| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Deuteros" |
| Date: |
18 Dec 2005 08:52:54 PM |
| Object: |
New Constitutional Amendments |
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared about
what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any rate, it's a
good time to ponder how the Constitution could be improved. If government
officials ever followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements
would translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately take
or control an individual's property without that individual's consent
(Government won't be able to take your property because the property
is "accused" of a crime)
- No government taxation of property:
No government shall tax any property, real or personal. (Property and
ad valorum taxes amount to renting your property from the government.
After all, if the government can confiscate your property for
non-payment of taxes do you really own the property?)
- Military reform:
No military forces shall be deployed outside American territory
without a Congressional Declaration of War.
Military forces will never engage in hostilities without a
Congressional Declaration of War, unless repelling an attack or
invasion by an outside force.
At times of official peace, the decision to aid, assist, or oppose any
foreign government or revolutionary movement will be reserved to the
people, as individuals.
- Congressional reform:
The individual states may impeach their respective Senators and
Representatives they send to Congress.
Compensation of Congressmen will be determined by his or her
respective state of origin.
Government agents, foreign or domestic, will not have immunity from
prosecution.
- Repeal the "general welfare", "interstate commerce", and the "necessary
and proper" clauses.
- Federal expenditures are limited to the specific items listed in Article
1 Section 8.
- Repeal the authority of the government to establish post offices and
control the militia.
- Federal disaster relief shall be limited to humanitarian assistance
only. (passing out food, water, etc)
These are just suggestions of course. The goal is to cut back the bloated
mess our government has become today to a simple government that respects
individual rights and perhaps even fears the people it governs.
.
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
01 Jan 2006 11:44:04 AM |
|
|
In article <1135973357.614927.198380@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<montestruc@gmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1135926600.770302.202080@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<montestruc@gmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1135841013.942811.222610@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<montestruc@gmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <1135786308.318298.300470@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<montestruc@gmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<1135749369.620838.116420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
<montestruc@gmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<1135729041.801380.120820@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<montestruc@gmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<1135659696.123664.289610@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<montestruc@gmail.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article
<1135569971.193016.307330@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Al
Montestruc <montestruc@gmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
Frank Clarke wrote:
----------snip
If the tax man shows up at my door and demands
payment,
it is
not in
exchange for any specific set of services, nor
for a
specifc
set
of
services I wanted, or contracted for.
The difference is significant.
Except you do contract for services.
Show me the contract with my signiture on it.
Contracts don't necessarily require a signature.
They do require agreement.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=contract
con·tract ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kntrkt) n.
1. An agreement between two or more parties, especially
one
that
is
written and enforceable by law. See Synonyms at bargain.
2.The writing or document containing such an agreement.
The branch of law dealing with formal agreements between
parties.
I know what a contract is. And it generally doesn't
require a
signature.
But they do require agreement in advance, and I did not agree
and
so
your legal model is crap.
You DO agree.
Wrong I do not and did not.
I guess you feel you should benefit from taxes, just not pay them.
My take is that society as a whole loses from taxes, me using services
I a forced to pay for is only me cutting losses.
Most likely, the taxes you pay have no impact on your take home pay.
HA!!
W/o taxes my take home pay would rise by over 1/3 it's current value,
closer to half IIRC, and that is only federal taxes and SS. Texas has
no income tax, so all of my local police fire and so on come out of
sales and real estate taxes and fees, all of which I pay too. The
defence department budget added to that of the justice, and other
legitimate functions of government, bloated as they are, are a small
fraction of the total federal budget. Someone needs to take a chainsaw
to the budget.
You take home what you are willing to be paid.
It's a bit more complex than that.
It probably seems that way to you.
I take home what I can agree with
my employer to be paid less taxes. With less taxes (which set would
include zero taxes), then the pie is bigger, and both would benifit in
that the employer can pay less, and employee get more at the same time.
Gee - smart guy, I guess you don't understand supply and demand. You
seem to believe any tax saving is negotiable between you and your
employer. It isn't.
