55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 11:18 am
@ican711nm,
Quote:

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.


So in your opinion ican. Did Madison think the court could declare laws unconstitutional?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 11:20 am
@ican711nm,
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.

Where did Madison write that? I would love to see the quote.


It should provide a good laugh for all of us comparing your interpretation to what Madison really said.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 12:48 pm
Quote:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html
The Federalist Papers
...
The original text of the Federalist Papers (also known as The Federalist) was obtained from the e-text archives of Project Gutenberg. View or download the entire plain text version of all of the Federalist Papers as supplied by Project Gutenberg. Information and Disclaimer for the Gutenberg version of The Federalist. For more information, see About the Federalist Papers.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 02:28 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article I
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;

Quote:

Definition of uniform
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=uniform&x=29&y=8
Main Entry: 1uni·form
...
1 : marked by lack of variation, diversity, change in form, manner, worth, or degree : showing a single form, degree, or character in all occurrences or manifestations <the Shasta dam ... will keep the flow of the Sacramento relatively uniform throughout the year -- American Guide Series: California> <Great Russian itself has dialects, though generally speaking for so widespread a language it is remarkably uniform -- W.J.Entwhistle & W.A.Morison>
2 : marked by complete conformity to a rule or pattern or by similarity in salient detail or practice : CONSONANT, ALIKE <how far churches are bound to be uniform in their ceremonies -- Richard Hooker>
3 : marked by unvaried and changeless appearance (as of surface, color, or pattern) <so many uniform red hills -- Willa Cather>
4 : consistent in conduct, character, or effect : lacking in variation, deviation, or unequal or dissimilar operation <the constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization -- R.B.Taney>
synonym see LIKE, STEADY

Quote:

