Of course it's an assumption.
'1787' in abstract is real close to the time of drafting and The
Federalist Papers and all of that. I know that it was not ratified
until 1789.
50 new amendments??? Oh, so you want it to look more like the
Texas Constitution with 467 or so?? Not sure that's an improvement
there, buddy. :-)
I think that most of the commerce clause "case law" needs to be
chunked. If it isn't, that clause may well be the clause that
destroys the rest of the document.
You'll have to tell me more about your 50 amendments. There's a
few I would like eliminated, I know that.
David
To compel a
man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of
ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and
tyrannical.--Thomas Jefferson
On 10/10/2010 10:10 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Assumption ? ? ?
We need
to have that document from back then, I think it was
called "The Constitution" or something, actually taken
seriously. Instead of serious attempts being made to go
around it.
Not remotely my intention although maybe I wasn't
sufficiently clear. I was thinking
--metaphorically-- of everything SINCE the Constitution.
Actually, to be technical, more like everything from JQ
Adams and Andrew Jackson onward.
I am a Strict Constructionist / Originalist even if I
think we need about 50 new Amendments,
BR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 10/10/2010 7:08:55 P.M. Pacific
Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: I'd have been more impressed with Thomas
Jefferson rather than Teddy, but that's my choice. :-)
We need to have that document from back then, I think it
was called "The Constitution" or something, actually
taken seriously. Instead of serious attempts being made
to go around it.
Take the "Bush tax cuts." On 01/01/2011, all tax rates
in all brackets go up. It doesn't stop at the dear
Presidents line in the sand of $250,000. If you paid ANY
taxes, they will go up. I haven't reached that level,
and yet the percentage in my bracket is going UP. Do
tell me how an increase is a decrease. So all of the hot
air about this not impacting the middle class is just
that: hot air. To top that off, the Marriage Penalty is
back, and allowances for offspring are up for reduction
as well.
My former college roommate has a small business. Small
businesses basically file a return not that much
different from that of an individual. Different
deductions and no individual exemptions are about the
only difference. With those differences, it does not
take long-if you made any money at all-to get up there
in the income column. Just as for individual the rates
on the brackets go up, the same applies here. So he's
probably not going to hire another clerk (even if he
needs one due to the increased paperwork in the health
insurance sales business), because the new taxes will
come close to the salary a clerk would get paid, and the
IRS demands its pound of flesh first. So the clerk will
not be hired, the IRS has their salary in their vaults.
And pardon me if all I hear lately from the
administration is condemnation of the court ruling
allowing corporate contributions and condemnation of
corporations while they are silent on the unions, due to
the massive advantages Democrats have with union thugs.
According the the Democratic administration, union thugs
are all sweetness and light (even the ones that beat
folks up for not voting "correctly") but the only font
of wickedness is the Republican party and Corporations.
Or have you ignored Obama lately? God knows I've
tried...
Does the above paragraph strike you as ludicrous as
well?
One of your other
charts confirmed my suspicions, Lehman Brothers gave
more the the Republicans than the Democrats, so it was
not rescued. Goldman Sachs gave more money to the
Democrats, and it was rescued. Nice way to "legally"
reduce contributions to Republicans. So what if it cost
the economy several thousand jobs.
Sincerely yours,
P. J. O'Rourke
To compel a man to subsidize with his
taxes the propagation of ideas which he
disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.--Thomas
Jefferson
On 10/10/2010 7:49 PM, [email protected] wrote:
David :
Far be it from me to put all the "evil ones" in
the Republican Party. Just saying that
wealth and the GOP go together like
hand-in-glove. Doesn't mean that , say,
there isn't Big Money that flows to the Left
from Hollywood or elsewhere.
Clearly there is. But there is a reason why,
most of the time, the Republicans
are the ones in Congress who stick up for the
wealthy.
Just as there is a reason why some Democrats
have jumped ship and
want the Bush tax cuts extended to everyone,
including the $ 250,000 crowd.
The mutineers are in hock to Big Wealth.
My argument is that wealth simply is no
guarantee of virtue , investing in America,
not transferring most of one's money to the
Caymans or Switzerland, not shipping
a large # of jobs overseas, etc,.
Yet to hear it from the GOP leadership, the
saints among us are all millionaires
and the only font of wickedness in the USA
consists of the unions.
Such a view strike me as ludicrous ( insane,
absurd on the face of it, demented, etc ).
I have plenty of things to say about the social
policies of the Democrats, about
their fiscal policies, etc, which have been
made abundantly clear in the past months
and years.
IMHO. we are dealing with two Evil and
Stupid Parties even if one is
more Evil and the other is more Stupid.
Sincerely
Theodore Roosevelt
PS
We need to go back to 1787 and start over.
=============================================================
In a message dated 10/10/2010 4:46:10 P.M.
Pacific Daylight Time, [email protected]
writes: Although, oddly
enough, I saw a couple of polls this week
where Bush out-polled Obama. A couple were
within the margin of error, too. Simply
amazing.
I wouldn't have given 45 % either on virtue,
but I also wouldn't have put ALL of the evil
ones all in the Republican Party. I might put
them all in the Demonrat Party. :-) Doing
a hell of a job there, Barry. Warren Buffet is
one of Obama's advisers. I would
speculate that Gates and Jobs are also in the
Democratic camp, whatever somewhat strange
bedfellows that might be.
To put it kindly, the only Republican megabuck
people I could have named (before Obama started
going after the Koch family this week), would
have been the Wal-Mart Waltons. Perhaps Rupert
Murdock, but then he sort of spreads his
contributions to both parties. Yet, on the other
hand, I can name Buffet, Soros, Immelt, Zucker,
Gates, and Jobs without breaking a sweat. Not to
mention Kennedy and Kerry (Heinz), and Kohl.
Most of the rich oil barons are long gone, and
their money divided amongst the heirs, at least
in the US.
Here's a story about some Rich Democrats trying
to turn Texas Blue
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-shadow-party-how-a-washington-based-liberal-activist-is-trying-to-turn-texas-blue-whether-texans-want-it-or-not/
Do note "whether Texans want it or not." Of
course, some of them won their money in lawsuits
or got it from lucrative government contracts
(like Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Bill
White). But it's always the Republicans that are
corrupt. (Nevermind Waxine Waters, Charlie
Rangel, the late John Murtha, Eddie Bernice
Johnson, Blago.) Nancy Pelosi said that she
would "drain the swamp." All she did was restock
it with Democratic crooks.
David
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
|