You work for what you and others in what work you do are willing to
accept. That is it. Lets say, as an example, that you are a guard.
(And don't go telling me you have a better job than a guard - this is
just an example.) And lets say guards in your community make $24K.
And lets say they take home, $16K, after taxes. That means you, and
more importantly the guard population in general in your community,
have "settled" on being guards for $16K per year, take home. If you
demand more, someone else less ambitious takes your job. If you, and
many like you, are willing to take less, the market for guards will
cause the pay scale, over a period of time, to drop.
Now lets suppose that magically, taxes disappeared. You are now
temporarily taking home $24K per year. HOWEVER, guards have made it
clear they will accept $16K take home. Consequently, over time, the
guard salary will drop to $16K. (Inflation is ignored in this model -
that causes some minor changes in salary over time.)
That is how unions work. They get their people together, and as a
group, try to increase the expectations and demands of their workers,
thereby influencing the supply of guards and increasing salaries and
benefits.
You are unhappy with what you take home. In essence, you are a victim
of your lack of ambition. The claim that lowering taxes will have a
significant effect on your take home pay is a fallacy for the simple
minded invented by the rich that pay you, in an effort to convince you
taxes are the problem. Apparently, you bought it.
It is called supply and
demand - something you Republican types should understand.
I am not a Republican, I am a Libertarian,
So you are irresponsible.
and I understand supply and
demand better than you do apperently.
"Apperently [sic] not."
If there
were lesser taxes you would receive less in overall pay and still take
home what you do now.
No -- I would get more,
No ‹ you wouldn't. At least, not in the long run.
my employer would pay less, and the government
gets less.
And would have to get it elsewhere, or cut services that you would then
have to make up out of your own pocket ‹ but that is another problem.
The amount of the split between employer and employee would
be subject to negociation.
Not in a capitalistic society. You are kidding yourself. It is supply
and demand.
FYI the employer also pays more taxes than are shown being deducted
from pay stubs, so the pie is bigger than the amount your pay stub
indicates you should have
Irrelevant.
As I say, if you are unhappy with your take home pay, get a better job
(or join a union.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Clarke" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
26 Dec 2005 02:58:23 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:12:13 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
<261220050812131044%dbarnes@aol.com>
In article <1135569971.193016.307330@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Al
Montestruc <montestruc@gmail.com> wrote:
2. That they do not allow customers to sue for poor service or failure
to provide service.
You are kidding yourself. I sue the government all the time.
Do any of your suits see trial?
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
27 Dec 2005 09:26:11 AM |
|
|
In article <vam0r1p661e8b6e503fjtpnsf6nvdh2e6u@4ax.com>, Frank Clarke
<m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:12:13 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
<261220050812131044%dbarnes@aol.com>
In article <1135569971.193016.307330@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Al
Montestruc <montestruc@gmail.com> wrote:
2. That they do not allow customers to sue for poor service or failure
to provide service.
You are kidding yourself. I sue the government all the time.
Do any of your suits see trial?
Yes. There minor hoops you must jump through, the Federal Torts Claims
Act, for example, but we either settle or go to trial on them all the
time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 10:13:16 PM |
|
|
Frank Clarke wrote:
On 20 Dec 2005 19:45:46 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135136746.204843.129980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Frank Clarke wrote:
And where, pray tell, does the government get that money in the first place?
They make it. They are the only ones allowed to.
They make printed paper; they don't make 'money'.
Wealth comes only from those who produce.
That also includes those that provide services.
If the services of government are so damn valuable, how come they need to
threaten people with jail for not paying taxes?
Because it is illegal to not pay your taxes, and first they tend to
take your savings and your property to pay for the legal debt that you
owe.
Nothing in government produces;
However, there are plenty of services that are provided by the
government. Defense is a big one.
Whatever did we do for defense before there was 'government'??
