[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[bripat9643]

Sorry, but every Constitutional scholar says the Constitution states implicitly that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the document means.

Wrong, worm. Although the boot-licking variety you admire say that, many others disagree.

I have no problem with people who disagree. The cognitive dissonance created when that happens inspires learners to education.

Yeah, you have no problem with people who disagree. You just want to show them how tough times can be, right?

Only the most servile kind of boot-licker believes the Constitution implies the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the document. There is no language in it that comes anywhere close to implying that.

 

[PMZ]

Wrong, worm. Although the boot-licking variety you admire say that, many others disagree.

I have no problem with people who disagree. The cognitive dissonance created when that happens inspires learners to education.

Yeah, you have no problem with people who disagree. You just want to show them how tough times can be, right?

Only the most servile kind of boot-licker believes the Constitution implies the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the document. There is no language in it that comes anywhere close to implying that.

We have Constitutional idiots like Limbaugh agreeing with you, and Constitutional scholars disagreeing. I have avoided the trouble that you haven't, deciding between the two sources.

 

[bripat9643]

I have no problem with people who disagree. The cognitive dissonance created when that happens inspires learners to education.

Yeah, you have no problem with people who disagree. You just want to show them how tough times can be, right?

Only the most servile kind of boot-licker believes the Constitution implies the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the document. There is no language in it that comes anywhere close to implying that.

We have Constitutional idiots like Limbaugh agreeing with you, and Constitutional scholars disagreeing. I have avoided the trouble that you haven't, deciding between the two sources.

As I said previously, there are so-called "constitutional scholars" on both sides of the issue. There are the Marxist demagogues like Obama who agree with you, and then there are honest scholars.

 

[PMZ]

Yeah, you have no problem with people who disagree. You just want to show them how tough times can be, right?

Only the most servile kind of boot-licker believes the Constitution implies the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the document. There is no language in it that comes anywhere close to implying that.

We have Constitutional idiots like Limbaugh agreeing with you, and Constitutional scholars disagreeing. I have avoided the trouble that you haven't, deciding between the two sources.

As I said previously, there are so-called "constitutional scholars" on both sides of the issue. There are the Marxist demagogues like Obama who agree with you, and then there are honest scholars.

The Constitutional Scholars that count are on the Supreme Court. Not on the airwaves.

 

[bripat9643]

We have Constitutional idiots like Limbaugh agreeing with you, and Constitutional scholars disagreeing. I have avoided the trouble that you haven't, deciding between the two sources.

As I said previously, there are so-called "constitutional scholars" on both sides of the issue. There are the Marxist demagogues like Obama who agree with you, and then there are honest scholars.

The Constitutional Scholars that count are on the Supreme Court. Not on the airwaves.

Appeal to authority - your favorite logical fallacy.

 

[PMZ]

As I said previously, there are so-called "constitutional scholars" on both sides of the issue. There are the Marxist demagogues like Obama who agree with you, and then there are honest scholars.

The Constitutional Scholars that count are on the Supreme Court. Not on the airwaves.

Appeal to authority - your favorite logical fallacy.

No. Appeal to reality. Something you are, apparently, unable to do.

 

[bripat9643]

The Constitutional Scholars that count are on the Supreme Court. Not on the airwaves.

Appeal to authority - your favorite logical fallacy.

No. Appeal to reality. Something you are, apparently, unable to do.

Now you're declaring yourself the authority.

You really aren't very good at this logic stuff, are you?

 

[PMZ]

Appeal to authority - your favorite logical fallacy.

No. Appeal to reality. Something you are, apparently, unable to do.

Now you're declaring yourself the authority.

You really aren't very good at this logic stuff, are you?

I'm very good at reality. You should try it sometime.

 

[ShawnChris13]

The reality is that over time the words of the constitution have been interpreted and practiced according to people who wished to change the laws to suit their means. Each court case quoted is ample proof of how lawyers have argued away rights or responsibilities previously conferred to individuals or the government according to the desire of those paying for the lawyers. Judges rule based on lawyers arguments. Lawyers argue based on their payment.

 

[bripat9643]

No. Appeal to reality. Something you are, apparently, unable to do.

Now you're declaring yourself the authority.

You really aren't very good at this logic stuff, are you?

I'm very good at reality. You should try it sometime.

No, you aren't good at reality. For example, you believe other people will accept what you say as fact simply because you've said it. That indicates delusions of grandeur, not a good relationship with reality.

 

[johnwk]

You are welcome to your rant. What you wish was true. Your opinion.

What you are not welcome to is our government or our country.

It's his government just as much as it's your government, worm.

