" wrote in
:

On 20 Apr 2012 12:13:17 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 20 Apr 2012 00:33:32 GMT, Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
Han wrote:



We appear to live in
times where the easy way to combat deficits isn't feasible
anymore, due to the interrelatedness of the world's economies.
That used to be devaluation of one's currency, a much used tactic
in the past. When I was a teenager, the French franc had devalued
so much that "new" francs were issued, valued at 1:1000 I believe
...

Not really. It has been working OK for the US, at least so
far.
The Euro is another kettle of fish since it is more than one
sovereign nation with more than one goal. Euro members really
can't inflate their way out of the problems... at least until
Germany and/or France run into stormy weather, then we'll see.
We'd be having the same problems as Europe is Mississippi was
trying to have a different monetary policy then California or
Nevada. It is really hard (and I am leaning personally toward
impossible) to have a situation where you have a single currency
yet multiple soverign nations with multiple monetary needs.

That's what the Europeans are finding out.

Soverignty without monetary control was a stupid idea; doomed to
failure. If the Europeons weren't so toothless, a war wouldn't be
surprising. History, and all that...

If I remember correctly, the US was designed in stages.

The Constitution has been amended eighteen time, and several courts
have invented "penumbras", and such, sure.

Indeed

The current
concept is one of the US overriding the individual states (in many
aspects - we'll see about health care grin).

Considering that the current argument before the Court has nothing to
do with "states rights", I'd say you're FOS, as usual.

The current CONCEPT of the Constitution, not necessarily that of the
currently greatest case before SCOTUS.

This followed the failure
of condfederated state envisioned by the original articles of
confederation. The process leading to the Constitution didn't make
the US a failure.

It not considered a "failure" because it has lasted two hundred some
odd years. The USE hasn't even been born yet, and it's already
failing miserably. War will probably ensue. They're good at starting
such things but again, they have no means to conduct it, anymore than
my declawed cats have.

You didn't realize you had the right analogy? Before the Constitution
there were the Articles of Confederation. That latter concept was
discarded, since it didn't work without a strong central authority.

Similarly, it was abominable nonsense for the Europeans to
think that a common currency would work without a common and top-down
fiscal and economical policy.

I think that's what I said. ;-)

Yes.

That is what almost no state in Europe is
willing to confront, yet. The US Constitution turned out much better,
despite the continuing fights about "states' rights", and Eurpe
will/should follow in those footsteps. I just hope that there will
not be anything like what some here call the recent unpleasantness ...

There will. History puts the odds greatly in my favor.

War these days would be in the courts, I hope ...

As usually, we are closer in actual philosophies than you realize ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 21 Apr 2012 13:20:07 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 20 Apr 2012 12:13:17 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 20 Apr 2012 00:33:32 GMT, Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
Han wrote:



We appear to live in
times where the easy way to combat deficits isn't feasible
anymore, due to the interrelatedness of the world's economies.
That used to be devaluation of one's currency, a much used tactic
in the past. When I was a teenager, the French franc had devalued
so much that "new" francs were issued, valued at 1:1000 I believe
...

Not really. It has been working OK for the US, at least so
far.
The Euro is another kettle of fish since it is more than one
sovereign nation with more than one goal. Euro members really
can't inflate their way out of the problems... at least until
Germany and/or France run into stormy weather, then we'll see.
We'd be having the same problems as Europe is Mississippi was
trying to have a different monetary policy then California or
Nevada. It is really hard (and I am leaning personally toward
impossible) to have a situation where you have a single currency
yet multiple soverign nations with multiple monetary needs.

That's what the Europeans are finding out.

Soverignty without monetary control was a stupid idea; doomed to
failure. If the Europeons weren't so toothless, a war wouldn't be
surprising. History, and all that...

If I remember correctly, the US was designed in stages.

The Constitution has been amended eighteen time, and several courts
have invented "penumbras", and such, sure.

Indeed

The current
concept is one of the US overriding the individual states (in many
aspects - we'll see about health care grin).

Considering that the current argument before the Court has nothing to
do with "states rights", I'd say you're FOS, as usual.

The current CONCEPT of the Constitution, not necessarily that of the
currently greatest case before SCOTUS.

"The current CONCEPT of the Constitution" says it all. You have no regard for
it at all. It means whatever you want it to mean. You really don't like
freedom, do you?

This followed the failure
of condfederated state envisioned by the original articles of
confederation. The process leading to the Constitution didn't make
the US a failure.

It not considered a "failure" because it has lasted two hundred some
odd years. The USE hasn't even been born yet, and it's already
failing miserably. War will probably ensue. They're good at starting
such things but again, they have no means to conduct it, anymore than
my declawed cats have.