You mean when humans were nomadic hunters and gatherers? Defend
oneself. However, man is a social animal, and there has always been
some from of government among humans, and that government has always
organized some form of defense to defend itself from attack.
... 'Printing money' does not qualify as 'producing wealth'.
However, providing services does. And there are a lot of services that
the government does provide.
But they don't provide those services for free
Neither does any other service provider.
and they don't provide them at 'fair market value' either.
Most things that they provide, they provide at below market value,
since they can "buy in bulk". They also provide services that
individuals and smaller groups cannot effectively provide, like
national defense. Try pricing a fighter jet sometime, and then look at
how much R&D cost to develop it.
If they did, there would be no need for an IRS;
Yes, they would.
people would gladly pay fee-for-service.
No, they would not. You are an example. People only tend to pay for
what they understand and can grasp. You want to make it so that the
country becomes far more stratified than it is now, with the east and
west coasts having all the services, good roads, and everything else,
the middle of the country, except for some isolated areas, having
significantly less of everything and worse quality of most things, and
no significant military and no advances in the military. Within a
generation, the country is likely to descend in status and lose its
first-world edge (not that we aren't heading in that direction
already), and become ripe for invasion from some other power that hates
us.
Ipso facto, some states give more than they get; others get more than they give.
If you lose the ability to tax those who give more than they get, the great game
is OVER.
And from what I have seen, those that take more than they get are the
ones that tend to be the least satisfied with the government, and thus
more likely to desire to leave. The result is that those that pay more
in taxes will get more back, and those that take more will get nothing.
Then the solution is evident!
Only to you, since you are a malcontent.
Let those malcontents go their own way (and good
riddance)!
Good bye. When do you leave the country?
When they're gone, look at all the extra cash you'll have available!
No, we will not. Because there are ramifications that are not
completely evident. And you have already shown that you are not
knowledgeable enough to understand them.
Of course, it will have been inflated to worthlessness, but hey! Cash is cash,
right?
No. The value of the cash is what is important. A hundred years ago,
a penny was a decent amount of money, and things could be bought with
it. Today, a dollar has about the same buying power as a nickel or a
dime did then.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Clarke" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 02:01:48 PM |
|
|
On 21 Dec 2005 20:13:16 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135224796.203517.23800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Frank Clarke wrote:
If the services of government are so damn valuable, how come they need to
threaten people with jail for not paying taxes?
Because it is illegal to not pay your taxes, and first they tend to
take your savings and your property to pay for the legal debt that you
owe.
Kind of circular, that reasoning, isn't it?
You mean when humans were nomadic hunters and gatherers? Defend
oneself. However, man is a social animal, and there has always been
some from of government among humans, and that government has always
organized some form of defense to defend itself from attack.
There has always been a power structure. That's horrible or great depending on
your position in the structure.
But they don't provide those services for free
and they don't provide them at 'fair market value' either.
Most things that they provide, they provide at below market value,
since they can "buy in bulk". They also provide services that
individuals and smaller groups cannot effectively provide, like
national defense. Try pricing a fighter jet sometime, and then look at
how much R&D cost to develop it.
Strongly cart-before-horse: the ENTIRE BILL was paid for by taxpayers. No part
of it was "free". Since taxes are collected coercively there is no reason for
government buyers to exercise ANY restraint -- because there's more where that
came form. If a fighter jet was sponsored by someone who cared about how much
was being spent, it would be loads cheaper. Remember the $500 toilet seats...
If they did, there would be no need for an IRS;
people would gladly pay fee-for-service.
No, they would not. You are an example. People only tend to pay for
what they understand and can grasp. You want to make it so that the
country becomes far more stratified than it is now, with the east and
west coasts having all the services, good roads, and everything else,
the middle of the country, except for some isolated areas, having
significantly less of everything and worse quality of most things, and
no significant military and no advances in the military. Within a
generation, the country is likely to descend in status and lose its
first-world edge (not that we aren't heading in that direction
already),
BINGO!
and become ripe for invasion from some other power that hates us.
