Jim

still just me wrote:
>
> He's been pissed since Bush started ignoring his duty to protect the
> Constitution = and in fact, directly violating it - around 2001.
>
Bush looks like a Constitutional Scholar when you compare him to a
Democrat or liberal. These groups believe the Constitution meaning can
be changed when they can't push their bills into law. Just get judges
in there that will liberally interpret the laws the way they want it.
No need for Constitutional amendments -- it is a "living" document.

It is "The Constitution of the Day".

Ask all the unborn children who have been murdered -- more than the
entire population of Canada.

Klark Kent

In message news:QLWdnXDaNoEuBNHVnZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d@comcast.com, Jim
<no_one@invaiddomain.com> burned some brain cells writing:

> Bush looks like a Constitutional Scholar when you compare him to a
> Democrat or liberal. These groups believe the Constitution meaning can
> be changed when they can't push their bills into law.

What Article and Section contains the phrase "Unitary President"?

Klark Kent

In message news:QLWdnXDaNoEuBNHVnZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d@comcast.com, Jim
<no_one@invaiddomain.com> burned some brain cells writing:

> Ask all the unborn children who have been murdered -- more than the
> entire population of Canada.

But sadly, not Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie, Condi, Ledeen, Franklin, Feith,
etc.

still just me

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:47:19 -0600, Jim <no_one@invaiddomain.com>
wrote:

>> He's been pissed since Bush started ignoring his duty to protect the
>> Constitution = and in fact, directly violating it - around 2001.
>>
>Bush looks like a Constitutional Scholar when you compare him to a
>Democrat or liberal. These groups believe the Constitution meaning can
>be changed when they can't push their bills into law. Just get judges
>in there that will liberally interpret the laws the way they want it.
>No need for Constitutional amendments -- it is a "living" document.
>It is "The Constitution of the Day".

I can see that you are one of those who immediately assumes that
anyone who dislikes Bush and opposes what he's done from a
Constitutional viewpoint must be a Democrat and described by the
scandalous "L" word. You're wrong. I'm way more constitutionality
conservative than you. I believe in a very strong and strict
Constitution - Bush and friends believe in whatever furthers their
personal agenda.

I pray that future presidents can restore the integrity of the
Constitution but I fear some of the damage is irreversible.

As for the "living" document - A document written in the late 1700's
is going to require some interpretation hundreds of years later. You
can't avoid that. You can still do it strictly. As for "making up the
law on the fly" - look into signing statements and get back to me.

>Ask all the unborn children who have been murdered -- more than the
>entire population of Canada.

The RNC and their management core (the neo-cons) don't give two bits
about your abortion issue. They use it to gather your votes and those
of other in order to elect themselves in office so they can work
towards their real objective: fattening their wallets through
government expenditures and laws that benefit them personally. (Look
into the dictionary definition of fascism when you get a chance).

still just me

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:47:19 -0600, Jim <no_one@invaiddomain.com>
wrote:

>
>It is "The Constitution of the Day".
>
>Ask all the unborn children who have been murdered -- more than the
>entire population of Canada.

First, your figures are suspect. Current estimates are that 1 million
abortions performed per year. If your simply taking the number of
abortions performed *today* and multiplying it time the years since
Rowe v. Wade, there's a problem: the number of abortions performed in
1973 was not anywhere near the same level.

Second, there's a balance between the rights of the individual and the
rights of the "unborn" as you choose to call it. People have rights to
control their own bodies (there's that constitutional conservatism
again). When does a fertilized egg become a "life"? The courts seems
to say that it's when the life becomes independently sustainable. I
don't know about that, but I'm pretty sure it isn't the say after an
egg is fertilized either. FYI - This comes from the Bible: Leviticus
17:11 says, "For the life of a creature is in the blood." That would
move your definition of life beginning at conception out a ways.

Third , some religions claim that it's against the Bible to use drugs
or surgery. Should they be allowed to apply that belief to their
children? Or should a court be able to step in and order medical care
for the benefit of the child to protect the child's right to life? I'd
be interested in your view.