Definition of common
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=common&x=30&y=9
Main Entry: 1com·mon
...
1 a : of or relating to a community at large (as a family unit, social group, tribe, political organization, or alliance) : generally shared or participated in by individuals of a community : not limited to one person or special group <we, the people of the U.S., in order to ... provide for the common defense -- U.S. Constitution> <a sense of common interest, a guild feeling in reaction against the extreme competitive individualism -- J.M.Barzun> b : known to the community ; especially : notorious as an accustomed general vexation <a common thief> <punished as a common scold> <maintaining a common nuisance> c : belonging to or typical of all mankind : shared with all men <our common humanity> <our common nature>
2 a : held, enjoyed, experienced, or participated in equally by a number of individuals : possessed or manifested by more than one individual <a common attribute> <a common characteristic> : calling forth, giving rise to as source, or sending out a number of different items : marked by the same relationship to a number of persons or things <our common rights> <the sharp teeth common to all cats> <streets radiating out from a common center> <we will help our allies against our common enemy> b : marked by or resulting from joint action of two or more parties : practiced or engaged in by two or more equally <in the partnership of our common enterprise we must share in a unified plan -- F.D.Roosevelt> <our common defense> <by common consent the partnership was dissolved> c : open freely to the individual use of any member of a society or group <"folk-land", the common property of the tribe -- J.R.Green> <the front hall, common to all the tenants -- Dorothy Sayers> d : available for indiscriminate or promiscuous use <a common woman> <the common cup> e : belonging to or appointed for the common (sense 6) f mathematics : belonging equally to two or more quantities g anatomy : formed of or dividing into two or more branches <the common carotid artery> <common iliac vessels>
3 : ceremonially or religiously unclean or unfit <eating nothing common on the holy day>
4 a : occurring or appearing frequently especially in the ordinary course of events : not unusual : known or referred to widely or generally because of frequent occurrence <the common is that which is found in the experience of a number of persons -- John Dewey> <the common judgment which sets tragedy above comedy as the greater art -- Samuel Alexander> b archaic : subject to or ensuing from widespread conversation : recognized or agreed on through copious discussion <young Arthur's death is common in their mouths -- Shakespeare> c chiefly Midland : USUAL <I'm as well as common -- Ellen Glasgow> d : VERNACULAR -- used of plant and animal names <cat is the common name for Felis catus>
5 a : of, relating to, or typical of the majority or to the many rather than the few : GENERAL, PREVALENT <a sentiment common, but not universal -- W.G.Sumner> <this revelation has ... passed into the common consciousness of the civilized world -- W.R.Inge> b : characterized by a lack of privilege or special status <the common people> <was then forced to take on a job as a common laborer>
6 a : characteristic of a usual type or standard : representative of a type : quite usual and average : entirely ordinary and undistinguished especially by anything superior <the everyday man and woman, the common people -- I.M.Price> <a common man, no holier than you and I -- Thomas Hardy> <the great gods ... were not exempt from the common lot. They too grew old and died -- J.G.Frazer> b : having no claim or showing no pretense to rank, position, polish, learning, or culture <apart ... from the common reader, there is an elite -- A.L.Guérard> c : satisfying accustomed criteria : attaining to an ordinary standard : ADEQUATE <the common honesty to face it -- W.R.Inge> <it was simply common courtesy to help him> d : falling below ordinary standards : INFERIOR, MEAN, SECOND-RATE <O hard is the bed ... and common the blanket and cheap -- A.E.Housman> <labor was scarce and common at that -- American Guide Series: Delaware> e : falling below accustomed standards of conduct : lacking polish, learning, or taste : marked by or suggestive of the lax, crass, tawdry, earthy, or crude <a very common girl snubbed by the others> <as Harris said, in his common vulgar way, the city would have to lump it -- J.K.Jerome> f of lumber : of or relating to several grades that are inferior to finish lumber : DEFECTIVE, KNOTTY
7 now chiefly dialect : easily approachable : UNRESERVED, INFORMAL <he's such a nice common fellow>
8 : frequently met with and known better than types less often encountered <common salt> <the common fern>; specifically : most frequent and best known of its kind in a particular region -- used of plants and animals
9 a of gender (1) : either masculine or feminine <the gender of F enfant is common> (2) : characterizing words of which in an earlier stage of the language some were masculine and some feminine <Danish has two genders, common and neuter> b of a substantive : belonging to the common gender c of a syllable : either short or long <in Greek prosody a syllable is common that has a short vowel followed by a stop and a liquid or nasal, as the first syllable of teknon> d of a grammatical case : denoting relations by a single form that in a more highly inflected language might be denoted by two or more different case forms <moon, as subject in "the moon is shining" and as object in "I see the moon", is in the common case>
synonyms ORDINARY, FAMILIAR, POPULAR, VULGAR: common, ORDINARY, AND FAMILIAR all describe something that is very frequently or generally met with and hence is not at all strange or unusual. COMMON stresses lack of distinguishing or exceptional characteristics <Norris quite definitely identified the romantic with that which is peculiar or special as opposed to the common -- M.R.Cohen> and may connote coarseness or lack of refinement <weavers produced fine muslins, gauzes, calicoes, and the common cloths used by the poorer population -- C.L.Jones> ORDINARY applies to what is met with in the routine, regular, or accustomed order of events; it may connote lack of rareness or of superiority <the business of the poet is not to find new emotions, but to use the ordinary ones -- T.S.Eliot> <it is not an ordinary war. It is a revolution ... which threatens all men everywhere -- F.D.Roosevelt> <the mass of ordinary men, as definitely opposed to exceptional men -- W.H.Mallock> FAMILIAR applies to what is well known because encountered often and lacks any suggestion of the foreign or exotic <the familiar arrangement of chairs and tables, always the same -- Pearl Buck> <the curious impression ... that she had seen everything and everybody before. Every face was familiar to her -- Ellen Glasgow> POPULAR indicates the common due to acceptance, sometimes enthusiastic, by the people, especially commoners; it may imply a lack of qualities pleasing to the elite, upper classes, or learned groups <the popular faith in the omnipotence of education -- M.R.Cohen> <these brotherhoods were ... thoroughly popular, drawing most of their support from the lower classes -- W.R.Inge> <compromise its values by publishing work that could be described as merely cheap or popular -- H.V.Gregory> VULGAR is used only occasionally to mean COMMON; it usually suggests meanness, bad taste, crudeness, or crassness <the now vulgar opinion that [Samuel] Johnson was more distinguished as a talker than as a writer -- J.W.Krutch> <he never could have been vulgar; there is not in the whole range of English literature quite such a gentleman -- George Saintsbury> <not for the vulgar gaze but for an aristocratic and urbane inspection> synonym see in addition RECIPROCAL, UNIVERSAL