You didn't realize you had the right analogy? Before the Constitution
there were the Articles of Confederation. That latter concept was
discarded, since it didn't work without a strong central authority.

You really don't understand the Constitution, at all.

Similarly, it was abominable nonsense for the Europeans to
think that a common currency would work without a common and top-down
fiscal and economical policy.

I think that's what I said. ;-)

Yes.

That is what almost no state in Europe is
willing to confront, yet. The US Constitution turned out much better,
despite the continuing fights about "states' rights", and Eurpe
will/should follow in those footsteps. I just hope that there will
not be anything like what some here call the recent unpleasantness ...

There will. History puts the odds greatly in my favor.

War these days would be in the courts, I hope ...

Laugh! That's certainly not the Europeon way.

As usually, we are closer in actual philosophies than you realize ...

Bull****. You have no regard for the Constitution, or this country.

TAX FAIRNESS ACT of 2012
...

At a town meeting in Boston in 1765, James Otis, Jr shouted out
"Taxation Without Representation is Tyranny". Unfortunately, Mr.
Otis died in 1783 so he did not see the Whiskey Tax of 1791 and
the subsequent Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. Had he seen those
events he would have most likely said "Taxation With
Representation is still Tryanny"

So whenever somebody says "Tax Fairness", "Tax Simplification",
Tax Equalization, etc, I reach for my under my pillow and click
off the safety catch on my Smith & Wesson.

There are two choices. The first is an open rebellion which is
somewhere between ignorant and stupid. The other is to vote the
*******s out of office. This is a federal election year for the
President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Simply
vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the incumbent as in
vote Republican against an incumbent Democrat and Democratic
against an incumbent Republican.


Dick
--
Richard D. Adams, CPA (retired)
Moderator: Misc.Taxes.Moderated
and Misc.Legal.Moderated

With Chicago Thug politics, and electronic vote counting. Do you think the
voters actually have that power, now days?

Diebold: You vote, we decide.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Dick Adams" wrote in message
...

There are two choices. The first is an open rebellion which is
somewhere between ignorant and stupid. The other is to vote the
*******s out of office. This is a federal election year for the
President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Simply
vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the incumbent as in
vote Republican against an incumbent Democrat and Democratic
against an incumbent Republican.


Dick
--
Richard D. Adams, CPA (retired)
Moderator: Misc.Taxes.Moderated
and Misc.Legal.Moderated

On Apr 21, 10:46*am, (Dick Adams) wrote:
TAX FAIRNESS ACT of 2012
...

At a town meeting in Boston in 1765, James Otis, Jr *shouted out
"Taxation Without Representation is Tyranny". *Unfortunately, Mr.
Otis died in 1783 so he did not see the Whiskey Tax of 1791 and
the subsequent Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. *Had he seen those
events he would have most likely said "Taxation With
Representation is still Tryanny"

So whenever somebody says "Tax Fairness", "Tax Simplification",
Tax Equalization, etc, I reach for my under my pillow and click
off the safety catch on my Smith & Wesson.

There are two choices. *The first is an open rebellion which is
somewhere between ignorant and stupid. *The other is to vote the
*******s out of office. *This is a federal election year for the
President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. *Simply
vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the incumbent as in
vote Republican against an incumbent Democrat and Democratic
against an incumbent Republican.

Dick
--
Richard D. Adams, CPA (retired)
Moderator: Misc.Taxes.Moderated
* * * *and Misc.Legal.Moderated

That is a failed strategy. Why would you vote blindly to
put a Democrat in to replace a Republican when the
Democratic party is clearly in favor of more big govt,
more govt employees, more govt programs, and most
importantly more govt spending that is bankrupting the
country?

I can see returning some moderate Democrats that are
closer to the middle. But that isn't the mainstream
Democratic pary of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. So
to suggest that the solution is to throw out Democrats
and replace them with Republicans and vice-versa is
nuts.

The fed debt increased several trillion under GWB, so both sides of the
aisle appear to be deficit spenders. Perhaps time for a third party?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message news:9d7abc52-3e5a-4d1a-bd28-
President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Simply
vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the incumbent as in

That is a failed strategy. Why would you vote blindly to
put a Democrat in to replace a Republican when the
Democratic party is clearly in favor of more big govt,
more govt employees, more govt programs, and most
importantly more govt spending that is bankrupting the
country?

I can see returning some moderate Democrats that are
closer to the middle. But that isn't the mainstream
Democratic pary of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. So
to suggest that the solution is to throw out Democrats
and replace them with Republicans and vice-versa is
nuts.

Stormin Mormon wrote:

With Chicago Thug politics, and electronic vote counting. Do you think the
voters actually have that power, now days?

