Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on April 02, 2010, 05:50:45 AM
-
Unreal.
-
I think the quote should have been "I'm not worried about the constitution". :)
-
I think the quote should have been "I'm not worried about the constitution". :)
Whats the difference?
-
Whats the difference?
"I'm not worried about the constitution" implies he's operating from a moral/religious delusion. "I don't care about the constitution" would at least imply he's read the darn thing and is willfully negligent. :)
I love how these liberal whackjobs always yell some version of "What about the children?!" on issues like this. When the eff are conservatives going to start yelling "What about the taxpayer?!"?
-
"I'm not worried about the constitution" implies he's operating from a moral/religious delusion. "I don't care about the constitution" would at least imply he's read the darn thing and is willfully negligent. :)
I love how these liberal whackjobs always yell some version of "What about the children?!" on issues like this. When the eff are conservatives going to start yelling "What about the taxpayer?!"?
No kidding. This is why I never will buy into that bogus "living breathing constitution" nonsense.
-
No kidding. This is why I never will buy into that bogus "living breathing constitution" nonsense.
I do find the whole health care corps slavery idea amusing. There's some leaves and stuff in the street outside, maybe we should declare a cleaning emergency and make poor people sweep. :)
-
I do find the whole health care corps slavery idea amusing. There's some leaves and stuff in the street outside, maybe we should declare a cleaning emergency and make poor people sweep. :)
I have been saying that forever.
-
Post a video of that republican Congressman picking up underage Boys, and scoring some meth..
On a side note 33367, I thought you had enough of the republican party...
Post something positive from the libertarian party..Thanks 8)
-
Post a video of that republican Congressman picking up underage Boys, and scoring some meth..
On a side note 33367, I thought you had enough of the republican party...
Post something positive from the libertarian party..Thanks 8)
::) ::)
You dont care that elected reps say they dont give a rats ass about the doxcument that holds this country together?
-
::) ::)
You dont care that elected reps say they dont give a rats ass about the doxcument that holds this country together?
[/youtube]
Watch this great Athlete. Forget about the flotsam party for a few minutes..
A better question is if you think this athlete was worth his $136,000,000 transfer fee? Rea Madrid (richest team in sport) paid manchester united 136,000,000 million just to secure his services?
-
Everyone should have access to Universal healthcare no matter race, money, creed, etc
That should be in the bill of rights.
life, liberty, universal healthcare. and the pursuit of happiness.
-
Everyone should have access to Universal healthcare no matter race, money, creed, etc
That should be in the bill of rights.
life, liberty, universal healthcare. and the pursuit of happiness.
What about food, water, and shelter?
-
What about food, water, and shelter?
If you work hard enough, You should be entitled to eat something besides bread and water, yes. :'(
-
If you work hard enough, You should be entitled to eat something besides bread and water, yes. :'(
Life Liberty & the pursuit of Happiness never meant stealing from one citizen to give something to another.
-
'Life Liberty & the pursuit of Happiness never meant stealing from one citizen to give something to another.'
Isn't ANY form of taxation defined as stealing from one citizen to give to another?
Are you saying the writers of the Constitution were agaisnt ALL taxes? Or just taxation without reprsentation? If you look at it that way, the people of america chose a lib 59 senators and a lib president - and when they enact lib policies on taxation - it's almost a perfect working example of taxation WITH representation.
Unless you can show us where the founding fathers wrote there should be NO taxation of any kind?
-
'Life Liberty & the pursuit of Happiness never meant stealing from one citizen to give something to another.'
Isn't ANY form of taxation defined as stealing from one citizen to give to another?
Are you saying the writers of the Constitution were agaisnt ALL taxes? Or just taxation without reprsentation? If you look at it that way, the people of america chose a lib 59 senators and a lib president - and when they enact lib policies on taxation - it's almost a perfect working example of taxation WITH representation.
Unless you can show us where the founding fathers wrote there should be NO taxation of any kind?
Unreal 240. surely you are not that stupid?
Taxes to pay for things mandated by the constitution such as national defense, roads, etc is not the same as taxes to fund transfer payments such as welfare etc.
Geez you people are ignorant on this.
-
'Taxes to pay for things mandated by the constitution such as national defense, roads, etc is not the same as taxes to fund transfer payments such as welfare etc. '
I'm no constitutional scholar... so the constitution specifically says roads, but specifically excludes social assistance?
