• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why does the right want to destroy this country?

Why do new posters want to destroy this forum?

Really, they work 24/7 to post troll threads. Why do they hate it so much?
 
2dwap8x.jpg
 
A good question....
1. The black President.
2. Right wing talk radio/TV.
3. Lack of basic intelligence.
4. Massive hypocrisy.
5. Massive greed falsely justified in the name of God.
6. Religion hijacked by the perversion of religion.
7. Fear of the gay.
8. Fear of the Mexican.
9. Love of the gun.
10. The black president. (worth repeating)
 
Last edited:
What the hell do you mean by Black president. I don't like Obama but not because He is Half Black . I enjoy listening to his lies and how no one really cares one way or the other, But he no worse than MANY other presidents Like Grant or Wilson
 
It's pretty sad that all it takes for the resident partisan hacks to come out is a one line troll thread that basically amounts to "I don't like the other party." Who needs news when they can riff of nothing?
 
DCal430 said:
Really, they work 24/7 to destroy this country. Why do they hate it so much?
Click to expand...

What is the country anyway?

Seriously? Isn't it just whatever we vote it to be; with a large enough majority we can change systemic premisses found in the constitution: See income tax.

The country was, at is very founding, in it's very creation, set against income taxes. Then we have the first and only un-constitutional amendment: income tax. I don't say it's unconstitutional because it was illegal, but because it is the only amendment that directly turned something that was originally part of the constitution around 180 degrees.

But that's the great thing about the US; a socialist revolt like that can take place in the face of robber barons and the rule of law and the functioning of government keep going.


So, I disagree with your premise; neither communists working inside the system nor anarchists working within the system are, in fact, trying to destroy the US because as long as they continue to work within the system granted then they are, actually, participating in the country: not destroying it.
 
Um.
Last time I checked, those of the right are the producers and those on the left want to take from those on the right and redistribute it.
 
DixyCrat said:
Then we have the first and only un-constitutional amendment: income tax. I don't say it's unconstitutional because it was illegal, but because it is the only amendment that directly turned something that was originally part of the constitution around 180 degrees.
Click to expand...

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes
Click to expand...

Sixteenth Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Click to expand...
Seems to me that Taxes itself is PART of the constitution. How can it be unconstitutional... if it's in ARTICLE ONE. Sixteenth Amendment makes it the LAW of the land. You don't like it.... petition to REPEAL IT.
 
Last edited:
sportage said:
A good question....
1. The black President.
2. Right wing talk radio/TV.
3. Lack of basic intelligence.
4. Massive hypocrisy.
5. Massive greed falsely justified in the name of God.
6. Religion hijacked by the perversion of religion.
7. Fear of the gay.
8. Fear of the Mexican.
9. Love of the gun.
10. The black president. (worth repeating)
Click to expand...

Holy shit!!! You did it, you made a post dumber than the OP!!!! Wow, and to think they said you'd never accomplish anything in your life, boy you sure showed them.
 
guyver01 said:
Seems to me that Taxes itself is PART of the constitution. How can it be unconstitutional... if it's in ARTICLE ONE. Sixteenth Amendment makes it the LAW of the land.
Click to expand...

I find your intellectual dishonesty intentional because I respect your intellect too much to think otherwise.

A1S8, the segment in full:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Click to expand...
See, this portion is what is directly countermanded by the unconstitutional taxation amendment. The logic of proportional representation was inexorably linked to proportional taxation in article 1 section 2
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers,
Click to expand...

The states, based on population, NOT INCOME, are supposed to be the basis on which taxation is derived. By the logic of our founding, if income not population were to be used as the basis of taxation, then those states with the greatest income would have the greatest number of representatives.

Such is a free and fair democracy, those with the greatest vested interest have the greatest say. The 16th amendment is the only amendment that directly violates the basic spirit of our constitutional democracy.

You don't like it.... petition to REPEAL IT.
Click to expand...
That said I'm a liberal that supports redistribution of wealth when it has gotten in to the hands of the few at the expense of the majority and a conservative that supports a hands-off approach when the wealth is well distributed enough to encourage the few to try and obtain it all once more.