Diebold: You vote, we decide.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

We all need to learn more about Jesus.
But you need to learn that only Sons of Perdition Top Post.

I believe in the ballot box.
If you don't, your only alternatives are accepting slavery
or engaging in insurrection. Neither alternative should
be acceptable to a rational human being.



"Dick Adams" wrote in message
...

There are two choices. The first is an open rebellion which is
somewhere between ignorant and stupid. The other is to vote the
*******s out of office. This is a federal election year for the
President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Simply
vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the incumbent as in
vote Republican against an incumbent Democrat and Democratic
against an incumbent Republican.


Dick
--
Richard D. Adams, CPA (retired)
Moderator: Misc.Taxes.Moderated
and Misc.Legal.Moderated

In article ,
(Dick Adams) wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:

With Chicago Thug politics, and electronic vote counting. Do you think the
voters actually have that power, now days?

Diebold: You vote, we decide.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

We all need to learn more about Jesus.
But you need to learn that only Sons of Perdition Top Post.

I believe in the ballot box.
If you don't, your only alternatives are accepting slavery
or engaging in insurrection. Neither alternative should
be acceptable to a rational human being.


"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Well, the USA was started with an armed insurrection.

And, I happen to like being a Son of Perdition. I'd prefer to be a son of
Petition. I'm making my voice known.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Dick Adams" wrote in message
...
Stormin Mormon wrote:

With Chicago Thug politics, and electronic vote counting. Do you think the
voters actually have that power, now days?

Diebold: You vote, we decide.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

We all need to learn more about Jesus.
But you need to learn that only Sons of Perdition Top Post.

I believe in the ballot box.
If you don't, your only alternatives are accepting slavery
or engaging in insurrection. Neither alternative should
be acceptable to a rational human being.

So true...... I don't think voting does much at present.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Well, the USA was started with an armed insurrection.

And, I happen to like being a Son of Perdition. I'd prefer
to be a son of Petition. I'm making my voice known.

If you want your voice heard, stop being a top poster.
It irritates people.

" wrote in
:

On 21 Apr 2012 13:20:07 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 20 Apr 2012 12:13:17 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 20 Apr 2012 00:33:32 GMT, Han wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
Han wrote:



We appear to live in
times where the easy way to combat deficits isn't feasible
anymore, due to the interrelatedness of the world's economies.
That used to be devaluation of one's currency, a much used
tactic in the past. When I was a teenager, the French franc had
devalued so much that "new" francs were issued, valued at
1:1000 I believe ...

Not really. It has been working OK for the US, at least so
far.
The Euro is another kettle of fish since it is more than one
sovereign nation with more than one goal. Euro members really
can't inflate their way out of the problems... at least until
Germany and/or France run into stormy weather, then we'll see.
We'd be having the same problems as Europe is Mississippi
was
trying to have a different monetary policy then California or
Nevada. It is really hard (and I am leaning personally toward
impossible) to have a situation where you have a single currency
yet multiple soverign nations with multiple monetary needs.

That's what the Europeans are finding out.

Soverignty without monetary control was a stupid idea; doomed to
failure. If the Europeons weren't so toothless, a war wouldn't be
surprising. History, and all that...

If I remember correctly, the US was designed in stages.

The Constitution has been amended eighteen time, and several courts
have invented "penumbras", and such, sure.

Indeed

The current
concept is one of the US overriding the individual states (in many
aspects - we'll see about health care grin).

Considering that the current argument before the Court has nothing
to do with "states rights", I'd say you're FOS, as usual.

The current CONCEPT of the Constitution, not necessarily that of the
currently greatest case before SCOTUS.

"The current CONCEPT of the Constitution" says it all. You have no
regard for it at all. It means whatever you want it to mean. You
really don't like freedom, do you?

This followed the failure
of condfederated state envisioned by the original articles of
confederation. The process leading to the Constitution didn't make
the US a failure.

It not considered a "failure" because it has lasted two hundred some
odd years. The USE hasn't even been born yet, and it's already
failing miserably. War will probably ensue. They're good at
starting such things but again, they have no means to conduct it,
anymore than my declawed cats have.

You didn't realize you had the right analogy? Before the Constitution
there were the Articles of Confederation. That latter concept was
discarded, since it didn't work without a strong central authority.

You really don't understand the Constitution, at all.

Similarly, it was abominable nonsense for the Europeans to
think that a common currency would work without a common and
top-down fiscal and economical policy.

I think that's what I said. ;-)

Yes.

That is what almost no state in Europe is
willing to confront, yet. The US Constitution turned out much
better, despite the continuing fights about "states' rights", and
Eurpe will/should follow in those footsteps. I just hope that there
will not be anything like what some here call the recent
unpleasantness ...

There will. History puts the odds greatly in my favor.

