Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Huckabee is still lying about the “fairtax”.

Huckabee is still lying about the “fairtax”.
Thread Tools
johnwk
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2015, 07:34 AM
 
During the first presidential debate Mike Huckabee once again touted the fairtax proposal, and once again Mike Huckabee has lied about the “fairtax” (see H.R.25 - FairTax Act of 2015. Unfortunately our media personalities will not ask him to support his contentions about the fairtax
.
Huckabee alleges the fairtax would close down the IRS and would replace our current system with a consumption tax. But the truth is, when one takes the time to actually read and study the fairtax legislation, quite the contrary is true.

The fair tax proposes to create two new taxes, a 23 percent tax upon the sale of articles of consumption and another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor while keeping alive Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other lawfully earned incomes.

In fact, Huckabee’s fairtax would create two new tax collecting agencies, an “Excise Tax Bureau” and the “Sales Tax Bureau, in addition to keeping the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms alive which will also be collecting taxes.

It should also be noted that under Huckabee’s “fairtax” ordinary working people who dare to sell the property they have in their own labor are required to register with the federal government and file federal fairtax returns under the penalty of perjury 12 times a freaken year, and they will be compelled to keep any records Congress may dream up, not to mention the threat of audits which will constantly haunt them.

It should also be noted Huckabee’s fairtax proposes to create a new entitlement called the “FAMILY CONSUMPTION ALLOWANCE” under which qualified families will receive a monthly check to pay for a rationed amount of tax free necessities of life, which in turn would make a whole new block of voters with limited economic means extremely dependent upon the federal government for a monthly subsistence check!

If Mike Huckabee were sincere in wanting to force Congress to move to a consumption tax, and end all federal taxes calculated from profits, gains and other lawfully earned “incomes”, and he really wanted to close down the IRS, he would be promoting the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment which begins with the following 32 words:


“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

Those words would in fact force Congress to return to a consumption based tax system (imposts, duties and excise taxes), and would actually end all federal taxes calculated from lawfully earned profits, gains and other "incomes"!

JWK




“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2015, 11:56 AM
 
     
johnwk  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2015, 08:13 PM
 
Did you have a point to make?


JWK
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2015, 08:18 PM
 
Yes. A hugely important one.

Do you need it explained?
     
johnwk  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2015, 08:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Yes. A hugely important one.

Do you need it explained?
Explain. I have no idea what your post was intended to mean.


JWK
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2015, 12:03 PM
 
I'm demonstrating an equivalent amount of respect to the presenter as the presenter is showing his audience.

If you can't do more than cut and paste blog entries, you should expect no more than the equivalent effort in return.
     
johnwk  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2015, 02:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm demonstrating an equivalent amount of respect to the presenter as the presenter is showing his audience.

If you can't do more than cut and paste blog entries, you should expect no more than the equivalent effort in return.
In other words you have nothing to add to the discussion. Do you get paid for trolling?


JWK
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2015, 03:15 PM
 
Like you even care.

As if I'm a real person rather than a toilet for you to dump rants into.

But by all means... take a shit on my head and call it "discussion". I'm sure that works for you otherwise you wouldn't do it.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2015, 09:37 PM
 
The things that you guys like suck, and all of the things you believe are not true.

Let's ratchet up the confrontation in here, you goddamn sons of bitches.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2015, 11:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
In other words you have nothing to add to the discussion. Do you get paid for trolling?


JWK
John, as a fellow right winger & libertarian it seems to me your posts have the opposite of what is presumably your reason for posting (to convince people). Cutting and pasting from blogs gives a strong impression that you're working for some kind of advocacy group, and I've yet to see you argue your position interactively. Quit making the RW look stupid - we've got enough of that to go around. Subego would gladly (i assume) converse with you but given you started the thread - the ball is your court. I'd be happy to add my piece to it but as you seem to post & run more often than not - I'm not sure it's worth my time.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2015, 11:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
In other words you have nothing to add to the discussion. Do you get paid for trolling?


JWK
Do yo gett paid for regurgitating your source material?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2015, 11:36 PM
 
johnwk: are you Abe? Hint: ignoring this question will make us believe you are.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2015, 01:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
johnwk: are you Abe? Hint: ignoring this question will make us believe you are.
Sorry bess, i don't think it's abe. could be wrong, though.
     
johnwk  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2015, 07:29 AM
 
Rand Paul only supports our Constitution when it suites his own purpose!


During Thursday night’s debate Rand Paul babbled on and on to Governor Christie how he supports our Constitution. But when it comes to Rand Paul and tax reform he ignores the very purpose for which the rule of apportionment was put into our Constitution.

