, as used in our Constitution, and would be within the founding fathers legislative intent as may be documented from the historical record would be, any general tax among the states which is intended to be a primary source to fill the national treasury, under which the people of the various state are called upon by Congress to fill that treasury. This concept is repeatedly stated in various ways by the very people who framed and ratified out Constitution. For example:

Mr. George Nicholas said: ``the proportion of taxes is fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of territory, or fertility of soil ___ Each State will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax. As it was justly observed by the gentleman over the way, (Mr. Randolph), they cannot possibly exceed that proportion; they are limited and restrained expressly to it. The state legislatures have no check of this kind. Their power is uncontrolled.`` 3 Elliot, 243, 244.

Mr. Madison remarked that ``they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public.``3 Elliot, 255.

JWK

``In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it ___ A construction which would give the phrase ___ a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution.`` [/i]
Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments` Debates 571 (1967),
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 07:14 pm
Advocate wrote:
Regarding "swiftboating,"
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating

OK.
Its going off on a tangent
to invoke the experience of the veterans who were scandalized
by Kerry 's endeavoring to exploit them
as part of fony history; thay deemed him to be a traitor
to their cause; knife in their backs and spoke up when he ran for President.
It 'd have been rong to stifle themselves; First Amendment rights.

Unless u desire to drag us off topic
to analyze the history of that war
and of the Swift Boat Veterans in it,
it 'd be a better choice to characterize it more neutrally
and dispassionately.

I dissent from the proposition that conservatives
have employed ad hominen attacks disproportionately more than leftists.
For instance,
there is NO END to the ad hominem attacks
to which I have been subjected on this forum;
( e.g., while discussing considerations of personal liberty or fair tax policy,
being attacked for my use of fonetic spelling as if it had a bearing on the substantive disputed issue).
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 08:17 pm
Advocate wrote:
Dys, Dave, I defy you to give me a single example in which a liberal swiftboated a conservative. It is always the opposite.
I don 't mean to discuss the merits of character assassination.

I meant that if a man rigidly adheres to some rule, or body rules,
then, as to that body of rules he is a conservative,
in that he has 100% rigidly conserved it, with no deviation therefrom ;
whereas if he decides " that 's close enuf " and accepts results
which approximate it, but differ somewhat from the said rules,
then to the extent of the inconsistency he is a liberal.

For instance,
if a man wears a clean tuxedo to a formal event,
he is rigidly conserving and inflexibly applying the customary rules of dress therefor;
whereas, if he wears a somewhat stained tuxedo, with sneakers,
( deciding " that 's close enuf " )
then he is bending the rules of customary proper dress,
and therefore, concerning those rules, he is taking a liberal interpretation
of what is " close enuf. " If he shows up at the event naked,
then he is taking a RADICAL vu,
extirpating all the rules of dress.

The liberalism inheres in the degree of his inconsistency with the paradigm.

If a court construes a statute, or a contract,
in a manner that is inconsistent
with its original intendment, then it is liberal to the extent of the difference.

If one is playing poker
and declares that he has a FLUSH
when he has 4 diamonds and a heart,
considering that to be " CLOSE ENUF " to 5 cards of one suit,
then to the degree of his inconsistency with the paradigmatic hierarchy
of winning hands in poker, he is a liberal and shud be dealt with accordingly.

David
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 03:49 am
david, all you're saying is "liberals are dishonest, honesty is conservatism" over and over. if there was any another point you were trying to make, tell us what it was.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Sep, 2007 09:55 am
It seems that Dave is squirming like a cat of a leash. When in doubt, he mumbles.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 02:30 am
Advocate wrote:
It seems that Dave is squirming like a cat of a leash.

No squirming.
I rendered a definition
that existed long before my grandparents were born.




Quote:
When in doubt, he mumbles.

I 'm sorry if I was unclear.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 02:37 am
tinygiraffe wrote:
david, all you're saying is "liberals are dishonest, honesty is conservatism" over and over.
if there was any another point you were trying to make, tell us what it was.

OK.

I was only saying that absence of deviation from an agreement, or rule,
conserves that agreement, or rule,
whereas some folks argue that it is reasonable
to accept what thay deem to be " close enuf " compliance therewith,
even if that compliance be imperfect;
those folks take a liberal interpretation of that agreement or rule;
( like your failure to capitalize, being a liberal application of grammar ).

David
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 03:59 am
...are you implying that having the word "liberal" attached to an approach to politics means they are by definition "flexible" (less honest) with truth?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 04:15 am
tinygiraffe wrote:
...are you implying that having the word "liberal"
attached to an approach to politics means they are by definition "flexible" (less honest) with truth?

At variance with principles of the original political and social contract,
as conceived in the US Constitution,
and the l'aissez faire individualist libertarianism
that produced it.

David
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 10:02 am
Dave, you might be a liberal. You certainly make liberal interpretations of the very wording of the second amendment, as well as the holdings in a number of cases.
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 10:38 am
.....and thus it was written, that the forces of liberalism gathered together on one side and the forces of conservatism gathered on the other and they heaped scorn and dedregation upon one another to the detriment of all. Then a voice came as from the sky and said: "Why do you utterers of scorn and dedregation not combine forces and resolve the problem(s)?"

A great silence prevaled while this was contemplated. And then was heard a voice from the assembled multitude: "Because we really don't have any answers."

Thus was proven the age old agage: "It is far easier to attack a perceived opponent than to suggest solutions to common problems." Razz

Halfback
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 11:57 am
Half, I think you are dead wrong. Take deficits, for example. Clinton gave us massive surpluses, and Bush brought us massive deficits. For instance, Bush, in his over 6.5 years, increased the national debt by 56 percent.
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 12:28 pm
Advocate: OK. Proposed solution?

How about we get the Democratic Congress and the Democratic President, after the next election, to demonstrate a little fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers and pass a balanced budget amendment, and a line item Presidential veto and pass on a lot of those "earmarks".

I think that would go a long way toward resolving the budget problems.

Is it gonna happen? WHAT! Ask Congress to break their "golden egg?" :wink:

It is popular to try to blame Bush for all the country's problems. I submit that each and every Administration adds to them and resolves but very few. (Permanently, anyway.)

Like Bush is the first President to operate with an unbalanced budget. Give me a break! Laughing ....and the Country's ills will all be made better when the Democrats are fully in power. Laughing Rolling Eyes (Didn't Pelosi say that just recently?) :wink:

My above tongue in cheek parable was to point out the futility of constant political bickering in Congress, in the subsects of the general population and even, in microcosm, in these forums. It resolves NOTHING and, indeed, detracts from problem solving. That you missed the point completely, I hold to be self evident. Sad

Halfback
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 12:41 pm
The Dems brought us social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The Reps took us to Iraq and gave massive tax cuts to the super-rich.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 12:46 pm
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Oct, 2007 12:49 pm
...and the Dems gave us Viet Nam, and a grotesquely mismanaged welfare system. and yada, yada and yada.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. (Silence prevails) :wink:

Halfback
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/26/2022 at 02:58:02