Fourth, are you one of those hypocritical anti-abortion, pro death
penalty folks? Those folks seem to be OK with an obvious taking of
human life as long as the timing works out. Seem most anti-aortionists
are, aside from the clergy. Let me know.

Get back to me on these issues, I'm interested in your views.

Bill Putney

still just me wrote:

> ...hypocritical anti-abortion, pro death
> penalty folks?...

That's hypocritical because...?

Turning the tables on you, would you not, by your logic, be hypocritical
if you are in favor of abortion but you are against my being able to
walk up to some random person on the street and just blow them away. I
mean - come on - in one case you are in favor of killing, in the other
you are against it. Sounds hypocritical to me (by your logic).

"...hypocritical anti-random-person blowing away, pro abortion folks..."

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Jim

still just me wrote:

>
> First, your figures are suspect. Current estimates are that 1 million
> abortions performed per year. If your simply taking the number of
> abortions performed *today* and multiplying it time the years since
> Rowe v. Wade, there's a problem: the number of abortions performed in
> 1973 was not anywhere near the same level.

Gotcha!!!

Your more interested in the "figures" than the murder of unborn babies.

Second of all, why do you post your drivel in these autos newsgroups --
you come on like you have something to say remotely related to these
newsgroups -- then you bring up Bush or Cheney.

There are newsgroups for people that want to discuss what you want to
talk about -- they are the alt.politics newsgroups. They have thousands
of posts a day. And you know what -- no one ever settles anything -- it
just goes on and on and on and on.

So lets get back to the real subject of these newsgroups, huh?

Jim

Bill Putney wrote:
> still just me wrote:
>
>> ...hypocritical anti-abortion, pro death
>> penalty folks?...
>
> That's hypocritical because...?
>
> Turning the tables on you, would you not, by your logic, be hypocritical
> if you are in favor of abortion but you are against my being able to
> walk up to some random person on the street and just blow them away. I
> mean - come on - in one case you are in favor of killing, in the other
> you are against it. Sounds hypocritical to me (by your logic).
>
> "...hypocritical anti-random-person blowing away, pro abortion folks..."
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with the letter 'x')

And how did we get "blowing them away" into it? All I inferred from
this is how liberals got the Constitution interpreted for that day --
hence "The Constitution of the Day". <sigh>

Rodan

"Jim" wrote:

Why do you post your drivel in these autos newsgroups?

(You're) more interested the "figures" than the murder of unborn babies.
The alt.politics newsgroups are for people to discuss what you want
to talk about. They have thousands of posts a day, and no one ever
settles anything -- it just goes on and on and on and on.

So lets get back to the real subject of these newsgroups, huh?
__________________________________________________ ________

Why do you post your drivel in these autos newsgroups?

You're more interested in promoting your religious indoctrination by
redefining legal abortions as murder.
Religion newsgroups are for people to discuss what you want to talk
about. They have thousands of posts a day, and no one ever
settles anything -- it just goes on and on and on and on.

So lets get back to the real subject of these newsgroups, huh?

Rodan.

Joe

On 2008-06-08, still just me <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 00:14:08 -0500, Joe <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> "The solution to any problem is NEVER more taxes."
>>>
>>> This is the silly statement to which I responded. It isn't over my head.
>>
>>Clearly, it is...
>
> Someone call George Bush I and let him know about this ('cause he's
> the one that recognized that Reagan's excesses could only be paid down
> with new taxes...)
>
> Notice that Bush II decided to follow Reagan's path of record setting
> deficits - thereby insuring that his successor will have to do what
> his Dad did to pay down more record deficits.
>
>

Again, I never said that I was against taxes. I said I was against
punitive taxes. Taxation is a necessity in today's society, but taxes
are for the raising of revenue, not for the control of the sheep.

It is especially evident when you look at the people that punitive
taxation affects the most. Liberals like the idea of controlling the
masses through taxation. They also claim to want to hurt the rich and
help the poor. But then, punitive taxation always affects the poor
far worse than anyone with money. Higher gas taxes, cigarette taxes,
alcohol taxes, junk food taxes, etc. The people that have the money
will buy what they want, the poor get hurt the most. Yet the left
claims to have the backs of the poor...