If people hate us, I think it would be profitable to ask 'why?' and get an
answer we can rely on, don't you? Having an answer you can rely on means you
can then move to eliminate the cause of the hatred, and then you wouldn't have
to worry about invasion, would you?
Then the solution is evident!
Let those malcontents go their own way (and good
riddance)!
Good bye. When do you leave the country?
You misunderstand (why are we not surprised?). I was thinking of secession. If
you look at GWB's approval ratings, there seem to be more of us malcontents than
you wet brains...
When they're gone, look at all the extra cash you'll have available!
No, we will not. Because there are ramifications that are not
completely evident. And you have already shown that you are not
knowledgeable enough to understand them.
Try me. BBA/Acctg; MBA/InfSys; 20 yrs in Mensa. Of course, if you're too
inarticulate to be able to make your ideas evident, I'll understand your
reluctance to expose your lack of talent.
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Clarke" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
24 Dec 2005 08:37:15 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:01:48 GMT, Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
<kn0mq15jiqc1emgqh1mfkblobi5rb3k2fm@4ax.com>
On 21 Dec 2005 20:13:16 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135224796.203517.23800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Good bye. When do you leave the country?
You misunderstand (why are we not surprised?). I was thinking of secession. If
you look at GWB's approval ratings, there seem to be more of us malcontents than
you wet brains...
When they're gone, look at all the extra cash you'll have available!
No, we will not. Because there are ramifications that are not
completely evident. And you have already shown that you are not
knowledgeable enough to understand them.
Try me. BBA/Acctg; MBA/InfSys; 20 yrs in Mensa. Of course, if you're too
inarticulate to be able to make your ideas evident, I'll understand your
reluctance to expose your lack of talent.
Too big a hurdle, Mark? Why are we not surprised?
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
24 Dec 2005 11:00:46 AM |
|
|
Frank Clarke wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:01:48 GMT, Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
<kn0mq15jiqc1emgqh1mfkblobi5rb3k2fm@4ax.com>
On 21 Dec 2005 20:13:16 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135224796.203517.23800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Good bye. When do you leave the country?
You misunderstand (why are we not surprised?). I was thinking of secession. If
you look at GWB's approval ratings, there seem to be more of us malcontents than
you wet brains...
When they're gone, look at all the extra cash you'll have available!
No, we will not. Because there are ramifications that are not
completely evident. And you have already shown that you are not
knowledgeable enough to understand them.
Try me. BBA/Acctg; MBA/InfSys; 20 yrs in Mensa. Of course, if you're too
inarticulate to be able to make your ideas evident, I'll understand your
reluctance to expose your lack of talent.
Too big a hurdle, Mark? Why are we not surprised?
O, I'm sorry, I forgot to list my titles in all my previous posts.
Martin Holterman, LL.M., M.Sc. (Econ)
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
24 Dec 2005 11:05:39 AM |
|
|
In article <43ad7ebe$0$10089$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl>, Martin
Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote:
Frank Clarke wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:01:48 GMT, Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com>
wrote:
<kn0mq15jiqc1emgqh1mfkblobi5rb3k2fm@4ax.com>
On 21 Dec 2005 20:13:16 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135224796.203517.23800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Good bye. When do you leave the country?
You misunderstand (why are we not surprised?). I was thinking of
secession. If
you look at GWB's approval ratings, there seem to be more of us malcontents
than
you wet brains...
When they're gone, look at all the extra cash you'll have available!
No, we will not. Because there are ramifications that are not
completely evident. And you have already shown that you are not
knowledgeable enough to understand them.
Try me. BBA/Acctg; MBA/InfSys; 20 yrs in Mensa. Of course, if you're too
inarticulate to be able to make your ideas evident, I'll understand your
reluctance to expose your lack of talent.
Too big a hurdle, Mark? Why are we not surprised?
O, I'm sorry, I forgot to list my titles in all my previous posts.
