AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So, your worldview basically revolves around pretending that our country doesn't work the way that it does in fact work and pretending that the SC decisions simply don't matter, because you don't consider them valid.

Ican, I think you are profoundly disturbed. You are out of step with the reality of our nation. Don't you realize this is true?

So, your worldview, Cyclo, basically revolves around pretending that our country doesn't have to work according to the rule of law and pretending that false SC decisions simply don't matter, because you consider them valid.

Cyclo, I think you are profoundly mesmerized and deluded. You are out of step with the fundamental reality of our nation's rule of law. Don't you realize this is true? Don't you realize that the Odem's transferring wealth march if not stopped will lead to the end of our Liberty, the end of our Constitutional Republic, and the end of our Capitalist Economy? Don't you realize that result will lead to the greatly increased misery of all our population except the leaders of the Odem? Don't you realize that will lead to a termination of America's current ability to rescue humans throughout the world from both natural disasters and human caused disasters (e.g., Hitler's nazism, Hirohito's Shintoism, Stalin's Communism)? Don't you realize that it is time for you to THINK instead of parrot?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

So, your worldview, Cyclo, basically revolves around pretending that our country doesn't have to work according to the rule of law and pretending that false SC decisions simply don't matter, because you consider them valid.

It was not I who declared the SC decisions valid, but our Constitution, which rests power in the Judiciary to decide such matters.

Quote:

Cyclo, I think you are profoundly mesmerized and deluded. You are out of step with the fundamental reality of our nation's rule of law. Don't you realize this is true?

If that is true, then answer this: why are my beliefs enforced with the power of Law, while yours are not? Why are mine supported by our government and populace, while yours are ridiculed?

I am betting that you have no good answer for this.

Quote:

Don't you realize that the Odem's transferring wealth march if not stopped will lead to the end of our Liberty, the end of our Constitutional Republic, and the end of our Capitalist Economy? Don't you realize that result will lead to the greatly increased misery of all our population except the leaders of the Odem? Don't you realize that will lead to a termination of America's current ability to rescue humans throughout the world from both natural disasters and human caused disasters (e.g., Hitler's nazism, Hirohito's Shintoism, Stalin's Communism)? Don't you realize that it is time for you to THINK instead of parrot?

I realize that all of those things are untrue, and that you are so incredibly out of touch with reality that you are not to be trusted to make projections about the future.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Get a grip! THINK instead of parrot!

This often repeated Odem argument is stupid! Shame on you for even bringing it up again!

Bush did not pass PERMANENT tax cuts, either because he was unable to convince a majority of Congress to support his making his tax cuts PERMANENT, or because he failed to try hard enough to convince Congress to make his tax cuts PERMANENT.

But you should realize that is irrelevant. The Odem can now make the Bush tax cuts PERMANENT (i.e., without a scheduled termination) without any help from Bush. Furthermore, no system of federal taxes can ever be made really permanent unless subsequent administrations DO NOT decide to legislate changing them.

P.S. I determined my federal taxes will increase more than 50% by computing the effects of what the Odem's have decided to do in 2011.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Get a grip! THINK instead of parrot!

This often repeated Odem argument is stupid! Shame on you for even bringing it up again!

Bush did not pass PERMANENT tax cuts, either because he was unable to convince a majority of Congress to support his making his tax cuts PERMANENT, or because he failed to try hard enough to convince Congress to make his tax cuts PERMANENT.

Well, that's HIS fault for failing to do so and YOUR fault for expecting they would get renewed. There was no reason to expect that. None of that has anything to do with Obama.

Quote:

But you should realize that is irrelevant. The Odem can now make the Bush tax cuts PERMANENT (i.e., without a scheduled termination) without any help from Bush.

But they have no reason or desire to do so. Nobody gives a **** about the couple hundred dollars it saves you, ICan, because we are deeply in deficit and debt and cannot afford low taxes at this time.

Quote:

Furthermore, no system of federal taxes can ever be made really permanent unless subsequent administrations DO NOT decide to legislate changing them.