In order to correct the serious defecits, major changes are needed.
We need to reduce spending, much of which can be done through the
dissoltion of several programs that are not constitutionally
justifiable. On the other side, fair taxation throughout the populace
will quickly increase revenues, and further help to reduce spending by
helping to seriously pare down the albatross known as the IRS.

I have no problem with taxation. I have a problem with social
engineering and the law of unintended consequences...


--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

SMS

Joe wrote:

> It is especially evident when you look at the people that punitive
> taxation affects the most. Liberals like the idea of controlling the
> masses through taxation. They also claim to want to hurt the rich and
> help the poor. But then, punitive taxation always affects the poor
> far worse than anyone with money. Higher gas taxes, cigarette taxes,
> alcohol taxes, junk food taxes, etc. The people that have the money
> will buy what they want, the poor get hurt the most. Yet the left
> claims to have the backs of the poor...

That's where Reagan, W, and the neo-cons really did a job on the middle
class and the poor. They reduced progressive income taxes, benefiting
mainly the wealthy, and the shortfall in revenue was made up with a
combination of regressive taxes (the ones you mentioned), increased user
fees at places like national parks, and huge deficits. Reduced revenue
to state and local governments was similarly made up with tax and fee
increases, which were regressive. If the horribly mis-named "fair-tax"
ever came to pass, you'd see another huge round of tax increases on
goods and services as governments struggled to make up the shortfall.

What's especially sad about all this is that no one was screaming for
more tax cuts, it was just political expediency by W, without looking at
the big picture that got us into this mess. A tiny middle class tax cut
that was more than offset by increases in other taxes and fees was no
bargain.

At least Bush Sr. clearly understood that Reaganomics was bogus, but now
it's become a mantra for the neo-cons to claim that Reagan's tax cuts
were beneficial to the economy, when all evidence is to the contrary.

Mike hunt

Better check you facts concerning the latest tax RATE cuts under Bush if
that is what you believe. Like the previous tax RATE cuts under Presidents
Kennedy and Reagan, income to the US treasury. Before the Kennedy tax RATE
cuts the marginal tax RATE was a staggering economy killing 90%. Even the
budget deficit is not out of line, in time of war, as a percentage of GNP.
The budget was out of balance far worse in ALL previous war, with WWII being
the worse. When FDR was asked about the huge annual deficits because of the
war he said, when ones house in on fire they do not worry about the water
bill

The rate cuts benefitted those at the bottom FAR more than those at the top.
Millions of working poor were removed from the tax roles and many others had
their tax rate REDUCED by 50%. The reduction in the long term capital gains
tax RATE benefit many of the working poor and middle class as well, by
greatly increasing their return on the stock they owned or they benefited
via their various insurance policies, their pension plans, be they defined
or 401s, and also the cost of supporting public employee pension plans with
their taxes. States even benefited because of the extra taxes collected on
the extra money spent by taxpayers in the various states

The Dims have been fostering that big lie for seven years, the truth is
quite the opposite. Sure those at the top saved more dollars but only
because the pay more dollars at their progressively higher tax RATE. The
fact is those at the top now pay a HIGHER percentage of all the federal
income taxes paid to the US treasury.

Since the Bush tax cuts fully 49% of American families do not pay a penny in
federal income taxes and 34% of those that do have taxes withheld received a
full return of their taxes paid, in ADDITIONAL they receive a greater amount
in the form of the income tax credit to help pay their FICA.

What we should be concerned about is why in the average workingman is now in
the 28% tax bracket when up until the early eighties he was only in the 15%
bracket? Guess who controlled the Congress when that happened?



"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> rote in message news:flT3k



..1118$LG4.380@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...

