+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Schadenfreude (/thread-220979.html)
- Rebel - 08-18-2003 10:19 PM
Tell me, ohh educated one that thinks Feudalism is as free a system as we enjoy here, which section of the U.S. Constitution covers the right to someone else's assets? I have searched and searched........my memory of reading, debating, studying, etc. it, and just can't find it.
Maybe you can help me.
<a href='http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html' target='_blank'>What I Would Kill and Die for</a>
- Rebel - 08-19-2003 01:57 PM
No reply great one?
- T-Monay820 - 08-19-2003 02:10 PM
He doesn't respond cause there isn't a good enough case to argue against your statement. He does it to me all the time. Ignores statements and comes up with his own stuff out of the blue. Random stuff too that has nothing to do with the argument. He can't face the facts that he's fighting a losing war and he's on the losing side.
- Schadenfreude - 08-19-2003 07:20 PM
Actually, I was busy earning a living.
How about:
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.
Of course, you said "assets," which is not the same thing as "income." But then, I assume you are flailing at some point I made -- and I never brough up assets.
- calling_the_hogs - 08-19-2003 08:33 PM
The article is right...the debate is simple.
Liberals in Shad's corner are socialist..they want everyone to pay high taxes, and gov't to redistribute the wealth.
I say screw the income tax, install a nat'l sales tax, let middle class families be rewarded for saving money, control gov't spending, and the country will benefit from it
WPS
- Rebel - 08-19-2003 08:40 PM
How about Article 1, section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution that states:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, <span style='color:blue'>to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;</span> <span style='color:red'>but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;</span>
....provide FOR the general welfare does not MEAN provide general welfare simpleton.
- Rebel - 08-19-2003 08:42 PM
....and CAH, I see you've been reading 'ole Boortz. Good idea. He's awesome for the movement. John Linder is awesome and a 'Jawga boy at that.
- Schadenfreude - 08-19-2003 08:52 PM
This clause, italicized:
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
Is pretty obviously negated by this clause, also italicized:
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.
And that assumes the first clause even needs to be negated. I could ruminate on the specific meaning of "Duties, Imposts and Excises," but I believe I've made my point.
- Rebel - 08-19-2003 08:55 PM
Schadenfreude Wrote:This clause, italicized:Can you even DEFINE enumeration? It has NOTHING to do with income. It means it doesn't matter that one state pays more.
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
Is pretty obviously negated by this clause, also italicized:
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.
And that assumes the first clause even needs to be negated. I could ruminate on the specific meaning of "Duties, Imposts and Excises," but I believe I've made my point.
- Rebel - 08-19-2003 08:57 PM
....and the 16th amendment is as bad as the 17th that gave NO power to the states. BOTH should be abolished.
Of course, the 16th is unconstitutional because they didn't have the votes to ratify it.
- Schadenfreude - 08-19-2003 09:27 PM
Quote:....and the 16th amendment is as bad as the 17th that gave NO power to the states. BOTH should be abolished.
Of course, the 16th is unconstitutional because they didn't have the votes to ratify it.
I thought you would die to defend the constitution?
I didn't realize you meant "my weird interpretation of the constitution, with some things taken out."
My bad.
- T-Monay820 - 08-19-2003 09:50 PM
You're a moron schad. You can dislike parts of the constitution and still defend its meaning. Just like I'm sure there's soldiers who dislike Bush, but still are serving to defend the country which he represents. You are a typical liberal, twisting words around to your benefit because your argurments are weak.
- Rebel - 08-19-2003 09:56 PM
Schadenfreude Wrote:^ Someone that doesn't know what the **** an amendment is.Quote:....and the 16th amendment is as bad as the 17th that gave NO power to the states. BOTH should be abolished.
Of course, the 16th is unconstitutional because they didn't have the votes to ratify it.
I thought you would die to defend the constitution?
I didn't realize you meant "my weird interpretation of the constitution, with some things taken out."
My bad.
MY Constitution is the US Constitution itself and the 10 amendments.
- Rebel - 08-19-2003 10:11 PM
Well Schad? Show me where one has a right to another's assets. So far, you have failed.
- Schadenfreude - 08-19-2003 11:32 PM
Quote:Show me where one has a right to another's assets. So far, you have failed.
Who ever said anything about "assets" except for you?
The income tax is constitutional. Get over it.
- Rebel - 08-20-2003 12:37 AM
Schadenfreude Wrote:...and where in the **** does income tax come from? ASSETS! Be they income, etc.Quote:Show me where one has a right to another's assets. So far, you have failed.
Who ever said anything about "assets" except for you?
The income tax is constitutional. Get over it.
How 'bout a big DUH'HUH!
Income Tax is constitutional. The way it is today, is not. The Progressive, or shall we say REgressive because anytime you punish success is by definition, to regress, IS Unconstitutional. Uniform. That's in the Constitution.
- Schadenfreude - 08-20-2003 06:31 AM
:rolleyes:
- calling_the_hogs - 08-26-2003 08:24 AM
Schadenfreude Wrote:This clause, italicized:No one ever says that taxes aren't constitutional.
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
Is pretty obviously negated by this clause, also italicized:
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.
The questions that always come to focus is how to spend the money that's given to the US government by taxpayers. As much as the Dems hate it, the Founding Fathers, in the Constitution, made one of those things very clear... a "Common Defence".
The rest is for the general welfare. For Shad's group, this means everything under the sun should be paid for by the government. For Dems, it's most all projects. I tend to disagree.
Taxes are needed to help fund things vital to our country. I just think there's a time where citizens are taxed TOO much, and government spending runs rampant, and that's where we fall into trouble. We all know that far-left, Shad-like, near socialist economies DO NOT WORK. Need examples? Try Cuba for one.
I remain firm on eliminating the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax. That limits government spending, it forces the gov't to spend money more wisely, and middle-class families who are trying to save $$ aren't punished for doing so. I think that would be a start to eliminating a lot of government waste and making government more efficient and better for Americans.
- T-Monay820 - 08-26-2003 06:08 PM
calling_the_hogs Wrote:We all know that far-left, Shad-like, near socialist economies DO NOT WORK. Need examples? Try Cuba for one.
- Rebel - 08-26-2003 07:16 PM
Quote:Communism, socialism, and dictators suck.
Nice Sig T.