Rand Paul's flat tax on incomes seeks out the most productive hard working citizens and business owners and would have them finance the Washington Establishment's wastfull and often unconstitutional expenditures, while allowing the least productive citizens to not pay an equal share, or any share at all! The rule of apportionment was intended to provide protection against Rand Paul's type of tax tyranny. Under the rule of apportionment and whenever Congress decided to tax the people directly, as could happen under a capitation tax, it was to be an equal per capita type of tax, and not an unequal tax in which the most productive citizens would be forced to contribute and unequal share. But what are we to expect from a wet-behind-the-ears little squirt like Rand Paul?

Does this not expose Rand Paul for the hypocrite he is, and who, like most of our politicians in Washington, is unwilling to offer real tax reform which begins with the following 32 words?



“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.


JWK



Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2015, 09:26 AM
 
I still never got an answer from John as to how Jindal's views and actions were constitutional in the other thread.

Also, crying about taxes is the most base complaint.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2015, 04:54 PM
 
John:

The republican wing of the NN forums hereby disowns you for blasting propaganda and failing to engage in any meaningful conversation.

Huckabee is still lying about the “fairtax”. - Defending The Truth Political Forum

Verbatim on like 15 other forums. Please go away - you make us look stupid.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2015, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Please go away - you make us look stupid.
Nah, his obsession is solitary.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2015, 05:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
John:

The republican wing of the NN forums hereby disowns you for blasting propaganda and failing to engage in any meaningful conversation.

Huckabee is still lying about the “fairtax”. - Defending The Truth Political Forum

Verbatim on like 15 other forums. Please go away - you make us look stupid.
I made the mistake of trying to engage him in a substantive discussion once. It became quite clear that he was only interested in a "post and run". His responses were nominal at best. I wonder if he's working on commission or something?

OAW
     
unicast reversepath
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2015, 06:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
Rand Paul only supports our Constitution when it suites his own purpose!


During Thursday night’s debate Rand Paul babbled on and on to Governor Christie how he supports our Constitution. But when it comes to Rand Paul and tax reform he ignores the very purpose for which the rule of apportionment was put into our Constitution.

Rand Paul's flat tax on incomes seeks out the most productive hard working citizens and business owners and would have them finance the Washington Establishment's wastfull and often unconstitutional expenditures, while allowing the least productive citizens to not pay an equal share, or any share at all! The rule of apportionment was intended to provide protection against Rand Paul's type of tax tyranny. Under the rule of apportionment and whenever Congress decided to tax the people directly, as could happen under a capitation tax, it was to be an equal per capita type of tax, and not an unequal tax in which the most productive citizens would be forced to contribute and unequal share. But what are we to expect from a wet-behind-the-ears little squirt like Rand Paul?

Does this not expose Rand Paul for the hypocrite he is, and who, like most of our politicians in Washington, is unwilling to offer real tax reform which begins with the following 32 words?



“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.


JWK



Are we really ok with 45 percent of our nation’s population who pay no taxes on incomes being allowed to vote for representatives who spend federal revenue which the remaining 55 percent of our nation’s hard working and productive population has contributed into our federal treasury via taxes on incomes when our Constitution requires “Representatives and direct taxes Shall be apportioned among the Several States”?
TL;DR

I heard that Rand Paul really Really REALLY likes Campbell's soup,
and that tomato is his second choice, right behind chicken noodle!
He also only eats organic wheat crackers with his soup! OMG !!!!
( Last edited by unicast reversepath; Aug 15, 2015 at 01:11 AM. )
If you have Ghosts, you have Everything!
     
johnwk  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2015, 07:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I made the mistake of trying to engage him in a substantive discussion once. It became quite clear that he was only interested in a "post and run". His responses were nominal at best. I wonder if he's working on commission or something?

OAW
I do not intend to waste time responding to comments which do not address what I have written, or misrepresent what I have written. And those who find it necessary to post insulting remarks should not expect me to respond.

JWK
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2015, 08:09 PM
 
If by "addressing what you have written" you mean blindly accepting your premises then you are right. You shouldn't waste your time. Even those who would otherwise be somewhat sympathetic to your views aren't really fans of your spammy threads. And you wonder why they are routinely ghost towns? Carry on ...

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Aug 11, 2015 at 08:23 PM. )
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2015, 12:39 PM
 
The question I have is how do you build a big enough consensus to repeal a constitutional amendment?

Sniping at the two candidates who are closest to this position is a... curious approach to the goal.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2015, 01:14 PM
 
I mean, I get the impression that you (John), support the idea of a flat tax, you just want a different implementation. Right?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2015, 01:18 PM
 
No, he wants the income tax abolished.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2015, 01:28 PM
 
To be replaced with a flat consumption tax.
     
johnwk  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2015, 02:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I mean, I get the impression that you (John), support the idea of a flat tax, you just want a different implementation. Right?
Actually, what I support is a return to our Constitution's original tax plan and that is why I support the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment.