Martin Holterman, LL.M., M.Sc. (Econ)
Nice job Martin!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
24 Dec 2005 11:22:25 AM |
|
|
Frank Clarke wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:01:48 GMT, Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
<kn0mq15jiqc1emgqh1mfkblobi5rb3k2fm@4ax.com>
On 21 Dec 2005 20:13:16 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135224796.203517.23800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Good bye. When do you leave the country?
You misunderstand (why are we not surprised?). I was thinking of secession. If
you look at GWB's approval ratings, there seem to be more of us malcontents than
you wet brains...
When they're gone, look at all the extra cash you'll have available!
No, we will not. Because there are ramifications that are not
completely evident. And you have already shown that you are not
knowledgeable enough to understand them.
Try me. BBA/Acctg; MBA/InfSys; 20 yrs in Mensa. Of course, if you're too
inarticulate to be able to make your ideas evident, I'll understand your
reluctance to expose your lack of talent.
Too big a hurdle, Mark? Why are we not surprised?
No. Just have not have had any time. Shopping for family and friends
for Christmas and Yule, getting ready to go visit them, getting ready
for a big presentation right after the holidays at work have kept me
busy. It is called real life, in case you have never encountered it.
And by the way, BS Computer Science, MS Applied Computer Science,
eligible for Mensa (141 tested IQ) but never wanted to join, U.S. Navy
veteran. And you have yet to show that I lack any talent. It is still
obvious that you refuse to look at the big picture and what will happen
if your desires were enacted.
By the way, the Income tax is completely Constitutional. It was
included in the Constitution via an amendment that addressed it
specifically.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
24 Dec 2005 12:14:10 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in
news:1135444945.722412.172980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Frank Clarke wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:01:48 GMT, Frank Clarke
<m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
<kn0mq15jiqc1emgqh1mfkblobi5rb3k2fm@4ax.com>
On 21 Dec 2005 20:13:16 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net>
wrote: <1135224796.203517.23800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Good bye. When do you leave the country?
You misunderstand (why are we not surprised?). I was thinking of
secession. If you look at GWB's approval ratings, there seem to be
more of us malcontents than you wet brains...
When they're gone, look at all the extra cash you'll have
available!
No, we will not. Because there are ramifications that are not
completely evident. And you have already shown that you are not
knowledgeable enough to understand them.
Try me. BBA/Acctg; MBA/InfSys; 20 yrs in Mensa. Of course, if
you're too inarticulate to be able to make your ideas evident, I'll
understand your reluctance to expose your lack of talent.
Too big a hurdle, Mark? Why are we not surprised?
No. Just have not have had any time. Shopping for family and friends
for Christmas and Yule, getting ready to go visit them, getting ready
for a big presentation right after the holidays at work have kept me
busy. It is called real life, in case you have never encountered it.
And by the way, BS Computer Science, MS Applied Computer Science,
eligible for Mensa (141 tested IQ) but never wanted to join, U.S. Navy
veteran. And you have yet to show that I lack any talent. It is
still obvious that you refuse to look at the big picture and what will
happen if your desires were enacted.
By the way, the Income tax is completely Constitutional. It was
included in the Constitution via an amendment that addressed it
specifically.
Mark Sebree
Ignore the bootlicking neocon wingnut lapdogs and just keep up your great
posts and responses Mark.
Happy Holidays and Season's Greetings. :o))
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Clarke" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
26 Dec 2005 10:01:42 AM |
|
|
On 24 Dec 2005 09:22:25 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135444945.722412.172980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Frank Clarke wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:01:48 GMT, Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
<kn0mq15jiqc1emgqh1mfkblobi5rb3k2fm@4ax.com>
On 21 Dec 2005 20:13:16 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135224796.203517.23800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Good bye. When do you leave the country?
You misunderstand (why are we not surprised?). I was thinking of secession. If
you look at GWB's approval ratings, there seem to be more of us malcontents than
you wet brains...
When they're gone, look at all the extra cash you'll have available!