Quote:
Definition of general
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=general&x=24&y=11
Main Entry: 1gen·er·al
...
1 : involving or belonging to the whole of a body, group, class, or type : applicable or relevant to the whole rather than to a limited part, group, or section <appearance of general decay> <a general change in temperature>
2 : involving or belonging to every member of a class, kind, or group : applicable to every one in the unit referred to : not exclusive or excluding <ladies, a general welcome from his grace salutes ye all -- Shakespeare> <those first assemblies were general, with all freemen bound to attend -- American Guide Series: Maryland>
3 a : applicable or pertinent to the majority of individuals involved : characteristic of the majority : PREVALENT, USUAL, WIDESPREAD <the general opinion> <a custom general in these areas> <the conflict became general> <we, the people of the United States, in order to ... promote the general welfare -- U.S. Constitution> b : concerned or dealing with universal rather than particular aspects <general history>
4 : marked by broad overall character without being limited, modified, or checked by narrow precise considerations : concerned with main elements, major matters rather than limited details, or universals rather than particulars : approximate rather than strictly accurate <a general outline> <bearing a general resemblance to the original> <the rock formations of the state have a general northeast-southwest trend -- American Guide Series: New Hampshire>
5 : not confined by specialization or careful limitation : not limited to a particular class, type, or field : inclusive and manifesting or characterized by scope, diversity, or variety : BROAD, CATHOLIC, COMPREHENSIVE <a general drugstore> <a general surgeon>
6 : belonging to the common nature (as of a group of like individuals) : GENERIC <the general characteristics of a species> <long shaggy hair is general among bears>
7 : holding superior rank : taking precedence (as over others similarly titled) <general manager> : having wide authority or responsibility <a general captain> <the general board> -- sometimes used postpositively <the master general>
8 : designed for students without special ability or vocational plans <a general course in science> -- compare COLLEGE-PREPARATORY, COMMERCIAL
9 : of or relating to a universal term or proposition or a quantified statement in logic -- opposed to singular
10 : involving or affecting practically the entire organism : not local <general nervousness>
synonym see UNIVERSAL

Quote:

Definition of imposts
http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=imposts&x=28&y=10
Main Entry: 1im·post
...
1 : something imposed or levied : TAX, TRIBUTE, DUTY
2 : the weight carried by a horse in a handicap race

Quote:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html
Amendment XVI (1913)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.

Incomes are paid in dollars. Thus each and every dollar of income regardless of the source from which they are derived shall be taxed at the same rate throughout the United States and its territories.

Quote:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_36.html
Let it be recollected that the proportion of these taxes is not to be left to the discretion of the national legislature, but is to be determined by the numbers of each State, as described in the second section of the first article. An actual census or enumeration of the people must furnish the rule, a circumstance which effectually shuts the door to partiality or oppression. The abuse of this power of taxation seems to have been provided against with guarded circumspection. In addition to the precaution just mentioned, there is a provision that "all duties, imposts, and excises shall be UNIFORM throughout the United States.''

Quote:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_41.html
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the 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," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare. "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. " The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.

But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

Quote:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_45.html
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 03:10 pm
@Diest TKO,
Unanimous in the context of the TEA Party (i.e., Taxed Enough Already) means that all the members of the TEA Party believe all the members of the TEA Party should be working to rescue our Liberty, our Constitutional Republic, and our Capitalist Economy from their corruption by the Odem (i.e., by the Obamademocrats). It does not mean that all the members of the TEA Party agree how to best accomplish that. Furthermore, it does not mean all the members of the TEA Party agree on other issues (e.g., health care, flat versus fair versus current tax systems).