The difference is that I support it, and he wants, like you, to destroy it.

I noticed you have not challenged anything I have posted regarding our Constitution and provided sufficient supportive documentation. I also know you have not posted when the American People debated giving power to Congress to regulate their medical and health care decisions and then approved the delegation of such power via our Constitution’s amendment process as outlined in Article V.

Finally, I noticed you have not identified what specific tax allowed by our Constitution may be levied upon a citizen of the United States for not having federally approved health insurance. Care to share that information with us?


JWK



They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

 

[OODA_Loop]

Finally, I noticed you have not identified what specific tax allowed by our Constitution may be levied upon a citizen of the United States for not having federally approved health insurance. Care to share that information with us?

Beginning on January 1, 2014, all applicable individuals will be required to maintain “minimum essential coverage”, each month, for themselves and their dependents.

Failure to maintain coverage will result in a penalty which will be calculated and included on the taxpayer’s individual tax return.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Finally, I noticed you have not identified what specific tax allowed by our Constitution may be levied upon a citizen of the United States for not having federally approved health insurance. Care to share that information with us?

Beginning on January 1, 2014, all applicable individuals will be required to maintain “minimum essential coverage”, each month, for themselves and their dependents.

Failure to maintain coverage will result in a penalty which will be calculated and included on the taxpayer’s individual tax return.

January 1 2014 a day that shall live in infamy

 

[johnwk]

Finally, I noticed you have not identified what specific tax allowed by our Constitution may be levied upon a citizen of the United States for not having federally approved health insurance. Care to share that information with us?

Beginning on January 1, 2014, all applicable individuals will be required to maintain “minimum essential coverage”, each month, for themselves and their dependents.

Failure to maintain coverage will result in a penalty which will be calculated and included on the taxpayer’s individual tax return.

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I posted.


JWK


If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

 

[PMZ]

The reality is that over time the words of the constitution have been interpreted and practiced according to people who wished to change the laws to suit their means. Each court case quoted is ample proof of how lawyers have argued away rights or responsibilities previously conferred to individuals or the government according to the desire of those paying for the lawyers. Judges rule based on lawyers arguments. Lawyers argue based on their payment.

You apparently don't like America much.

 

[PMZ]

Now you're declaring yourself the authority.

You really aren't very good at this logic stuff, are you?

I'm very good at reality. You should try it sometime.

No, you aren't good at reality. For example, you believe other people will accept what you say as fact simply because you've said it. That indicates delusions of grandeur, not a good relationship with reality.

Delusions, by definition, are not reality. That's why you never fare well in these discussions. You are full of propaganda and nearly devoid of reality.

 

[johnwk]

The reality is that over time the words of the constitution have been interpreted and practiced according to people who wished to change the laws to suit their means. Each court case quoted is ample proof of how lawyers have argued away rights or responsibilities previously conferred to individuals or the government according to the desire of those paying for the lawyers. Judges rule based on lawyers arguments. Lawyers argue based on their payment.

You apparently don't like America much.

Your comment has nothing to do with what Shawn posted. Stop trolling the thread and posting insulting remarks directed at other posters!


JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

 

[OODA_Loop]

Finally, I noticed you have not identified what specific tax allowed by our Constitution may be levied upon a citizen of the United States for not having federally approved health insurance. Care to share that information with us?

Beginning on January 1, 2014, all applicable individuals will be required to maintain “minimum essential coverage”, each month, for themselves and their dependents.

Failure to maintain coverage will result in a penalty which will be calculated and included on the taxpayer’s individual tax return.

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I posted.


JWK

You're looking at the tax for not having insurance withstanding Constitutional scrutiny of SCOTUS

 

[PMZ]

Beginning on January 1, 2014, all applicable individuals will be required to maintain “minimum essential coverage”, each month, for themselves and their dependents.

Failure to maintain coverage will result in a penalty which will be calculated and included on the taxpayer’s individual tax return.

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I posted.


JWK

You're looking at the tax for not having insurance withstanding Constitutional scrutiny of SCOTUS

That makes it Constitutional.

 

[PMZ]

The reality is that over time the words of the constitution have been interpreted and practiced according to people who wished to change the laws to suit their means. Each court case quoted is ample proof of how lawyers have argued away rights or responsibilities previously conferred to individuals or the government according to the desire of those paying for the lawyers. Judges rule based on lawyers arguments. Lawyers argue based on their payment.

You apparently don't like America much.

Your comment has nothing to do with what Shawn posted. Stop trolling the thread and posting insulting remarks directed at other posters!


JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

He's against our Constitution, as are you.