No, we will not. Because there are ramifications that are not
completely evident. And you have already shown that you are not
knowledgeable enough to understand them.
Try me. BBA/Acctg; MBA/InfSys; 20 yrs in Mensa. Of course, if you're too
inarticulate to be able to make your ideas evident, I'll understand your
reluctance to expose your lack of talent.
Too big a hurdle, Mark? Why are we not surprised?
No. Just have not have had any time. Shopping for family and friends
for Christmas and Yule, getting ready to go visit them, getting ready
for a big presentation right after the holidays at work have kept me
busy. It is called real life, in case you have never encountered it.
And by the way, BS Computer Science, MS Applied Computer Science,
eligible for Mensa (141 tested IQ) but never wanted to join, U.S. Navy
veteran. And you have yet to show that I lack any talent. It is still
obvious that you refuse to look at the big picture and what will happen
if your desires were enacted.
"Dancing around the question" does not equal "addressing the question" (or did
they not cover 'logic' in the CS program?)
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
26 Dec 2005 07:19:40 PM |
|
|
Frank Clarke wrote:
On 24 Dec 2005 09:22:25 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135444945.722412.172980@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Frank Clarke wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 20:01:48 GMT, Frank Clarke <m5srexx@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
<kn0mq15jiqc1emgqh1mfkblobi5rb3k2fm@4ax.com>
On 21 Dec 2005 20:13:16 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135224796.203517.23800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Good bye. When do you leave the country?
You misunderstand (why are we not surprised?). I was thinking of secession. If
you look at GWB's approval ratings, there seem to be more of us malcontents than
you wet brains...
When they're gone, look at all the extra cash you'll have available!
No, we will not. Because there are ramifications that are not
completely evident. And you have already shown that you are not
knowledgeable enough to understand them.
Try me. BBA/Acctg; MBA/InfSys; 20 yrs in Mensa. Of course, if you're too
inarticulate to be able to make your ideas evident, I'll understand your
reluctance to expose your lack of talent.
Too big a hurdle, Mark? Why are we not surprised?
No. Just have not have had any time. Shopping for family and friends
for Christmas and Yule, getting ready to go visit them, getting ready
for a big presentation right after the holidays at work have kept me
busy. It is called real life, in case you have never encountered it.
And by the way, BS Computer Science, MS Applied Computer Science,
eligible for Mensa (141 tested IQ) but never wanted to join, U.S. Navy
veteran. And you have yet to show that I lack any talent. It is still
obvious that you refuse to look at the big picture and what will happen
if your desires were enacted.
"Dancing around the question" does not equal "addressing the question" (or did
they not cover 'logic' in the CS program?)
And you have been "dancing around the question", from what I have seen.
My statement was addressing why I have not answered your previous
posts, lack of time due to real life constraints. And that was a valid
answer, to what you had just asked.
And yes, I did take a mathematical logic course in my CS coursework.
It was taught with math students. However, that does not have much
application here. Debating logic I have learned on my own.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 06:44:50 PM |
|
|
Frank Clarke wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 20:01:43 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135051303.147951.294360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Frank Clarke wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 06:40:16 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1135003216.832382.136160@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
No, I do not think that this will be offset by taxes no longer paid.
There are a number of states that have a poor tax base but significant
income from military bases, members, and corporate contracts with the
military. Take away all that money, and a large hole will be left in
the budget.
Those aren't the states you have to worry about...
That means that you don't have to worry about any states. All of them
get significant amounts of money from the government.
And where, pray tell, does the government get that money in the first place?
Wealth comes only from those who produce. Nothing in government produces; all
government does is consume (in the process of redistributing the wealth
collected from producers). 'Printing money' does not qualify as 'producing
wealth'.
Ipso facto, some states give more than they get; others get more than they give.
If you lose the ability to tax those who give more than they get, the great game
is OVER.