A constitutional republic means we live governed by laws legislated in strict accord with the powers delegated by the Constitution to our federal government. That's it. That's all it means. I do not like the misinterpretation of the Constitution and the unconstitutional laws legislated by the Odems (i.e., Obamademocrats).

Bush did not threatened the USA's Constitutional Republic when his administration sought to wiretap:
(1) international conversations;
(2)those domestic conversations that were part of international conversations;;
(3) those domestic conversations by people who had had international conversations with suspected terrorists.

Bush never used those wiretaps to indict anyone. Such indictments of these people that occurred were based on evidence collected from other than wiretaps. Bush used wiretaps to help him, while president, successfully protect Americans against all terrorist attecks after 9/11 by stopping such planned attacks about which he learned from those wiretaps BEFORE those attacks occurred.

Obama did not protect Americans against all terrorist attecks after he was elected.

Spontaneously convinced in this context means without any persuasion from members of the TEA Party, they 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 .
.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 03:59 pm
The Odem (i.e., Obamademocrats) are lying thieving gangsters working to reduce our Liberty. our Constitutional Government, and our Capitalist Economy. We shall remove the Odem from our federal government.
Quote:

Puerto Rico Being Forced Down the Path to Statehood?
Sometimes we receive items from local tea parties around the country that are so well drafted, and so important, that we just forward them as is. Thanks to Patti Weaver of the Pittsburgh Tea Party for the following:

Would you please call the U.S. Representatives today and ask them to vote no on H.R. 2499? This is a trojan horse, middle of the night kind of bill that you may not have heard about yet. The Left is trying to label anyone who votes against this bill as a racist, so all representatives must be called!

TIME TO MELT THE PHONES!

Congress is at it again!

Now they are trying to sneak in a vote that would put Puerto Rico on the path to statehood. The only trouble is, they haven't exactly told US about it (sound familiar??).

Please take a moment and read the information below, then pick up the phone and CALL YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE! ... Then call five friends and ask them to do the same!

Click on congressmerge.com/onlinedb/index.htm to get your Representative's best phone numbers. Start with the DC offices, then move on the the LOCAL numbers!

Demand your Representative vote NO on HR 2499

Here's what Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com had to say:
There is a bill to make Puerto Rico a state. Again, they are trying to pull one over on us and on Puerto Ricans, who have consistently said they do not want to become a state. Read below for more information (from Eagle Forum). This was also discussed by Rep Tom Price on a conference call yesterday.

Please consider this:

* The U.S. would transform, overnight, into a bilingual nation. At least half of Puerto Ricans do not speak English, the language of our U.S. Constitution and founding documents. The Washington Times article, "Puerto Rican statehood," analyzes all the implications of adding a foreign language-speaking state to the Union.

* It would bring immediate demands for massive federal spending. The average income of Puerto Ricans is less than half that of our poorest state, and infrastructure and the environment are far below American standards. Puerto Rico has a population with a median national income of $17,741, nearly a third of that for the U.S.

* Puerto Rico is already a democracy. Despite the bill's deceptive title, Puerto Rico already has an elected government and exists as a self-governed commonwealth of the U.S.

* Statehood would give Puerto Rico more congressional representation than 25 of our 50 states! It would inevitably give Democrats two additional U.S. Senators and 6 to 8 additional Members of the House.


H.R. 2499 is stealth legislation designed to lead to the admission of Spanish-speaking Puerto Rico as the 51st state, thereby making us a de facto bilingual nation, like Canada. The U.S. Congress should not be forcing Puerto Ricans to vote on statehood, especially since the Puerto Rican people have rejected statehood three times since 1991!

No Member of Congress who describes himself as a limited government, fiscal conservative should be casting a YEA vote for H.R. 2499,as Puerto Rican statehood would cause an immediate increase in federal expenditures, particularly for taxpayer-funded welfare state services.