-
'Taxes to pay for things mandated by the constitution such as national defense, roads, etc is not the same as taxes to fund transfer payments such as welfare etc. '
I'm no constitutional scholar... so the constitution specifically says roads, but specifically excludes social assistance?
Please go buy a book and educate yourself. Social assistance is meant to be a charity, not a "right" as defined by the law.
-
'Please go buy a book and educate yourself. Social assistance is meant to be a charity, not a "right" as defined by the law. '
I'm asking you to tell me which section of the constitution says this.
ANY kind of taxation is definitely unfair, but definitely a reality in any society. Same with SOME level of social assistance. No society on earth just lets kids and elderly starve and crap in the streets.
So aside from (righttfully) condemning Obama's welfare mentality... I'm asking you to clarify EXACTLY what the constitution said regarding ANY taxation, what its purposes were written down to be, and where "social assistance is meant to be a charity" - where is that found?
I think you're just giving us your own interpretation of this great document here, how you think it should be. But since you told us as fact that life/lib/happiness shouldn't include taxation - I'd like to hear you back it up with where you found this in the Constitution.
-
If you work hard enough, You should be entitled to eat something besides bread and water, yes. :'(
So if a person doesn't work at all, eventhough there is nothing stopping them, it is acceptable to take from others in order to provide that person with health care, shelter and food?
-
'Life Liberty & the pursuit of Happiness never meant stealing from one citizen to give something to another.'
Isn't ANY form of taxation defined as stealing from one citizen to give to another?
Are you saying the writers of the Constitution were agaisnt ALL taxes? Or just taxation without reprsentation? If you look at it that way, the people of america chose a lib 59 senators and a lib president - and when they enact lib policies on taxation - it's almost a perfect working example of taxation WITH representation.
Unless you can show us where the founding fathers wrote there should be NO taxation of any kind?
couldnt any form of taxation be ruled a violation against "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as defined by this dousch bag?
quit silver lining...this is the problem with allowing ppl to enact legislation on what they feel is "good for the nation" whats "good" is subjective which is WHY WE HAVE RULES!!!!!!!!!!!
Rules are less subjective I could say a ton of things the govt does violates my pursuit of happiness, how many lib idiots you think would vote for them?
-
Unreal 240. surely you are not that stupid?
Taxes to pay for things mandated by the constitution such as national defense, roads, etc is not the same as taxes to fund transfer payments such as welfare etc.
Geez you people are ignorant on this.
There is NOTHING in the Constitution that requires a standing, Nationalized military. NOTHING.
In Fact, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and company was abhorred at the very idea of having a National Military at all and disbanded any semblance of a National Army, citing the Constitution and the Revolutionary War as precedent.
“A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen”
James Madison quotes (American 4th US President (1809-17), and one of the founding fathers of his country. 1751-1836)
How do allow our Military to exist? Through nuance and nothing else. Taxes. Enumerated Powers. "Power of the Purse" of Congress.
Article 1 Section 8.
The Founders DID NOT WANT a Standing Army.
Against Standing Armies
"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160
"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334
"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231
"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323
"It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814. ME 14:207
-
"couldnt any form of taxation be ruled a violation against "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness""
YES!! That was my point!!
So the moment 333386 agrees that there needs to be SOME taxation - then he destorys his original point.
At that juncture, we only have to decide HOW MUCH taxation is the right amount. Sadly, the people elected a dem congress, senate and white hosue - and they're deciding. taxation WITh representation - we just don't like the numbers the dems have decided upon.
Besides, who was HAPPY with the taxation numbers from 2000 to 2008? Was taking a quarter of your income acceptable, but obama taking 30% is completely unconstitutional? I think our frame of reference was destroyed a long time ago.
-
Again,
ANY TAXATION voted on by Congress is legal under ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8 of the United States Constitution!
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 defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
-
Section 8: Powers of Congress
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 defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
-
Again,
ANY TAXATION voted on by Congress is legal under ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8 of the United States Constitution!
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 defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
you have liberal idiots on this board and in congress using the argument that not providing health insurance is a violation of our "pursuit of happiness"
you dont think that taxation could be viewed as a violation of our "pursuit of happiness"
-
Is 'general health' of americans considered 'general welfare'?
We elected representatives who decided this is what was meant. In 2010, they decided this is what it meant.