I hear "Jones town" is still vacant, maybe you and the other libertarian
loon "noone" could set up your libertarian "paradise" there and leave us
sane people alone.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gaia" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
19 Dec 2005 07:03:19 AM |
|
|
Frank Clarke wrote:
On 18 Dec 2005 21:40:09 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote:
<1134970808.858191.203270@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
With those taxpayers
and companies gone or out of work, there will be a significant drop in
the state's disposable income, which will likely cause a cascading
domino effect on poverty, especially when you also take into account
the loss of the troops and facilities in that state.
You think this might be at least partially (or even more-than-wholly) offset by
the taxes-no-longer-paid? You think it might not be a good deal? Do you know
who would be left? All those who feed on others.
We are all guilty of it. It'll never stop.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 02:18:36 PM |
|
|
In article <43a62086$0$97164$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Reword the Second Amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute. No law will
be passed in the United States restricting or forbidding the right to
purchase, own, or carry any arm. Neither will any law be passed in the
United States restricting the type or number of arms a person may own.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 03:57:33 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:noone-6CB8FA.15243220122005@free.teranews.com:
In article <43a62086$0$97164$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Reword the Second Amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute. No law will
be passed in the United States restricting or forbidding the right to
purchase, own, or carry any arm. Neither will any law be passed in the
United States restricting the type or number of arms a person may own.
Sounds good to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 06:11:17 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
noone@nowhere.com wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Reword the Second Amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute. No law will
be passed in the United States restricting or forbidding the right to
purchase, own, or carry any arm. Neither will any law be passed in the
United States restricting the type or number of arms a person may own.
Sounds good to me.
Sounds stupid. You'd allow any crackpot to own a surface-to-air
missile.
You would rather see thousands of people die than allow any
infringement on your ability to kill.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 09:16:43 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a89da5$0$58125$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
noone@nowhere.com wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Reword the Second Amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute. No law will
be passed in the United States restricting or forbidding the right to
purchase, own, or carry any arm. Neither will any law be passed in the
United States restricting the type or number of arms a person may own.
Sounds good to me.
Sounds stupid. You'd allow any crackpot to own a surface-to-air
missile.
Since when is it illegal to own one?
.
|
|
|
| User: "NCVT" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 09:26:31 PM |
|
|
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:43a8c91b$0$29245$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a89da5$0$58125$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
noone@nowhere.com wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Reword the Second Amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute. No law will
be passed in the United States restricting or forbidding the right to
purchase, own, or carry any arm. Neither will any law be passed in the
United States restricting the type or number of arms a person may own.
Sounds good to me.
Sounds stupid. You'd allow any crackpot to own a surface-to-air
missile.
Since when is it illegal to own one?
Why don't you try to obtain one, complete with ordinance. We'll see you in 25
years. if ever.
You don't even know the bloody law, yet you think you can comment on it.
Typical libertarian turd.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 09:38:43 PM |
|
|
"NCVT" <ncvt@hlnc.pra> wrote in
news:1135135591.711d364662cb3b447e9c244dfaa4cf28@roc.usenetexchange.com:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:43a8c91b$0$29245$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a89da5$0$58125$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
noone@nowhere.com wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Reword the Second Amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute. No law
will be passed in the United States restricting or forbidding the
right to purchase, own, or carry any arm. Neither will any law be
passed in the United States restricting the type or number of arms
a person may own.
Sounds good to me.
Sounds stupid. You'd allow any crackpot to own a surface-to-air
missile.
Since when is it illegal to own one?
Why don't you try to obtain one, complete with ordinance. We'll see
you in 25 years. if ever.
You don't even know the bloody law, yet you think you can comment on it.
Typical libertarian turd.
Cite the law then.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
21 Dec 2005 06:38:38 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net>
posting the following on 21 Dec 2005 03:38:43 GMT iin alt.atheism?
You don't even know the bloody law, yet you think you can comment on it.
Typical libertarian turd.
Cite the law then.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC922
Surface to Air missiles are considered "destructive devices" under the
law.