Read the whole thing:
http://biggovernment.com/taylorking/2010/04/28/puerto-rico-51st-state-congress-scrambling-to-make-it-so/

The Puerto Rican government is even playing hardball with it own people! Read this by Ann Shibler :

The United States House of Representatives is set to vote on H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico Democracy Act, as early as this week. This bill would mandate a non-binding expression by the voters of Puerto Rico as to their wishes with regard to retaining their commonwealth status or becoming a state or becoming an independent nation, but in conjunction with other legislation already introduced inside Puerto Rico, the commonwealth status of the island could be eliminated as early as this year.

Three times in the past 43 years Puerto Ricans have voted against becoming the 51st state in the Union, the last time being 11 years ago. But this time the bill is rigged to eliminate the commonwealth option and grant either full statehood, or total independence. Sen. Jose Hernandez-Mayoral of the island's minority Popular Democratic Party said, "Behind this innocuous bill lies a fully thought out assault on Congress to designate the island the 51st state." "With the commonwealth option out of the ballot, statehood is finally, albeit crookedly, assured a victory."

The whole article is here:
http://www.jbs.org/us-constitution-blog/6230-legislation-promotes-statehood-for-puerto-rico

HR2499 text:
Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2009 (Reported in House):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h2499rh.txt.pdf
...
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 08:04 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Unanimous in the context of the TEA Party (i.e., Taxed Enough Already) means that all the members of the TEA Party believe all the members of the TEA Party should be working to rescue our Liberty, our Constitutional Republic, and our Capitalist Economy from their corruption by the Odem (i.e., by the Obamademocrats). It does not mean that all the members of the TEA Party agree how to best accomplish that. Furthermore, it does not mean all the members of the TEA Party agree on other issues (e.g., health care, flat versus fair versus current tax systems).

Gotcha. So when you say "unanimous," you don't mean it in a literal way. You mean it in a personal definition of the word kind of way.

ican711nm wrote:

A constitutional republic means we live governed by laws legislated in strict accord with the powers delegated by the Constitution to our federal government. That's it. That's all it means. I do not like the misinterpretation of the Constitution and the unconstitutional laws legislated by the Odems (i.e., Obamademocrats).

Your knowledge of the constitution is pretty weak. I'm not thinking you're someone that is in any sort of place to be saying that Obama's admin is misinterpretating the constitution.

ican711nm wrote:

Bush did not threatened the USA's Constitutional Republic when his administration sought to wiretap:
(1) international conversations;
(2)those domestic conversations that were part of international conversations;;
(3) those domestic conversations by people who had had international conversations with suspected terrorists.

If the admin had just gone through the proper procedure that is outlines step by step involving the FISA courts, this wouldn't be an issue. The court's role here is not ambiguous. It's pretty clear.

Similarly, if I want to drive a car, I have to go to the DMV and get a licence. I can't just drive a car properly and everything is fine. There is a correct and legal way to go about reaching my objective.

Bush sought to use an extralegal path to accomplish his. So even if every single wiretap was a good one, his administration went about it outside of the law, ergo violating our constitutional republic. I'm sure you don't give a rat's ass. Facts like this might offend your loyalties, but I don't have to care about that likewise.

ican711nm wrote:

Bush never used those wiretaps to indict anyone. Such indictments of these people that occurred were based on evidence collected from other than wiretaps. Bush used wiretaps to help him, while president, successfully protect Americans against all terrorist attecks after 9/11 by stopping such planned attacks about which he learned from those wiretaps BEFORE those attacks occurred.

No oversight, and no FISA court. You can't make such a claim. Just because the admin said this is true does not mean it was. Had they gone through the proper channels, I'd give their claim a lot more credibility. As is, they sought to bypass the law.

ican711nm wrote:

Obama did not protect Americans against all terrorist attecks after he was elected.

Correct. There have been some attacks by right-wing extremists in the USA that his admin have not been able to stop. Some the FBI have stopped, like the Hutree militia.

ican711nm wrote:

Spontaneously convinced in this context means without any persuasion from members of the TEA Party, they 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 .

