T1B

The florist sells flowers; the caterer, in this shit anology, doesn't sell pork, pulled or otherwise.

Moving Sale wrote:The florist sells flowers; the caterer, in this shit anology, doesn't sell pork, pulled or otherwise.

you really do suck at this analogy thing, don't you.

flowers is a broad category as is food.

gax wedding arrangement is a specific type of flowers just as a pulled pork sammich is a particular type of food. Both are offensive to some fairytale believers.

When this old lady starts telling someone he can't have a gax wedding cake or a pulled pork sammi, I will have a problem. Nobody tells me I can't have my gax......errrrrr pulled pork sammi. Nobody.

Gay weeding flowers are the same as any other flowers. Pork is not the same thing as pastrami you stupid fucking idiot.

shmick,

What you say is more fair, but, we do sort of need folks to keep breeding, especially respectable white folk. I would say just tax me based on my income. I am even enough of a fag commie lib to agree with a little bit of progressiveness, but NOBODY should get paid, ala the EITC. I don't give a fukk if Ronnie did sign it into law. It is welfare. It isn't a tax credit. The bottom earner should have skin in the game, even if it is half a percent. Doing away with the deductions would allow the top rate to come down. I think 25% should be the absolute max rate, maybe lower. It is enough of a fukking "fair share".

I would do away with every last deduction there is. Wanna have a fancy house, fine, just don't ask the tax payers to subsidize it through interest deductions. Same goes for all other deductions. The one that I am on the fence about is the IRA/401K deduction. But I even lean towards shitcanning it. Earn your money now, pay X% tax now.

This would force the IRS and many accountants/lawyers/lobbyists to find honest work.

A flat tax with absolutely no deductions is the only way to go. Start it at 2% for those making $20,000 or less and raise it 4% for each additional $20,000 in income until it tops out at 18% on $100,000 of income.

Done.


IRS shrinks to a fraction of its size. Taxes become a payroll exercise and filing a return takes minutes for even the shortest bus riders.

There should be no yearly return. No withholding. You simply pay your tax every pay day. Have a good week where you earn a lot of OT, you pay more. Do away with the IRS. You would have to have some sort of system to ensure that payroll taxes were collected, but it would be a fraction of the current IRS.

Diego in Seattle wrote: Your idea works for me, but the conservatives would never go for such an idea. It's obvious from their "gays want special rights" arguments that they don't want others to have what they have.

See this is where you libs just step all over your dicks. Consider this:

I consider myself conservative. I do not care what fags do, I do not care if they want to get married. If they get married, then they can get divorced and get completely fucked over like the rest of us who got divorced. A marriage should be a civil contract with no religious overtones in my opinion. You do realize this is really about hte huge amounts of money involved in fag weddings / divorces/ turkey baster kids etc..etc...right ?? I believe a woman has a right to go coat hanger on herself to spare us taxpayers the expense of supporting her ill conceived half breed bastard spawn. I believe we should lock our borders uptight and shoot every wetback who try's to cross. I do not believe public education should be provided in 13 different fucking languages. I would prefer a business has a right to refuse service to anyone they want to with out some pussy bleeding liberal screaming " discrimination". I am tired of criminals getting off sentences because the self sustaining court system depends on the revolving door to keep cops, attorneys and clerks working.

In my business as Mgo mentioned, if the check clears the bank we are good. I believe Americans have the right to keep and bear arms for self defense, hunting, and just because they want to. The government has no right to track my gun purchases other than to keep guns away from convicted felons, which has not worked out, and some limitations on fully automatic weapons, which there already are. Welfare leechs need to be drug tested and actively working to get the fuck off welfare. We need to stay the fuck out of other countries internal conflicts until you start executing American citizens in public, then we need to glass your asses. I feel government employees bear some responsibility to pay for their own fucking retirements and not the taxpayers.

Moving Sale wrote:Gay weeding flowers are the same as any other flowers. Pork is not the same thing as pastrami you stupid fucking idiot.

Cum drunk this early? Lost yet another case?

Christian florist doesn't provide flowers for faggot "weddings" for religious reasons. Goat shagging caterer doesn't provide pork for faggot weddings for religious reasons.

Be sure to tilt your head to the side tonight before your pass out.