> Joe wrote:
>
>> It is especially evident when you look at the people that punitive
>> taxation affects the most. Liberals like the idea of controlling the
>> masses through taxation. They also claim to want to hurt the rich and
>> help the poor. But then, punitive taxation always affects the poor
>> far worse than anyone with money. Higher gas taxes, cigarette taxes,
>> alcohol taxes, junk food taxes, etc. The people that have the money
>> will buy what they want, the poor get hurt the most. Yet the left
>> claims to have the backs of the poor...
>
> That's where Reagan, W, and the neo-cons really did a job on the middle
> class and the poor. They reduced progressive income taxes, benefiting
> mainly the wealthy, and the shortfall in revenue was made up with a
> combination of regressive taxes (the ones you mentioned), increased user
> fees at places like national parks, and huge deficits. Reduced revenue to
> state and local governments was similarly made up with tax and fee
> increases, which were regressive. If the horribly mis-named "fair-tax"
> ever came to pass, you'd see another huge round of tax increases on goods
> and services as governments struggled to make up the shortfall.
>
> What's especially sad about all this is that no one was screaming for more
> tax cuts, it was just political expediency by W, without looking at the
> big picture that got us into this mess. A tiny middle class tax cut that
> was more than offset by increases in other taxes and fees was no bargain.
>
> At least Bush Sr. clearly understood that Reaganomics was bogus, but now
> it's become a mantra for the neo-cons to claim that Reagan's tax cuts were
> beneficial to the economy, when all evidence is to the contrary.

beerspill@whoever.com

Mike hunt wrote:

> Better check you facts

Mike telling us to check the facts is like Rush Limbaugh warning us
against oxycontin use.

> The rate cuts benefitted those at the bottom FAR more than those at the top.

Untrue, the proof being the worsening of income disparities between
the top and bottom.

Dumbass.

Kevin

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:flT3k.1118$LG4.380
@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com:

> Joe wrote:
>
>> It is especially evident when you look at the people that punitive
>> taxation affects the most. Liberals like the idea of controlling the
>> masses through taxation. They also claim to want to hurt the rich
and
>> help the poor. But then, punitive taxation always affects the poor
>> far worse than anyone with money. Higher gas taxes, cigarette taxes,
>> alcohol taxes, junk food taxes, etc. The people that have the money
>> will buy what they want, the poor get hurt the most. Yet the left
>> claims to have the backs of the poor...
>
> That's where Reagan, W, and the neo-cons really did a job on the
middle
> class and the poor. They reduced progressive income taxes, benefiting
> mainly the wealthy, and the shortfall in revenue was made up with a
> combination of regressive taxes (the ones you mentioned), increased
user
> fees at places like national parks, and huge deficits. Reduced revenue
> to state and local governments was similarly made up with tax and fee
> increases, which were regressive. If the horribly mis-named "fair-
tax"
> ever came to pass, you'd see another huge round of tax increases on
> goods and services as governments struggled to make up the shortfall.
>
> What's especially sad about all this is that no one was screaming for
> more tax cuts, it was just political expediency by W, without looking
at
> the big picture that got us into this mess. A tiny middle class tax
cut
> that was more than offset by increases in other taxes and fees was no
> bargain.
>
> At least Bush Sr. clearly understood that Reaganomics was bogus, but
now
> it's become a mantra for the neo-cons to claim that Reagan's tax cuts
> were beneficial to the economy, when all evidence is to the contrary.

The biggest problem with your thinking is it is based on incorect facts.
The total amount of SPENDING has NEVER been lowered. The tax rate cuts
or actuall cuts mean nothing because the actual spending was never cut,
soooo they HAD to increase anywhere they could. There were never any
actual cuts, only tax shifts to different areas of fees ect that don`t
show up as taxes. This has only accelerated in the past years. EVERYONES
actual taxes are up a bunch because there are never any spending cuts,
just reductions in the increases. KB

--
THUNDERSNAKE #9

Protect your rights or "Lose" them
The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others

Mike hunt

Are you really that stupid? LOL

<beerspill@whoever.com> wrote in message
news:eb076bdc-45e3-4105-9ab8-a51aaad23e7f@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> Mike hunt wrote:
>
>> Better check you facts
>
> Mike telling us to check the facts is like Rush Limbaugh warning us
> against oxycontin use.
>
>> The rate cuts benefitted those at the bottom FAR more than those at the
>> top.
>
> Untrue, the proof being the worsening of income disparities between
> the top and bottom.
>
> Dumbass.