Convinced themselves? You just said YOU convinced them.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 08:50 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
That sentence of ican's is so convoluted, I seriously doubt that he knows what he believes.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 08:58 pm
@ican711nm,
Parados is right: it doesn't say what you think it says. Duties are taxes levied on imported goods while excises are taxes on items made, generally within the country, for commercial sale. An impost is a tax supported by the weight of law.

Ican, you didn't even publish the proper definition!
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 09:00 pm
@ican711nm,
Tea Party members are all racists. The KKK and their white sheets are out of fashion, so they switched to Revolutionary War garb.
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 09:01 pm
@ican711nm,
Bush probably used the wiretaps to masturbate.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 09:37 pm
@plainoldme,
You are some kind of nut, pom. And an insult to every decent American, which includes most tea party people. You should be ashamed of yourself and apologize.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 07:49 am
@plainoldme,
I think you need to leave the liquor at work.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 07:50 am
@plainoldme,
I mean seriously; is this what you've degenerated to?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 08:44 am
@okie,
The truth hurts you that much?

Why should I allow someone like ican to misuse words and set up strawmen?

Why should I not admit that Tea Totalitarians are racists?

I told David on another thread that if one were to represent the political spectrum of the US in the traditional manner, as a line segment. (Remember your basic geometry: lines go into infinity and there fore have no centers but line segments have definite ends and therefore a middle.) Make that line segment a yard long (which means that each end is 18 inches long) with a clearly demarked center. You would be right on inch 18 on the right. Few people are further right than you but millions of people have an understanding of the Constitution, Law and Society that is more clear and more focused and more informed than yours.

If you call me a nut that is only because you haven't a clue what I am saying.
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 08:49 am
@plainoldme,
Too bad that it's not a simple as measuring one's right or left-ness on a yardstick POM. It's not a 1 dimensional measurement.
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 09:47 am
@maporsche,
You're right that it is not one dimensional. However, I believe our current political climate is one where people are being drawn to the margins, and having more dynamic multi-dimensional political views are discouraged. Having said that, POM is right about some people simply representing extreme political vectors (of any number of dimension), and I think that identifying individuals like ican and okie is perfectly reasonable in that sense.

T
K
O
okie
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 10:10 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

If you call me a nut that is only because you haven't a clue what I am saying.

No, its because you don't. You have completely gone off into never never land, pom.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 12:08 pm
@Diest TKO,
Thanks. Actually, I was simply presenting the standard model . . . which most people see as a line segment. Frankly, when one takes the long view, political opinions form something of a spiral with the left and the right alternating. That alteration of the left and right . . . coupled with the fact that people were less likely to jump on the extremist bandwagon long ago AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, THAT OUR POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY WAS BEING FORGED THEN . . . is the reason why we CAN NOT plug the Founding Fathers into that rather simplified model of left and right that I placed okie on.

I have never encountered anyone with a more extreme view than okie's nor a person more willing to jump through hoops to defend anything he likes, whether or not it is part of the main stream conservative weltanschauung.
okie
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 02:29 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

I have never encountered anyone with a more extreme view than okie's nor a person more willing to jump through hoops to defend anything he likes, whether or not it is part of the main stream conservative weltanschauung.
You can't find anything more extreme than a guy that loves the country, loves freedom, liberty, and free market capitalism, and dislikes Marxists, communists, and dicatators, and a guy that pays his taxes and obeys the law, supports his family, but distrusts big government as the founders did, the fact that you can't find anything more extreme than that, you are one screwed up person, probably indoctrinated by leftists to the point of losing all common sense, plainoldme.

As an aside, I notice Obama is deeply troubled by folks that don't trust government. Does he realize the founders of this country did not trust government, and that is why the constitution and Bill of Rights were written as they were written? More atrocities have been wreaked upon humankind by government than any other entity. It is obvious Obama is ignorant of history, as he is ignorant of the ultimate fruits of various political philosophies.
 

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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.23 seconds on 11/16/2024 at 03:40:34