Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

@parados,

parados wrote:

That is an interesting argument gunga. So, you are arguing that the current income tax is permanent
and yet you are promoting eliminating or changing it. Once again, you seem to be out of touch with reality.

Your assertions r poorly reasoned.
Hopefully, the 16th Amendment will go the way of the 18th! I 'll drink to THAT!

David

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Gunga Dim strikes again. The income tax in the United States was permanently established by the sixteenth amendment precisely because the Supreme Court, in a series of decisions between 1871 and 1895, had struck down the income tax established in the first Republican administration of Mr. Lincoln in 1861, and renewed in 1862.

Was there a QUORUM for that????
Remember: the Lincoln Administration held that, as a matter of law,
it was IMPOSSIBLE for the South to leave the Union.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Not as much faith as I have in our justice system.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

If something is permanent how can it be eliminated David?
If something is eliminated then how can it be permanent?

Eliminating the 16th amendment doesn't matter much to the income tax since the courts have ruled that income taxes on wages are constitutional even without the 16th amendment.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

If something is permanent how can it be eliminated David?

In this particular case, by a Constitutional amendment.
I thawt I 'd made that clear; not clear enuf, I guess.

parados wrote:

If something is eliminated then how can it be permanent?

In the past tense, it was permanent, until it was eliminated,
which is the reason that it WAS eliminated by a Constitutional amendment.
If it had been sufficiently fleeting n transient,
then that 'd obviate the amendment process.

parados wrote:

Eliminating the 16th amendment doesn't matter much to the income tax since the courts have ruled that income taxes on wages are constitutional even without the 16th amendment.

In the repealer it 'd be clearly set forth
that any and all government 'd be funded only from sales taxes
at the same rate for all citizens and from importation tarriffs.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

In this particular case, by a Constitutional amendment.
I thawt I 'd made that clear; not clear enuf, I guess.

So, it wasn't permanent then if it was eliminated. I thought I made it clear that something can't be permanent if it can be eliminated. Or perhaps you use definitions the way you use spelling. You change them to fit your mood.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Well, as a matter off fact, the states of the southern confederacy did not leave the union--they simply tried to . . . and failed, at great cost of blood and treasure. As someone who is always whining about the constitution, and indulging often hilarious flights of fancy about "originalism," i'm surprised that you fail to recognize that the southern confederacy was unconstitutional--leaving aside that they attacked United States troops and installations without provocation.

Article One, Section Ten, reads, in its entirety:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

1 Reply

@parados,

Were we to resolve three or four of the big problems which nobody wants to deal with, we should not need an income tax. Those would include:

The nature of money, who has authority to 'coin' it, how and for what purposes
Energy; we should be exporting energy and not importing it.
Health care: all which is really needed are three or four simple reforms, the most major being tort reform.
"War on Drugs and the prison industrial comples: get rid of them (i.e. make room in some prison for the next Trayvon Martin by heaving druggies)
Military spending for things nobody needs (keeping troops in Europe)

There are a couple of others like that, again, all we'd have to do is resolve the top three or four on such a list.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

General population lets you know your chances of being hurt by a firearm, which is really really really low.

As a gun owner, it's none of your business if I have a gun in my house. I have never been asked by a parent and I would find it rude if I were. I don't see how its any of your business if I own a fireman.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote:

I don't see how its any of your business if I own a fireman.

Since slavery is illegal, it would be his business, and the state's, if you owned a fireman, or owned anyone else for that matter.

You couldn't settle for owning just a firearm, you needed the other arm, two legs, torso, and head--the whole fireman?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

According to my wife, it's a question that is asked whenever a kid is going to be at someone's house. All the moms do it, in our circle.

And if you think it would be rude for me to ask, our kids probably won't be running in the same circles, anyway.

And general population is not the right measure to use when discussing "does keeping a gun make you safer." At the point where you keep a gun in your house, you've entered a second population of "people who keep guns in their house."

The data clearly indicates that the group of people "people who keep guns in their house" is more likely to get killed or injured in any given year than the general population.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Sorry firearm.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Was there a QUORUM for that????
Remember: the Lincoln Administration held that, as a matter of law,
it was IMPOSSIBLE for the South to leave the Union.

Sorry David the world is as the world is and all courts had upheld the 16 amendment so that is the end of the issue.

Now you could make the same kind of pointless argument that the whole federal government is illegal as the founders" illegally" walk away from the Articles of Confederation government with no "legal" right to do so.

Oh by your thinking the 13 amendment is not valid either and by the SC ruling no blacks can be a citizen and we can have slavery back.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Ok I will rework the #'s.

1) .04% This is based on 80 million firearms owners vs. your 34,485 people who were hurt.

2) .02% Same # of firearm owners vs. your 16,000 children hurt by firearms.

I think the # of firearm owners is actually higher, I think there is a segment of the population who do not admit to the govt that they own firearms. I am one of those people who does not share such information with the govt, I don't think it's any of their business if I own a gun or not.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Your wife is correct.
I always asked if there were firearms in a house where the boys were going to, and if the answer was "In a gun cabinet", I asked if any of the kids who lived there knew how to open the gun cabinet?

It's always the older brother who wants to show the littler kids the .22 he got for his birthday.
I had one son-of-a-bitch bring his .22 over to my house because, unlike at his house, there were no adults around. Showing off for about six kids, he proceeded to shoot a piece off of one of my wind chimes.
He was a lucky kid, his father found out about it before I did.
He took the weapon away.
I would have beaten him black and blue with the rest of the wind chime before the other three parents finished the job.

Joe(Ding-clang-dongdong-ding!)Nation

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

And?

My point is not that owning a gun is horribly dangerous. Lots of folks own guns for many different reasons. There are obviously lots of recreational uses.

My point is that the argument "guns make you safer!" is not true.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Guns give some gun owners "piece of mind".

There's perceived safety in having piece of mind over no mind at all.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

You were trying to show how unsafe it is to own a gun and I proved that isn't the case.

250 millions cars in the US. Injuries from auto accidents is at 2.5% of the population. This is based on 6,316,000 car accidents vs. 250 million owned cars.
Deaths from car accidents: .01%. This was based on 42,643 reported car accidents vs the 250 million cars on the road.
You are more likely to get hurt in a car accident then you are to be injured by a firearm, but the death toll from cars and gun's is about the same percentage.

2 Replies

@Baldimo,

Having a gun makes you safer because cars aren't safe?

Your logic is... well.... not very logical.

1 Reply

@parados,

The likely hood of someone getting hurt by a gun is lower then someone being hurt by a car. The outrage over gun violence is a BS outrage.

2 Replies

Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know