So right now I think it's clear that a MORE progressive income tax is essential to getting our country moving again.

Let's not just pick one solution to every problem and skew the truth to fit our pre-determined solution; let's look at the good qualities of every point of view and consider when each might be most effective.
 
Last edited:
DCal430 said:
Really, they work 24/7 to destroy this country. Why do they hate it so much?
Click to expand...


In order to save it of course.

This hurts me more then you.

I'm only doing this for your own good.

I'm only doing this because I love you.

Etc.

Denial, it's not a river in Egypt.
 
Last edited:
DixyCrat said:
See, this portion is what is directly countermanded by the unconstitutional taxation amendment.
Click to expand...

Not countermanded... superceded.

There are MANY sections of the constitution which is superceded by the Amendments. This is a right granted by Article Five of the United States Constitution.


The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Click to expand...


Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11

Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 20th amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.

Note: Article II, section 1, of the Constitution was affected by the 25th amendment.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment
 
guyver01 said:
Not countermanded... superceded.

There are MANY sections of the constitution which is superceded by the Amendments. This is a right granted by Article Five of the United States Constitution.





Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11

Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 20th amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.

Note: Article II, section 1, of the Constitution was affected by the 25th amendment.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment
Click to expand...
And yet the 16th amendment is the only one that goes directly against the foundational logic of our constitution. The inexorable link in the mind of the founders between population based representation and population based taxation can not be over looked. No other amendment so violates the very basis on which our representative democracy is built.

But as you point out, a little revolution every generation is a good thing. I'm for the socialist revolution created by the 16th amendment; But it was a clear violation of the founding principles of the country.
 
DixyCrat said:
And yet the 16th amendment is the only one that goes directly against the foundational logic of our constitution.
Click to expand...


Doesn't matter. It was ratified legally.

An amendment does not become part of the Constitution unless it is ratified by three-quarters of the states (either the legislatures thereof, or in amendment conventions).

The 16th Amendment, which specifically authorizes the income tax, was proposed on July 12, 1909.

# State Date *
1 Alabama Aug 10, 1909
2 Kentucky Feb 8, 1910
3 South Carolina Feb 19, 1910
4 Illinois Mar 1, 1910
5 Mississippi Mar 7, 1910
6 Oklahoma Mar 10, 1910
7 Maryland Apr 8, 1910
8 Georgia Aug 3, 1910
9 Texas Aug 16, 1910
10 Ohio Jan 19, 1911
11 Idaho Jan 20, 1911
12 Oregon Jan 23, 1911
13 Washington Jan 26, 1911
14 Montana Jan 30, 1911
15 Indiana Jan 30, 1911
16 California Jan 31, 1911
17 Nevada Jan 31, 1911
18 South Dakota Feb 3, 1911
19 Nebraska Feb 9, 1911
20 North Carolina Feb 11, 1911
21 Colorado Feb 15, 1911
22 North Dakota Feb 17, 1911
23 Kansas Feb 18, 1911
24 Michigan Feb 23, 1911
25 Iowa Feb 24, 1911
26 Missouri Mar 16, 1911
27 Maine Mar 31, 1911
28 Tennessee Apr 7, 1911
29 Arkansas Apr 22, 1911
30 Wisconsin May 26, 1911
31 New York Jul 12, 1911
32 Arizona Apr 6, 1912
33 Minnesota Jun 11, 1912
34 Louisiana Jun 28, 1912
35 West Virginia Jan 31, 1913
36 New Mexico Feb 3, 1913 *
37 Massachusetts Mar 4, 1913
38 New Hampshire Mar 7, 1913

Ratified in 1302 days (3 1/2 years)

This amendment was specifically rejected by New Hampshire on Mar 2, 1911. It was also rejected by Arkansas prior to its subsequent ratification, and by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.


16th Amendment

In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal tax on income from real property. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax.

Finally, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, any doubt was removed. The text of the Amendment makes it clear that though the categories of direct and indirect taxation still exist, any determination that income tax is a direct tax will be irrelevant, because taxes on incomes, from salary or from real estate, are explicitly to be treated as indirect. The Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909, and it was ratified on February 3, 1913 (1,302 days).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top