Derron wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote: Your idea works for me, but the conservatives would never go for such an idea. It's obvious from their "gays want special rights" arguments that they don't want others to have what they have.

See this is where you libs just step all over your dicks. Consider this:

I consider myself conservative. I do not care what fags do, I do not care if they want to get married. If they get married, then they can get divorced and get completely fucked over like the rest of us who got divorced. A marriage should be a civil contract with no religious overtones in my opinion. You do realize this is really about hte huge amounts of money involved in fag weddings / divorces/ turkey baster kids etc..etc...right ?? I believe a woman has a right to go coat hanger on herself to spare us taxpayers the expense of supporting her ill conceived half breed bastard spawn. I believe we should lock our borders uptight and shoot every wetback who try's to cross. I do not believe public education should be provided in 13 different fucking languages. I would prefer a business has a right to refuse service to anyone they want to with out some pussy bleeding liberal screaming " discrimination". I am tired of criminals getting off sentences because the self sustaining court system depends on the revolving door to keep cops, attorneys and clerks working.

In my business as Mgo mentioned, if the check clears the bank we are good. I believe Americans have the right to keep and bear arms for self defense, hunting, and just because they want to. The government has no right to track my gun purchases other than to keep guns away from convicted felons, which has not worked out, and some limitations on fully automatic weapons, which there already are. Welfare leechs need to be drug tested and actively working to get the fuck off welfare. We need to stay the fuck out of other countries internal conflicts until you start executing American citizens in public, then we need to glass your asses. I feel government employees bear some responsibility to pay for their own fucking retirements and not the taxpayers.

You do realize that the republicans would consider you a RINO, don't you?

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Gay weeding flowers are the same as any other flowers. Pork is not the same thing as pastrami you stupid fucking idiot.

Cum drunk this early? Lost yet another case?

Be sure to tilt your head to the side tonight before your pass out.

Wait, What?

You want him to live?

You must have given up animosity for Lent.

schmick wrote: I dont consider food stamps, welfare, abortion, child care... as social issues, if we spend money on them or they can save us money, theyre fiscal issues

Fiscal, social I don't really care. The bottom line is that they are blatantly unconstitutional expenditures.

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Gay weeding flowers are the same as any other flowers. Pork is not the same thing as pastrami you stupid fucking idiot.

Cum drunk this early? Lost yet another case?

Christian florist doesn't provide flowers for faggot "weddings" for religious reasons. Goat shagging caterer doesn't provide pork for faggot weddings for religious reasons.

Be sure to tilt your head to the side tonight before your pass out.

Look you stupid shit the "gay" flowers are in the store. They are not forcing anyone to supply something they don't nomally supply. The deli has NO pork on hand, pulled or otherwise. Good gawd you people are dumb.

mvscal wrote:

schmick wrote: I dont consider food stamps, welfare, abortion, child care... as social issues, if we spend money on them or they can save us money, theyre fiscal issues

Fiscal, social I don't really care. The bottom line is that they are blatantly unconstitutional expenditures.

The national government can spend money on just about anything they want. (Art 3, sec 3, cl2)

Diego in Seattle wrote:
You do realize that the republicans would consider you a RINO, don't you?

I don't give a fuck what they call me. There are millions of people out there who identify as an (R), simply because there is not other choice. I will register as an Independent now that the Oregon primary is a moot point. The fundamental Bible bangers who believe they define the Republican party have managed to get some pub for that, of course helped out by all you libnards who want everyone to think that CONSERVATIVES are all Republicans, because that fits your Tea Bagger image that you want projected at all costs.

There are millions of CONSERVATIVES who would call themselves Constitutionalist's, and join and support a true Constitutional Party that got back to government by the Constitution, not by paid for lobbyists and certainly not pandering to every common denominator piece of shit looking for the government cheese.

Moving Sale wrote:They are not forcing anyone to supply something they don't nomally supply.

Faggot wedding aren't something they don't normally supply.

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote:

schmick wrote: I dont consider food stamps, welfare, abortion, child care... as social issues, if we spend money on them or they can save us money, theyre fiscal issues

Fiscal, social I don't really care. The bottom line is that they are blatantly unconstitutional expenditures.

The national government can spend money on just about anything they want. (Art 3, sec 3, cl2)

Uh, no, they can't. The items they can spend on are specifically enumerated.

mvscal wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:They are not forcing anyone to supply something they don't nomally supply.