Bush not only failed to make them permanent, he failed to get legislation passed that did not AUTOMATICALLY sunset. That was a major error on his part, and nobody else's fault at all.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

It was not I who declared the SC decisions valid, but our Constitution, which rests power in the Judiciary to decide such matters.

... why are my beliefs enforced with the power of Law, while yours are not? Why are mine supported by our government and populace, while yours are ridiculed?

1. The Constitution does not declare the SC decisions valid.
2. The SC has declared the SC decisions valid.
3. The SC has not been granted the power to amend the Constitution.
4. Three quarters of the states have been granted the power to amend the Constitution.
5. Your beliefs are not enforced with the power of Law or by the populace.
6. Your beliefs are enforced with the power of complacency of by our Congress.
7. My beliefs are supported by what those who adopted and/or lawfully amended it said/say it actually says.
8. Truth is not a function of what you allege to believe.
9. Truth is not a function of what a majority of people were/are alleged to believe.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Therefore, when the Supreme Court amends the Constitution, such amendments are a corruption of the Constitution.

Which ones are the amendments that the Supreme Court has added to the constitution?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

7. My beliefs are supported by what those who adopted and/or lawfully amended it said/say it actually says.

No, they are not. They are perhaps your INTERPRETATION of what people said. Unfortunately for you, nobody gives a **** what your interpretation is. The only people whose interpretation they care about are... the SC and the Legislature. Neither of these groups agree with you.

I can understand how frustrating this must be for you; you are not only somewhat wrong on this issue but totally wrong, yet believe that you are right. And the entire country is against you, our whole government and the vast majority of people.

I can safely predict that the things you allege are true, and the changes you would like to see, will never happen - especially not in your lifetime. You will die under the same laws you are now living under. I would get used to it if I were you, because this constant bile you display can't be good for you.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Your response implies that you think Bush was a dope (or worse), so it's ok for Obama to be a dope (or worse).

You claimed: "Nobody gives a **** about the couple hundred dollars it saves you, ICan, because we are deeply in deficit and debt and cannot afford low taxes at this time."

Your claim implies that you think TEA Party people are no bodies.

The 2011 tax system will cost me--for the same gross income--more than $2,000 more than did my 2010 tax bill. Read and understand the WSJ editorial today: "The Dividend Tax Bill Arrives."

Most of the huge increased debt in 2010 and thereafter was caused by Odem, not Bush!

Except for the first few years, Odem tax increases will result in less not more federal revenue, because of its negative impact on everyone's spendable and investible, taxable income.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

My beliefs are supported by what those who adopted and/or lawfully amended the Constitution said/say it actually says.

The fact that you disagree is immaterial.

Yes, the Odem can destroy our country whether I like it or not, and whether I live long enough to see it happen! That is no excuse for me and everyone else who agrees with me to quit trying to make that not happen by first removing the Odem from office.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Which ones are the amendments that the Supreme Court has added to the constitution?

There are several. Here's the first one. In 1913, the SC decided that a so-called progressive income tax was Constitutional. This decision required the SC to amend the original meaning--according to Madison and Hamilton--of Article I Section 8, 1st paragraph.

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Section 8. The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;;

Note that a tax on income is an impost.

In 1913, the court decided that the phrase, "uniform throughout the United States" did not mean that the tax rate on all dollars of income shall be the same regardless of the states in which those dollars are located. The SC decided that phrase meant that the tax rules for taxing dollars of income shall be the same regardless of the states in which those dollars are located. That is, the SC decided taxing each dollar of income according to the quantity of dollars one receives was Constitutional as long as the rules for taxing dollars of income were the same regardless of the States in which those dollars were received.

That is equivalent to changing the meaning of that Constitutional phrrase to mean: shall be uniform, non-uniformity throughout the United States.

Madison wrote that phrase meant the tax rate on each dollar of income shall be the same regardless of the quantity one receives, and regardless of the state in which those dollars are located.

3 Replies

@ican711nm,

Cheney didn't limit his.