I suppose if we don't like it, we can elect individuals who can solve this problem without changing things to univ healthcare. But, they had 12 years of congress and didn't do anything to stop it, so this bill passed.
Thanks jeze for pointing out section 8 here.
-
you have liberal idiots on this board and in congress using the argument that not providing health insurance is a violation of our "pursuit of happiness"
you dont think that taxation could be viewed as a violation of our "pursuit of happiness"
Again, the Pursuit of Happiness is irrelevant.
Congress has the Power to Lay and Collect Taxes and apply them uniformly. The Power of the Purse.
A violation of "The Pursuit of Happiness" is NOT a Violation of any kind nor grounds for being Unconstitutional.
My personal belief is that the Constitution needs to be amended, ALL FEDERAL TAXES REPEALED with the INSTALLATION of a National Sales Tax with no tax on Used items and Items Necessary for life, such as food.
And then give the States the Power to add their own taxation as they see fit.
-
Isn't taxation supposed to be fair and with adequate representation?
If majority whims are the only justification Libs need for a bad bill they all better STFU if a republican majority repeals it. :)
We definitely need something but it has to be affordable/sustainable.
-
Isn't taxation supposed to be fair and with adequate representation?
If majority whims are the only justification Libs need for a bad bill they all better STFU if a republican majority repeals it. :)
We definitely need something but it has to be affordable/sustainable.
No No No! The people should NEVER "just STFU" when it comes to any legislation no matter what party introduces it.
-
Isn't taxation supposed to be fair and with adequate representation?
If majority whims are the only justification Libs need for a bad bill they all better STFU if a republican majority repeals it. :)
We definitely need something but it has to be affordable/sustainable.
These libs like 240 and TA dont understand that the whole purpose of the constitution was supposed to be a check on the power of govt and define its releationship with the states, not to empower it to be Santa Claus with everyone elses' money to buy votes.
Thats what occurred in Rome and what partially led that Republic to fall.
-
'If majority whims are the only justification Libs need for a bad bill they all better STFU if a republican majority repeals it. '
The Repubs would need 67 seats for a veto-proof ability to repeal healthcare in 2010. That is impossible, even if they won every available seat in 10.
They *could* try it in 2013. But at this point, it's only the extreme voices still talking repeal. The amount of undo-ing by then would be impossible. "Repeal and replace" is their new catch-phrase, as they realize this. By 2013, the people will have adjusted slowly to the new system and it won't be that noticable. To announce 'we're brining back the donut hole and pre-existing conditions, and your 23 year old kid is kicked off your policy, and the costs aren't controlled anymore' wouldn't be a good political move.
This ship has sailed.
-
''These libs like 240 and TA dont understand that the whole purpose of the constitution was supposed to be a check on the power of govt and define its releationship with the states, not to empower it to be Santa Claus with everyone elses' money to buy votes. "
TA, you seem to know your stuff. What is the purpose of the constitition?
-
Shouldnt have to pay for any "rights".
-
Again, the Pursuit of Happiness is irrelevant.
Congress has the Power to Lay and Collect Taxes and apply them uniformly. The Power of the Purse.
A violation of "The Pursuit of Happiness" is NOT a Violation of any kind nor grounds for being Unconstitutional.
My personal belief is that the Constitution needs to be amended, ALL FEDERAL TAXES REPEALED with the INSTALLATION of a National Sales Tax with no tax on Used items and Items Necessary for life, such as food.
And then give the States the Power to add their own taxation as they see fit.
Disagree the pursuit of happiness is very important especially when you have ppl who use that to justify legislation...ppl were pissed about the patriot act I was one of them, you cannot use the idea that "its for your own good" to help pass legislation
also there is nothing uniformed about this nothing uniformed in the way they collect the taxes and nothing uniformed in the way the distribute the tax money collected...
-
Shouldnt have to pay for any "rights".
No kidding Bindare. That is why most of these libs have ZERO clue about what the hell they are talking about.
-
These libs like 240 and TA dont understand that the whole purpose of the constitution was supposed to be a check on the power of govt and define its releationship with the states, not to empower it to be Santa Claus with everyone elses' money to buy votes.
Thats what occurred in Rome and what partially led that Republic to fall.
The forefathers knew Govt power had to be limited, lest it crush the citizenry.
-
'Life Liberty & the pursuit of Happiness never meant stealing from one citizen to give something to another.'