Faggot wedding aren't something they don't normally supply.

But flowers are. Nobody is forcing them to supply the goods part of the goods and services with goods they don't already have in stock. Pick another anology you stupid racist fuck.

mvscal wrote:
Uh, no, they can't. The items they can spend on are specifically enumerated.

Art 1 doesn't help you. They fund a program, then they owe a debt. Anything else?

mvscal,

you are still hung up on the notion that the constitution was drawn primarily as a document to limit gubmint power?

How 18th century of you.

You need to evolve like the constitution has and barry's beliefs do, when ever polls indicate they should.

Moving Bowel wrote:The national government can spend money on just about anything they want. (Art 3, sec 3, cl2)

Article III section 3 is talking about treason.

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote:
Uh, no, they can't. The items they can spend on are specifically enumerated.

Art 1 doesn't help you. They fund a program, then they owe a debt. Anything else?

Programs have their funding cut all the time, idiot.

You also ignore the programs and agencies which they do not have the constitutional authority to establish in the first place.

poptart wrote:

Moving Bowel wrote:The national government can spend money on just about anything they want. (Art 3, sec 3, cl2)

Article III section 3 is talking about treason.

I fat fingered the 4. Art 4 not 3. Sorry about that.

Can the DEA enforce national pot laws in CA? No. It's not interstate commerce. I'm down with that, but the national government can fund just about any program they want. It might not be "fair" or even a good idea in your eyes, but it is clearly constitutional for the national government to pay debts and dispose of property how they see fit with very few exceptions.

Moving Sale wrote:...the national government can fund just about any program they want.

Highlight the section of the Constitution granting the nat'l government this authority.

I already did you stupid fucking cum target.

Moving Sale wrote:I already did you stupid fucking cum target.

Art 4. Section. 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Try again.

They can dispose of property (like money) any way they want. I know you are a stupid, vile, racist POS but you can read right?

Moving Sale wrote:They can dispose of property (like money) any way they want. I know you are a stupid, vile, racist POS but you can read right?

Money isn't 'Property', dumbfuck, and the purposes for which Congress may raise money are specifically itemized in Art. 1 Sec. 8.

You are a shit lawyer.

Jsc810 wrote:Holy shit. I'm pretty sure the Property Clause can't be used like that. I'm throwing the bullshit flag.

I admit that I haven't researched that point, so if there is some case or law review article that says otherwise, I'll reconsider. But until such evidence is shown, I'm staying with the bullshit call.

And I'm pretty sure the interstate commerce clause can't regulate intrastate commerce. Mind looking that one up too?

Are you saying money isn't property?

I cited the constitution. Sorry if you need somebody else to think for you.

And if you must have somebody think for you read the Minn law journal vol86 no1. It has a great background of the property clause and reasons why it should be used more. Now professor Appel doesn't go as far as calling money printed by the government on paper owned by the government with ink owned by the government, government "property" but it is a good read and will show you why I'm right.

What a damn embarrassment.

Stfu, dude.

Seriously.

Says the guy who ALWAYS lets other people think for him. When I need someone to interpret Cinderella or some other fairytale I'll give you a ring.

Moving Sale wrote:Are you saying money isn't property?

The national government issues money. It doesn't own money. The only monies the national government are entitled to control are those raised by taxation for the specific functions granted to it by the States and the People under the Constitution.

The clear purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of government. Therefore any interpretation of a clause of the Constitution must, properly, be as narrowly and specifically construed as possible. In a sane world, anyone advocating broad, ambiguous interpretations of the Constitution which increase the scope of government would be stood against a wall and shot as enemies of the People.

The context of Article 4 Section 3 plainly concerns the disposition of real property. Period. Full stop. There is no other plausible or legitimate interpretation of the clause.

Then how do they dispose of used military equipment?

Moving Sale wrote:Then how do they dispose of used military equipment?

Per Article 1, Section 8:

...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, dock-Yards, 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.

MRAPs are not "Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings."

This equipment is stored where? Take your time.

They are also not "places" you stupid vile racist. Try again cumrag.

Unfortunately for your shit take, military equipment is totally irrelevant to A4S3. Military hardware isn't real property. It is stored in real property.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,...To raise and support Armies,

Which means

Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

are necessary to that designated function.