War these days would be in the courts, I hope ...

Laugh! That's certainly not the Europeon way.

As usually, we are closer in actual philosophies than you realize ...

Bull****. You have no regard for the Constitution, or this country.

Once more. This is the last time I try to educate you. After this you
are on your own.

When this country was started in a rebellion against the British, the
individual colonies (now called states) wanted to have more sovereignty
than they were accorded. A bunch of guys, now commonly called the
Founding Fathers, came up with a first draft of the country's basic
document, and they called it the Articles of Confederation. That very
rapidly proved unworkable and they reworked it until they came up with
the Constitution, but immediately they added a bunch of Amendments called
the Bill of Rights. More and more amendments followed later through the
years. Some were considered good immediately, at least until now, but
some were subsequently changed or retracted. To me that shows that the
Constitution is indeed a living document subject to amendments,
clarification and expansion.

You heard it here first, I think.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

We may have some power if crooks eliminate electoral bull ****

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message ...
With Chicago Thug politics, and electronic vote counting. Do you think the
voters actually have that power, now days?

Diebold: You vote, we decide.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Dick Adams" wrote in message
...

There are two choices. The first is an open rebellion which is
somewhere between ignorant and stupid. The other is to vote the
*******s out of office. This is a federal election year for the
President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Simply
vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the incumbent as in
vote Republican against an incumbent Democrat and Democratic
against an incumbent Republican.


Dick
--
Richard D. Adams, CPA (retired)
Moderator: Misc.Taxes.Moderated
and Misc.Legal.Moderated

On Apr 23, 11:26*am, "Grumpy" wrote:
We may have some power if crooks eliminate electoral bull ****

Yawn.... Another clueless guy tilting at windmills. There is
nothing to suggest that the electoral college is a problem or
makes any difference in who's elected. Even if it flipped an
election once in a while to the other guy, that sure wouldn't
solve anything.

So, if the continue the electoral BS, we have less power? I think that's the
point.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Grumpy" wrote in message
...
We may have some power if crooks eliminate electoral bull ****

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
With Chicago Thug politics, and electronic vote counting. Do you think the
voters actually have that power, now days?

Diebold: You vote, we decide.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Dick Adams" wrote in message
...

There are two choices. The first is an open rebellion which is
somewhere between ignorant and stupid. The other is to vote the
*******s out of office. This is a federal election year for the
President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Simply
vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the incumbent as in
vote Republican against an incumbent Democrat and Democratic
against an incumbent Republican.


Dick
--
Richard D. Adams, CPA (retired)
Moderator: Misc.Taxes.Moderated
and Misc.Legal.Moderated

So, is there any way to restore freedom, and have the Fed return to the
limits of the Constitution?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...
On Apr 23, 11:26 am, "Grumpy" wrote:
We may have some power if crooks eliminate electoral bull ****

Yawn.... Another clueless guy tilting at windmills. There is
nothing to suggest that the electoral college is a problem or
makes any difference in who's elected. Even if it flipped an
election once in a while to the other guy, that sure wouldn't
solve anything.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

So, is there any way to restore freedom, and have the Fed return to the
limits of the Constitution?

The US has a fairly balanced system of checks and balances. Ultimately it
is the electorate who decides these things, however indirectly, and however
late and after the fact. Of course the SCOTUS decided that corporations
are people and now the bosses of industry are as free to throw money at the
electorate as anyone, except they have far more ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Stormin Mormon wrote:
So, is there any way to restore freedom, and have the Fed return to the
limits of the Constitution?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

That's about as likely as you realizing Top Posters are a PITA.

In article ,
Han wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

So, is there any way to restore freedom, and have the Fed return to the
limits of the Constitution?

The US has a fairly balanced system of checks and balances. Ultimately it
is the electorate who decides these things, however indirectly, and however
late and after the fact. Of course the SCOTUS decided that corporations
are people and now the bosses of industry are as free to throw money at the
electorate as anyone, except they have far more ...

This is hardly news. The original SCOTUS discussion of the
constitutional rights of corporations goes back to the mid1800s or so
when SCOTUS decided that the taking clause also included taking things
from corporations. The cases specific to the first amendment run back at
least to the early 1930s or so.
A scan of the Citizen's United opinion (and a quick find run on
person and personhood) did not find any mention of the word(s). I never
did get around to the concurring or dissenting opinions to see if the
word pops up lower in the decision food chain.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 20:32:54 +0000 (UTC), (Dick Adams)
wrote:

In article ,
Stormin Mormon wrote:
So, is there any way to restore freedom, and have the Fed return to the
limits of the Constitution?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org

That's about as likely as you realizing Top Posters are a PITA.

You're incapable of controlling yourself? You must be a Democrat.