Isn't ANY form of taxation defined as stealing from one citizen to give to another?
Are you saying the writers of the Constitution were agaisnt ALL taxes? Or just taxation without reprsentation? If you look at it that way, the people of america chose a lib 59 senators and a lib president - and when they enact lib policies on taxation - it's almost a perfect working example of taxation WITH representation.
Unless you can show us where the founding fathers wrote there should be NO taxation of any kind?
No, that's not what any form of taxation is. When my house is on fire, I expect the fire department to show up. That is a service I am paying for with my tax money. The same applies with collecting my trash, and keeping the streets safe. When you consider that half the country doesn't pay taxes and that the increase in taxes being shoved down America's throat by the left is directly funneled back down to the 50% that don't pay to begin with, it's stealing. My tax dollars are now going to subsidize the expansion of the US government to pay for healthcare, social services and other extras that I am never ever going to use and that normal, functional members of society pay for themselves. In addition to that, throw in the absurd amount of taxes I already pay for basic necessities of the state, social security, etc.+ all of the garbage social welfare programs prior to this healthcare debacle. If it's not theft, it certainly feels like it.
-
well its clear that the liberal assclowns dont care about the constitution, look at how the commie in chief cheated and lied his way to passing healthcare, and progressives have even been quoted saying that the constitution is a road bump, yet there are still uneducated, idiots or bums looking for free habdouts that support these scumbags pieces of shit
-
Personally, I think a flat-rate income tax, or "per person tax", where every american pays $2k a year for roads and national defense, is the most fair way to do it.
If you don't like your "america fee", you can move. These nukes and roads aren't free. Or, just make it a consumption deal.
The idea of "you make more, you should pay more" is completely unfair, without a doubt.
What was the tax position of the founding fathers? Anyone know? Who got taxed what in 1800, 1810, 1820?
-
Personally, I think a flat-rate income tax, or "per person tax", where every american pays $2k a year for roads and national defense, is the most fair way to do it.
If you don't like your "america fee", you can move. These nukes and roads aren't free. Or, just make it a consumption deal.
The idea of "you make more, you should pay more" is completely unfair, without a doubt.
What was the tax position of the founding fathers? Anyone know? Who got taxed what in 1800, 1810, 1820?
The govt was very small and existed mostly off of tariffs and duties.
-
'The govt was very small and existed mostly off of tariffs and duties. '
Did the founding fathers charge more taxes from the rich, than they did from the poor? Does anybody know? Was it FAIR and EQUAL then? Or has this "earn more, pay more" policy been there for 100% of American history?
-
And FYI for our constitutional law internet scholars, taxing for the general welfare does not automatically make it constitutional to levy a tax for every single thing that Congress can somehow claim falls under the guise of "General Welfare". Talk about a slippery slope, the tax code in this country would quadruple in size over night if that were true. Next up, a tax on oxygen, sunlight and being ugly. The money from those three taxes will be put in play to create a government agency dedicated to giving poor, unattractive people plastic surgery, or killing them-- whatever Uncle Sam feels is best.
There is no federal police power. States have traditionally taken the initiative to regulate their own healthcare systems.
-
No kidding Bindare. That is why most of these libs have ZERO clue about what the hell they are talking about.
Why do you want some people with pre-existing medical conditions to pay out the arse?
-
'The govt was very small and existed mostly off of tariffs and duties. '
Did the founding fathers charge more taxes from the rich, than they did from the poor? Does anybody know? Was it FAIR and EQUAL then? Or has this "earn more, pay more" policy been there for 100% of American history?
Lincoln was the first to enact a National Income Tax in order to pay for the Civil War to raise and sustain an Army. Lincoln signed the Revenue Act of 1861 This created a flat tax of 3% on incomes above $800 ($19,307 in current dollars), which was later changed by the Revenue Act of 1862 to a progressive rate structure.
The Revenue Act of 1862 (July 1, 1862, Ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432), was passed by the United States Congress to help fund the American Civil War. The Act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln, introducing the first progressive rate income tax to the country.
The office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was established,[1] with the Act specifying that Federal income tax was a temporary measure that would terminate in "the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six").
