On 2017-03-21 18:02, Ron Hunter wrote:
On 3/21/2017 9:20 AM, Wolf K. wrote:
On 2017-03-21 09:51, Disaster Master wrote:
On 3/20/2017, 9:47:19 PM, Wolf K. <wolfmac@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2017-03-20 13:39, Disaster Master wrote:
On 3/20/2017, 1:27:00 PM, Caver1 <caver1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You stated that taxes are wrong because they are forced at
Good lord, I NEVER said that. You are such an idiot.
You have claimed that taxes are collected at gunpoint.
Yes, and I stand by it. Do you not see the difference in that, and what
Caver1 said I said?
WRT to welfare, you claimed that the money paid to those people who
don't deserve it was
stolen from their neighbours, friends, etc.
Yes, and I stand by it.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several
without regard to any census or enumeration.
So, what is your point? The existence of the 16th amendment doesn't
change the factual nature of either of the two points above.
Taking something from someone against their will, at gunpoint, is theft,
pure and simple. The fact that it is LEGALIZED theft engaged in by a
gang of thugs who got together, voted (without my knowledge, consent or
participation) and wrote something down on a piece of paper that says
they have the right to do it doesn't change the nature of the act.
So you pick and choose from the Constitution to suit yourself.
I suppose the 2nd Amendment meets with your approval and support, even
though it was written down by a bunch of thugs without your knowledge,
consent, or participation?
Have a good day,
I wasn't there, but if I had been, I would have insisted they make the
intent more specific, and clear, so people like you could understand
Well, I understand 18th century English pretty well, having concentrated
on that time period in my study of literature. Back then, the "absolute
ablative" was common (in one of its forms it is now condemned as a
"dangling participle"). The reference to a "well regulated militia" is
clearly intended as naming the context for interpreting the amendment.
C18 writers used commas to signal subordination, something rarely done
these days, especially in American writing. A modern American writer
would omit the first and last commas. If you rewrite it without those
commas, and the intent is I think quite clear.
"What good is it having lower taxes when you can’t drink the water?”
general mailing list