Impossible! The deficit is falling as well as unemployment Obama wrecking economy

T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
By this logic rights that exist in the 1st 10 amendments are not simply basic rights but were the only rights. The right to own a gun existed before the 2nd guaranteed and specified it. The right of people to not be owned was only specified by the 13th once and for all.
Click to expand...
Enshrining them in the constitution is supposed to make them immutable. The question of whether they otherwise existed at English common law depends on the specific right in question. Under the English common law, slavery was perfectly legitimate; black Africans had no "right...to not be owned."
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
The blood and sweat and suffering of tens of millions of people throughout American history sowed that seed of freedom for all, not the original intent of the framers, which governments and courts spent more then a century citing as evidence that some people were not intended to enjoy freedom or equality. Your giving credit to the framers is offensive to everyone who fought to make the constitution universally applicable to all.
Click to expand...
Ya but what made them Americans like what defined them as Americans, solidified it, proclaimed it loudly to the world............ and later gave them the courage to continue carrying the torch of Freedom against great demons such as slavery or anything else feel me??
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
Enshrining them in the constitution is supposed to make them immutable. The question of whether they otherwise existed at English common law depends on the specific right in question. Under the English common law, slavery was perfectly legitimate; black Africans had no "right...to not be owned."
Click to expand...
ummmmm no the 9th amendment. edit: Which is the basis of American Common Law.
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
Ya but what made them Americans like what defined them as Americans, solidified it, proclaimed it loudly to the world............ and later gave them the courage to continue carrying the torch of Freedom against great demons such as slavery or anything else feel me??
Click to expand...
The influence and later effect of the words is irrelevant in determining the original intent of their meaning.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
Ya but what made them Americans like what defined them as Americans, solidified it, proclaimed it loudly to the world............ and later gave them the courage to continue carrying the torch of Freedom against great demons such as slavery or anything else feel me??
Click to expand...
simply retarded. try again.

actually, please don't.

you're lucky that anyone humors your delusions.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
I ran some numbers through a federal income tax calculator to provide an example of income tax advantage for you. Assume we have two people, one who earns $50,000 per year and one who earns $30,000 per year. Filing as single people, the total tax due is $6,093 + $2,603 = $8,696. If our couple files jointly as a married couple, their tax bill on the same incomes is $8,205.

Conclusion: if you're in a relationship with a same sex partner at these income levels and unable to get married, the government is legally entitled to take an extra $500 from you versus a similarly situated straight couple that can get married.
Click to expand...
Ok so every couple in the USA earns that amount and has no children, got it.

You are living in fantasy land if you think your particular scenario is even kind of close to reality.


I mean you did take into account the tax advantage for 2 children per woman right? Tax due in both situation = no tax.

Hypothetical situations are so fun sometimes, you can make up anything, but still couldn't prove anything.
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
The UCC is not applicable to money. Federal Reserve Notes are money. Period.

The fact that you bizarrely think the quotation marks in Milam--rather than the words--indicate otherwise is absurd. You're relying on a non-existent distinction.
Click to expand...
Does the UCC define money? Money is the key word. Do you know what legalese is?

It's just confusing to me you could quote things and differentiate between a "priviledge" and a "right". Like you did when talking about not testifying by citing the root of the "laws" involved.....then act like you don't know why I just put quotes on that word.....I quoted it because they are "laws" that only pertain to a statutes i.e. statutory law and given only the force of law and are not factually laws in and of themselves. Just like Fed notes aren't money in and of themselves.

Given the fact you recognize the legal fiction by acknowledging it way back in this thread, why would you insistently argue and pretend like you don't actually know both definitions of money, There are only 2, one for the regular world like passing someone a "note" in class and one for the legal world; then substitute a new third definition that you literally made up? With zero evidence? Not one shred? Besides your own interpretation not defined anywhere beyond this thread?

besides a court case that does not recognize your new third definition either?
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member

  • tokeprep said:
    ]I ran some numbers through a federal income tax calculator to provide an example of income tax advantage for you. Assume we have two people, one who earns $50,000 per year and one who earns $30,000 per year. Filing as single people, the total tax due is $6,093 + $2,603 = $8,696. If our couple files jointly as a married couple, their tax bill on the same incomes is $8,205.

    Conclusion: if you're in a relationship with a same sex partner at these income levels and unable to get married, the government is legally entitled to take an extra $500 from you versus a similarly situated straight couple that can get married.
    Click to expand...


    ​

    Huge assumption government is allowed to take anything?

 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Ok so every couple in the USA earns that amount and has no children, got it.

You are living in fantasy land if you think your particular scenario is even kind of close to reality.


I mean you did take into account the tax advantage for 2 children per woman right? Tax due in both situation = no tax.

Hypothetical situations are so fun sometimes, you can make up anything, but still couldn't prove anything.
Click to expand...
I never said that this was representative of every couple. You wanted an example of when there was a tax benefit that cannot be obtained by same sex couples, and I demonstrated one. You can make up lots of other scenarios and come up with the same result.
 
T

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
The fuck?? Boggle! Single straight people are gay?
Click to expand...
You suggested that men would take advantage and get married solely for tax benefits. The point is that people can already do that--it's ridiculous to suggest that gay marriage would enable it anymore than present marriage laws do.
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
The influence and later effect of the words is irrelevant in determining the original intent of their meaning.
Click to expand...

Original intent was anything not specifically given to the government was retained for The People. As evidenced by the 9th and Prohibition.
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
Original intent was anything not specifically given to the government was retained for The People. As evidenced by the 9th and Prohibition.

All this speak of Slavery reminds me dearly of the age old Dem "champions of slavery" voting pitch, sorry no assumptions on your party if you have one.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
You wanted an example of when there was a tax benefit that cannot be obtained by same sex couples
Click to expand...
I didn't want any example.

Are you going to want to take a child tax credit too? Even though neither you nor your partner are capable of conception? Equal rights and all?
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
tokeprep said:
You suggested that men would take advantage and get married solely for tax benefits. The point is that people can already do that--it's ridiculous to suggest that gay marriage would enable it anymore than present marriage laws do.
Click to expand...
Straight people can marry the same sex and get all the benefits as a hetero marriage??

If this is true, then why can't you get married? Just say you are straight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top