Annual income of U.S. residents, to the extent it exceeded $600, was taxed at a 3% rate; those earning over $10,000 per year were taxed at a 5% rate.[2] With respect to the income tax liability generated by the salaries of "officers, or payments to persons in the civil, military, naval, or other employment or service of the United States, including senators and representatives and delegates in Congress", the law also imposed a duty on paymasters to deduct and withhold the income tax, and to send the withheld tax to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.[3]
This Act repealed the flat rate income tax that had been established by the Revenue Act of the previous year.
To assure timely collection, income tax was "withheld at the source" by the employer.
-
Lincoln was the first to enact a National Income Tax in order to pay for the Civil War to raise and sustain an Army. Lincoln signed the Revenue Act of 1861 This created a flat tax of 3% on incomes above $800 ($19,307 in current dollars), which was later changed by the Revenue Act of 1862 to a progressive rate structure.
The Revenue Act of 1862 (July 1, 1862, Ch. 119, 12 Stat. 432), was passed by the United States Congress to help fund the American Civil War. The Act was signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln, introducing the first progressive rate income tax to the country.
The office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was established,[1] with the Act specifying that Federal income tax was a temporary measure that would terminate in "the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six").
Annual income of U.S. residents, to the extent it exceeded $600, was taxed at a 3% rate; those earning over $10,000 per year were taxed at a 5% rate.[2] With respect to the income tax liability generated by the salaries of "officers, or payments to persons in the civil, military, naval, or other employment or service of the United States, including senators and representatives and delegates in Congress", the law also imposed a duty on paymasters to deduct and withhold the income tax, and to send the withheld tax to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.[3]
This Act repealed the flat rate income tax that had been established by the Revenue Act of the previous year.
To assure timely collection, income tax was "withheld at the source" by the employer.
Numbers are adjusted for inflation. So in today`s dollars anyone making up to 13,259 was taxed at 3 percent and anyone making over 220,993 was taxed at 5 percent in the 1862 Revenue Act.
$600=$13,259
$10,000=$220,993
-
And FYI for our constitutional law internet scholars, taxing for the general welfare does not automatically make it constitutional to levy a tax for every single thing that Congress can somehow claim falls under the guise of "General Welfare". Talk about a slippery slope, the tax code in this country would quadruple in size over night if that were true. Next up, a tax on oxygen, sunlight and being ugly. The money from those three taxes will be put in play to create a government agency dedicated to giving poor, unattractive people plastic surgery, or killing them-- whatever Uncle Sam feels is best.
There is no federal police power. States have traditionally taken the initiative to regulate their own healthcare systems.
After Lincoln`s tax plan expired in 1866 for the war, it wasn`t until 1894 that the Income Tax would return with the Wilson-Gorman tariff, which imposed the first peacetime income tax. The rate was 2% on income over $4000, which meant fewer than 10% of households would pay any.
So in effect, taxing the rich.
-
History of top rates
In 1913, the top tax rate was 7% on incomes above $500,000 ($10 million 2007 dollars).
During World War I, the top rate rose to 77% and the income threshold to be in this top bracket increased to $1,000,000 ($16 million 2007 dollars); after the war, the top rate was scaled down to a low of 24% and the income threshold for paying this rate fell to a low of $100,000 ($1 million 2007 dollars).
During the Great Depression and World War II, the top income tax rate rose from pre-war levels. In 1939, the top rate was 75% applied to incomes above $5,000,000 ($75 million 2007 dollars).
During 1944 and 1945, the top rate was its all-time high at 94% applied to income above $200,000.
Since 1964, the threshold for paying top income tax rate has generally been between $200,000 and $400,000. The one exception is the period from (stupid Ronald Reagan :-\)1982-1992 when the top income tax brackets were removed and incomes above around $100,000 (varies by year) paid the top rate.
From 1988-1990, the threshold for paying the top rate was even lower, with incomes above $29,750 to $32,450 ($51,000 2007 dollars) paying the top rate of 28% in those years.
-
Ah, so Obama is just doing what presidents ahve done for 150 years.
i agree it sucks, but we aren't going to change 150 years of history here.
-
Ah, so Obama is just doing what presidents ahve done for 150 years.
i agree it sucks, but we aren't going to change 150 years of history here.
::) ::)
-
Unreal.