(4) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, to transport in
interstate or foreign commerce any destructive device, machinegun (as
defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986),
short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as
specifically authorized by the Secretary consistent with public safety
and necessity;
Further on the law specifically bans the purchase of destructive
devices unless you obtain a license.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 07:30:55 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
news:65tjq19boqslbi386qjcjlejmv838qj3ad@4ax.com:
What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net>
posting the following on 21 Dec 2005 03:38:43 GMT iin alt.atheism?
You don't even know the bloody law, yet you think you can comment on
it. Typical libertarian turd.
Cite the law then.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&doci
d=Cite:+18USC922
Surface to Air missiles are considered "destructive devices" under the
law.
(4) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed
manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, to transport in
interstate or foreign commerce any destructive device, machinegun (as
defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986),
short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as
specifically authorized by the Secretary consistent with public safety
and necessity;
Further on the law specifically bans the purchase of destructive
devices unless you obtain a license.
The question was whether or not it was illegal to own one.
And yes, I believe that individuals should be able to freely own any weapon
that the government feels the need to own.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 01:14:46 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
And yes, I believe that individuals should be able to freely own any weapon
that the government feels the need to own.
Why?
How do you propose solving the problem of crazed individuals using
these weapons to kill tens of thousands of people?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 06:08:50 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43aafb26$0$58110$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
And yes, I believe that individuals should be able to freely own any
weapon that the government feels the need to own.
Why?
How do you propose solving the problem of crazed individuals using
these weapons to kill tens of thousands of people?
You don't seem to have a problem with your government owning these weapons
and killing thousands of people with them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 08:31:42 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
And yes, I believe that individuals should be able to freely own any
weapon that the government feels the need to own.
Why?
How do you propose solving the problem of crazed individuals using
these weapons to kill tens of thousands of people?
You don't seem to have a problem with your government owning these weapons
and killing thousands of people with them.
You didn't answer the question, coward. Apparently all you can do is
lie about me instead.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
22 Dec 2005 09:35:22 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43ab618e$0$58117$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
You didn't answer the question, coward. Apparently all you can do is
lie about me instead.
All you care about is giving the government a monopoly on weapons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
23 Dec 2005 12:43:26 AM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
You didn't answer the question, coward. Apparently all you can do is
lie about me instead.
All you care about is giving the government a monopoly on weapons.
And so the lying little coward runs away from his own stupidity.
Here's the question you can't answer:
How do you propose solving the problem of crazed individuals using
these weapons to kill tens of thousands of people?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 10:17:04 PM |
|
|
In article
<1135135591.711d364662cb3b447e9c244dfaa4cf28@roc.usenetexchange.com>,
"NCVT" <ncvt@hlnc.pra> wrote:
You don't even know the bloody law, yet you think you can comment on it.
Typical libertarian turd.
The most pernicious Nazis are the ones who hate Libertarians the most.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 10:10:13 PM |
|
|
NCVT wrote:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:43a8c91b$0$29245$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43a89da5$0$58125$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
noone@nowhere.com wrote:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
Reword the Second Amendment:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute. No law will
be passed in the United States restricting or forbidding the right to
purchase, own, or carry any arm. Neither will any law be passed in the
United States restricting the type or number of arms a person may own.
Sounds good to me.
Sounds stupid. You'd allow any crackpot to own a surface-to-air
missile.
Since when is it illegal to own one?
Why don't you try to obtain one, complete with ordinance. We'll see you in 25
years. if ever.
You don't even know the bloody law, yet you think you can comment on it.
Typical libertarian turd.
That's not a very good answer. Cite the law that prohibits ownership of
a STA missile. I can't find it but I bet there is one.
--
Jack
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
20 Dec 2005 10:16:08 PM |
|
|
In article <43a89da5$0$58125$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
You would rather see thousands of people die than allow any
infringement on your ability to kill.
I don't want my ability to protect myself from you killing me to be
infringed.
I trust myself. You're the terrifying one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