Did I write Cheney? I meant bush.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

You are either an idiot or you are pulling our legs.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

The money goes to pay for infrastructure, education, the military and more. It's a commercial arrangement.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

They'll rescue the liberty of anyone who isn't Black.

0 Replies

That's the way "uniform" has always been interpreted, ican. There never was one standard of exicse for the dollar value of all products for example. there have always been different excise rates for different products, depending on what were decided to be preferred or promoted. The states had different preferences for what they wanted to promote, based on what their local economy produced, but the Consitution said that wasn't allowed anymore--the excise for a given product had to be uniform across the country, but could be different product to product. That's "uniform", and it never has been your definition.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Poor ican! Like most conservatives, he has a low level of reading comprehension.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontwereyJack, a DOLLAR OF INCOME and more than one DOLLAR OF INCOME are all DOLLARS OF INCOME. One PRODUCT X and more than one PRODUCT X are all PRODUCTS X. All PRODUCTS X must be taxed at the same rate. And so should all DOLLARS OF INCOME be taxed at the same rate.

An ORANGE of a specified kind and more than one ORANGE of the same kind are all ORANGES of the same kind. All ORANGES of a specified kind must be taxed at the same rate. And so should all DOLLARS OF INCOME be taxed at the same rate.

0 Replies

The entire show . . . but it works so well with this thread:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/wed-april-28-2010-ken-blackwel

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Members of the TEA Party are unanimous about working to rescue our Liberty, our Constitutional Republic, and our Capitalist Economy from their corruption by the Odem (i.e., by the Obamademocrats).

Unanimous? What does that word even mean in this context? Unanimous sounds like you're suggesting that all motives of the Tea Party members are the same. If it's truly unanimous, then when one Tea Party member holds up a sign calling someone a "nigger," then I can assume that YOU are holding the same sign right. I mean, you're the one claiming that everyone's motives are "unanimous."

The Tea Party isn't rescuing any American liberties. If anything, they threaten liberties. Many Tea Party people want to get rid of the Dept of Education. That can only mean terrible things for many impoverished areas where a public education may be your only way to success.

A constitutional republic means we live governed by laws. That's it. That's all it means. You simply don't like the laws (when Obama is in office), but we are being ruled by laws. Constitutional Republic intact. Bush threatened the Constitutional Republic when his admin sought to advert the FISA courts.

Our capitalist society is still here too. The USA will only do better as we refocus our creative efforts into creating American designed and manufactured goods which are at the top of the market. There is no reason why we should not be making the best cars in the world, but without regulation, we got lazy and lost our edge. That is conservatives fault.

ican711nm wrote:

I am responsible for convincing only a small number of the millions of members of the TEA Party to join the TEA Party.

Is TEA and acronym I'm not familiar with or are you just heavy on the shift key in your rants these days? I do know how you love to try and create memes.

ican711nm wrote:

Almost all the current members (including me) have spontaneously convinced themselves to join the TEA Party and work to rescue their Liberty, their Constitutional Republic, and their Capitalist Economy from corruption by the Odem .

Spontaneously? What does this word mean in this context?

You're incoherent. I'm calling your bluff. You haven't convinced anyone of joining the Tea Party. Your ability to politically articulate would only appeal to mental infants. Unless that's who you meant...

T
K
O

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

In 1913, the SC decided that a so-called progressive income tax was Constitutional. This decision required the SC to amend the original meaning--according to Madison and Hamilton--of Article I Section 8, 1st paragraph.

"Amend the original meaning"? A more accurate term to use would be 'interpret' rather than 'amend'. This would help clarify your confusion when you make assertions about SC decisions, “original meanings,” and amendments concerning the US’ constitution.

Seeing as how the SC didn't amend the Constitution in 1913, this SC decision isn't an example of the SC adding amendments to the Constitution, of course. It's merely an example of the SC interpreting the US' constitution.

Quote:

Madison wrote that phrase meant the tax rate on each dollar of income shall be the same regardless of the quantity one receives, and regardless of the state in which those dollars are located.

Are you saying that Madison clarified somewhere what, exactly, he meant in that phrase, or are you interpreting what he meant?

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know