I have to laugh at all of this, because somewhere along the line of history americans actually believe that the constitution is actually followed. It is a bullshit document that is used when it is convenient to government. It is NOT a living document, it has no power, it only has "power" when government abides by it/when they agree to stick to it and follow it. Otherwise like Bush said It is just a goddamned piece of paper. The american judicial system on all levels does not abide by it, so called law enforcement does not abide by it, military does not abide by it, so why would anyone think that at times of decision making such as americas so called Health Insurance, would anyone think that it would be abided by??? In all honesty this has become just another issue to scream about and while the masses are distracted by this a million other policies are put into place. BTW the military force in Iraq is now being moved to Afghanistan...has the news mentioned this to the masses in america? or are they too busy screaming about this to have heard?....
-
Unreal.
:o >:( Get that terd out of office.
And he read the bill three times. ::)
-
I have to laugh at all of this, because somewhere along the line of history americans actually believe that the constitution is actually followed. It is a bullshit document that is used when it is convenient to government. It is NOT a living document, it has no power, it only has "power" when government abides by it/when they agree to stick to it and follow it. Otherwise like Bush said It is just a goddamned piece of paper. The american judicial system on all levels does not abide by it, so called law enforcement does not abide by it, military does not abide by it, so why would anyone think that at times of decision making such as americas so called Health Insurance, would anyone think that it would be abided by??? In all honesty this has become just another issue to scream about and while the masses are distracted by this a million other policies are put into place. BTW the military force in Iraq is now being moved to Afghanistan...has the news mentioned this to the masses in america? or are they too busy screaming about this to have heard?....
Amen...(yes atheist)
-
Amen...(yes atheist)
So that makes it ok?
-
bump for jezz/True ass hat...whats uniformed about the way taxes are collected or distributed?
-
bump for jezz/True ass hat...whats uniformed about the way taxes are collected or distributed?
There is a Federal Tax Rate that has been voted on and passed.
Look, I told you my solution, it involves amending the Constitution, repealing all current Federal Taxes and installing a National Sales Tax with no tax on used items and necessities such as food and medicine and leaving States the power to add taxes if they see fit and are passed accordingly.
There is nothing Unconstitutional whatsoever about the Federal Income Tax. Does it suck. OF COURSE! But is it Unconstitutional? NOPE.
Just like President Bush, he never once abused his authority or made any move that was Unconstitutional.
-
There is a Federal Tax Rate that has been voted on and passed.
Look, I told you my solution, it involves amending the Constitution, repealing all current Federal Taxes and installing a National Sales Tax with no tax on used items and necessities such as food and medicine and leaving States the power to add taxes if they see fit and are passed accordingly.
There is nothing Unconstitutional whatsoever about the Federal Income Tax. Does it suck. OF COURSE! But is it Unconstitutional? NOPE.
Just like President Bush, he never once abused his authority or made any move that was Unconstitutional.
I never said it was unconstitutional...
my point is you cant use something as vague as "the general welfare" of the ppl to justify legislation...b/c everything could be deemed to be for the general welfare of the ppl
-
Lame explanation. Pathetic photo op. The picture of his wife and kids facing the camera. ::) I'd like to hear him put his claim that he read the entire healthcare bill three times in "context."
-
I have to laugh at all of this, because somewhere along the line of history americans actually believe that the constitution is actually followed. It is a bullshit document that is used when it is convenient to government. It is NOT a living document, it has no power, it only has "power" when government abides by it/when they agree to stick to it and follow it. Otherwise like Bush said It is just a goddamned piece of paper. The american judicial system on all levels does not abide by it, so called law enforcement does not abide by it, military does not abide by it, so why would anyone think that at times of decision making such as americas so called Health Insurance, would anyone think that it would be abided by??? In all honesty this has become just another issue to scream about and while the masses are distracted by this a million other policies are put into place. BTW the military force in Iraq is now being moved to Afghanistan...has the news mentioned this to the masses in america? or are they too busy screaming about this to have heard?....
Unfortunately you are right on. One of the best posts I've ever read here.
Name one "great" president in the last 100 years---hint: there aren't any. They just show up in DC, do little constructive work, waste money, give out favors to friends and make enemies around the world with foolish global policy not in the best interests of the country.
-
I never said it was unconstitutional...
my point is you cant use something as vague as "the general welfare" of the ppl to justify legislation...b/c everything could be deemed to be for the general welfare of the ppl
Sure you can. Lincoln used the Oath of office to justify the Civil War, raising of troops, suspension of Habeas Corpus among other things.
The very point of the Constitution is to be vague so it can be left open to interpretation for each succeeding generation of elected Representatives.