The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.


NOTE: these words would return us to our founding father’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.


"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."


NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE

Total U.S. Population


The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation!



Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is determined by the rule of apportionment:


State`s Pop.
------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.



"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.


JWK


“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2015, 02:47 PM
 
What is your preferred method of a state raising its portion?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2015, 03:03 PM
 
Cutting spending.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2015, 03:11 PM
 
Allow me to rephrase.

What's the "best practice" for a state to raise income.

We can pick any given state as an example if the point is states have different best practices.
     
johnwk  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2015, 06:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Allow me to rephrase.

What's the "best practice" for a state to raise income.

We can pick any given state as an example if the point is states have different best practices.
The states are free to transfer their share from their own state treasury into the U.S. Treasury, or raise additional revenue as they now do and then transfer their share into the Treasury of the United States.


For an example of this apportioned tax see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.


JWK

“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2015, 08:02 PM
 
The constitution sucks ass.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2015, 07:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
The states are free to transfer their share from their own state treasury into the U.S. Treasury, or raise additional revenue as they now do and then transfer their share into the Treasury of the United States.


For an example of this apportioned tax see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied.

And then see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time.


JWK

“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

So a state can just make an income tax?

Do you have a preferred way of states raising taxes? Consumption tax?
     
johnwk  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2015, 01:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So a state can just make an income tax?
How do you arrive at that thinking?

No! I have no interest in how each state ponies up their apportioned share. It's not my business.


JWK


To support Jeb Bush or John Kasich is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving legal status and work permits to tens of millions who have invaded our borders!

     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2015, 01:44 PM
 
Can you tell me in two or three sentences what the allowable range of state taxes are?

I don't expect an all inclusive list, I'm trying to get an idea.

I didn't see any obvious state limits in the links you posted. As an alternative, can you direct me to the part where it discusses limits?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2015, 03:02 PM
 
Also, shouldn't you figure out what your income is before you allocate for expenses?

This system appears to do the reverse. The federal government allocates expenses, and then income from the states is assumed regardless of practicability.

Maybe we abandoned this system for a reason.
     
johnwk  (op)
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2015, 04:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Can you tell me in two or three sentences what the allowable range of state taxes are?

I don't expect an all inclusive list, I'm trying to get an idea.
What you are trying to do is avoid the topic of the thread.


JWK
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2015, 05:05 PM
 
Your proposed tax policy isn't on topic?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2015, 06:00 PM
 
Here, allow me to rephrase my question.

I don't care what states do either. I do care about what limits you propose putting on the states.

You say the states cannot make an income tax. I did not see that limitation in the text you provided. Can you point out the relevant clause?
     
unicast reversepath
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2015, 01:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The constitution sucks ass.

hey hoser - take off, eh?
If you have Ghosts, you have Everything!
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2015, 02:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by unicast reversepath View Post
hey hoser - take off, eh?
I'm American, so my opinions are therefore valid.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2015, 10:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm American, so my opinions are therefore valid.
There are quite a few Americans whose opinions I ignore, with good reason. (You can thank all the Social Justice types.)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2015, 03:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm American, so my opinions are therefore valid.
Apple and oranges.
     
unicast reversepath
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2015, 10:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm American, so my opinions are therefore valid.
I thought you were cnoodlian??


anyway, you are toatally full of shark poop - the constitution does not suck ass.

The jackasses betraying the constitution and this country (the congress, senate, supreme court, and the current empty suit POTUS) are the ones that suck ass.
If you have Ghosts, you have Everything!
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 15, 2015, 11:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by unicast reversepath View Post
I thought you were cnoodlian??


anyway, you are toatally full of shark gamble - the constitution does not suck ass.

The jackasses betraying the constitution and this country (the congress, senate, supreme court, and the current empty suit POTUS) are the ones that suck ass.

The constitution itself doesn't suck ass, but the way it is used by ideologues and special interests to get what they want by assigning elevated reverence to parts of it does. Are there other countries where their constitutions are used this way?
     
unicast reversepath
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: 3rd Rock from the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 18, 2015, 04:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The constitution itself doesn't suck ass, but the way it is used by ideologues and special interests to get what they want by assigning elevated reverence to parts of it does. Are there other countries where their constitutions are used this way?

thanks for the clarification!





*it appears that you really have been censored from using the word poop in your posts - even when quoting another post!
If you have Ghosts, you have Everything!
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:44 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,