An idea for bipartisan tax reform

[LV426]

Not sure what you are missing. I said I think a direct tax on income is immoral

That's not what you said at first.

That's you changing what you said, post-hoc, and demanding I accommodate that change.

Fuck you, I'm not accommodating shit.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Including this one:



That is your opinion of what is spelled out in the Constitution, and no court has validated it. So you're trying to establish your own personal standard as the given. Which is bullshit because you've done nothing to earn that.




True, but you seek accommodation of your opinion.




Yes, we know that you will have an opinion regardless of evidence that discredits it. This is nothing new from you folks.

Are you saying things aren’t clearly spelled out in the Constitution?

The Constitution says what it says. That isn’t opinion. That is fact. It is a fact that is inconvenient for you but a fact nonetheless

I don’t need the court to validate my opinion. You might because you are a sheep.

But since the Supreme Court is never wrong in your view then you must agree that owning a gun is an individual right as stated in Heller. Kudos. Now I didn’t need Heller to validate it. I already knew it. But apparently it was necessary for you

 

[LV426]

You clearly don’t understand the text of the 10th Amendment and obviously haven’t read the federalist papers

What I don't accept is your bullshit interpretation of them.

You are trying to substitute your opinion for the standard, and you do that because your argument is weak and you need to establish a reasoning basis for it.

The only way your argument makes any sense is if people accommodate your entitled interpretation.

Well, I'm denying you that entitlement.

So suck it.

 

[LV426]

I understand that you have been brain washed to support all things government so you overlook their usurpations of powe

You're the one brainwashed here, trying to establish your weirdo, functionally illiterate interpretation of the Constitution as the standard.

It's not.

It's not even close.

It is why I find the hand wringing over Drumpfs Emergency declaration laughable

Wasn't Mexico supposed to pay for that wall?

 

[LV426]

Are you saying things aren’t clearly spelled out in the Constitution

I'm saying your interpretation is wrong and isn't supported by the courts.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

So you don't drive on highways?

You don't eat meat inspected by the USDA?

You don't use the public sewer system? So you shit in an outhouse in your backyard?

You don't fly from airports?

You don't buy consumer goods imported through port authorities?

You won't take Medicare or Social Security?

Yeah...I don't believe you.

I drive on state roads and highways

I only eat meat that comes from farms I know and that I kill. No inspection required

I only use a septic system and a well. No public water or sewer

I am sure I buy imported goods

I don’t partake in SS and Medicare

So the things I use could be run with excise taxes. Nice try though

 

[LV426]

The Constitution says what it says. That isn’t opinion. That is fact. It is a fact that is inconvenient for you but a fact nonetheless

The Constitution is open to interpretation which is why we have the Judicial Branch, you fucking moron.

 

[LV426]

I don’t need the court to validate my opinion. You might because you are a sheep.

You actually do need the court to validate it because that's how the Constitution delineates powers.

We know you don't really like the Constitution; that's why you support Confederate monuments...they had a Constitution that was more to your interpretation.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Which is your opinion, not the given standard.

So once again, you are trying to shoehorn your opinion into what is the standard when you've done absolutely nothing to earn that entitlement and accommodation.

Nothing.

If the text provided for it then prove it

I state fact and you know it. The words healthcare exist NOWHERE in the constitution

 

[LV426]

But since the Supreme Court is never wrong in your view then you must agree that owning a gun is an individual right as stated in Heller.

I don't agree and neither did every other lower court.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Again, your opinion, not the standard.

If they were so clearly written, you'd get more victories in court.

As it stands, you have ZERO.

Flawed logic and not an argument

I can only presume the 10th Amendment is unclear to you? What don’t you understand about the 10th Amendment?

 

[LV426]

I drive on state roads and highways

Which are funded through taxation.

I only eat meat that comes from farms I know and that I kill. No inspection required

I don't believe you, and this isn't something you will ever prove.

I only use a septic system and a well. No public water or sewer

Sounds like you're antisocial to me. You seem to be a ticking bomb/lone wolf. You fit the profile.

I am sure I buy imported goods

Which come through ports, which are funded and run by...wait for it...the federal government.

I don’t partake in SS and Medicare

Because you're not eligible.

So the things I use could be run with excise taxes. Nice try though

But they aren't.

 

[LV426]

Flawed logic and not an argument

No, what's not an argument is you pretending your opinion is the standard, when it's not.

I can only presume the 10th Amendment is unclear to you? What don’t you understand about the 10th Amendment?

Your interpretation of the 10th Amendment and the Constitution is not the standard.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Again, your opinion, not the standard.

If they were so clearly written, you'd get more victories in court.

As it stands, you have ZERO.

This is faulty logic. Court rulings are not indicative of unclear language

The 10th Amendment is extremely clear. What part of it confuses you?


Your statement presumes that EVERY court ruling is right. Do you agree with that? Do you agree with Heller that there is an individual right to own a gun?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

More of your opinion being substituted for fact.

You tend to do that with everything here. At least you're consistent in that, since you're not consistent elsewhere.

You don’t think the Constitution was clear in delineating powers of the federal government? It is unclear to you as to whose role certain tasks are?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Again, your opinion is being substituted for a standard.

Also, read up on the Constitution to determine the powers of the Judicial Branch. You seem to need a refresher.

No where in the US Constitution will you find the words giving the Supreme Court ultimate responsibility over what is and isn’t constitutional

That was a power the court assumed in Marbury v Madison and has been accepted through the years

There is nothing written that a President has to accept a ruling by the courts.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Which is your opinion that has not been validated by the Judicial Branch.

So what we have here is you insisting on something despite the law saying otherwise.

For some reason, you think you're entitled to your opinion of what the Constitution says. You're not. The courts are.

Really? So you agree with EVERY single court ruling?

You chastise Democrats when they lament Heller and Citizens United?

You agree with the courts that corporations are people or do you have an OPINION on that?

You agree that owning a gun is an individual right or do you have an OPINION on that

BTW you keep uttering the same words but I think you don’t really know what an opinion is

 

[canceled.2021.1]

LOL!

Seems like you don't want to admit that cutting taxes doesn't actually do any of the things Conservatives promise. That's why your argument foregoes all evidence, facts, and figures for a subjective one based in emotion.

You're too emotional. Calm down. Smile more.

I told you. I reject your premise. You don’t decide under what parameters I argue a position.

My guess is you are afraid to argue on moral grounds because you cant

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Wow. Watching Conservatives re-litigate SCOTUS cases to conform to their perspective is peak Conservatism.




Yes, they are.

Otherwise, we do not have three coequal branches of government.

You don't seem to know anything about this. Are you even an American?

You are wrong. Apparently you don’t know that you are wrong.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Yes, it does. "Originalism" is an interpretation. You are interpreting the Constitution along literal lines. Do you do that for the Bible too?




You sound like a sore loser.

You have finally conceded

It took awhile but I knew I would get you there in the end