Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

Screwing Our Veterans Is Boundless.
http://cryptome.org/0001/screwing-vets.htm
cuhulin

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 22, 7:20*am, Stevie Nichts wrote:
On Jan 22, wrote:

You imbecilic moron,

Yeah, because kindergarten insults do so much
to persuade others to your point of view, right?

Well, if who I'm dealing with is the equivalent of 5-year-old idiot,
then yeah, I'll speak in a language he can understand, because he
certainly won't have the capacity to understand anything much beyond
that.


why don't you read up on some good old-fashioned
American history and learn why the restrictions were put there in the
first place. *In fact, the justices could brush up on history as
well. *

They did: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the
freedom of speech, ..."

Free political speech is not free if the government can
dictate when and where you exercise it.

That's not history, it's just mumbo-jumbo that fails to take into
account the easy corruption of free speech in the form of campaign
finance by wealthy entities, as happened in the latter half of the
1800s and early 1900s which necessitated the Tillman Act passed under
Roosevelt's administration after Roosevelt himself was accused of
receiving large sums of cash from fat cat bigwigs in exchange for
favors.


in 2010. *This is going to lead to political shambles, just like
repealing the Glass Steagall Act a decade ago allowed Wall St. to run
amock and get the country in the mess it's in today.

So you blame Bill Clinton for the mess the country is in today?
Go on, do go on.

You're short on history with that too, huh? Ultimately if he had
exercised his veto over it, it still would've been overriden by the
Republican-dominated Congress, so he knew there was no point in not
signing it. Recognizing it was a no-win situation for him, he
nevertheless still did what he could to ensure certain aspects of the
Act were made a bit more palatable for him to be able to sign it.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

Rick Saunders wrote:


So the growing majorities in every major poll who
are fed up to the teeth with Obama's radical
leftist agenda are now "extremist fruitcakes",
troll-boy? LOL!

I see nothing resembling radical leftism. That just shows how far right
the media has become.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 1/25/10 14:56 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:14:13 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

And don't feed me the limpBALLS classic line about that the rich do pay
taxes.... most don't pay anymore then, and more then less then we do.
Proven fact

TOo true

The "they pay most of the taxes" is a false claim, misdirection, and
totally stupid way of trying to deflect the core principles



According to the IRS:


86% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 25% of income earners.

97% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 50% of income earners.

50% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 1% of income earners.



From the Wall Street Journal:

"Notably, however, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept
climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The share
paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other words,
despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw their share of
taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income.



How much of the wealth do these people control? What percentage of
their cash flow do they pay in taxes? You do realize that Obama wants
to restore the tax rate to the same as Reagan?

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On 1/26/10 08:13 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:05 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

The IDEOLOGY of (whatever) party is the issue---CONSERVATIVES fought
EVERY major innovation, policy and law elevating peoples civil rights
and liberties from the inception of this nation thru today.


Again, check your history. Y'all is wrong.

Let's have a good laugh


Your needle is stuck.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On 1/26/10 08:13 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:12:19 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

THe taxes they pay are miniscule related to the amount they make.


So what?

They must, therefore, pay more.



Why?

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On 1/26/10 08:15 , wrote:

You mean the tax rate on the wealthy that not one ever went broke
paying?



So that's your goal?

Why am I not surprised.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:05 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

The IDEOLOGY of (whatever) party is the issue---CONSERVATIVES fought
EVERY major innovation, policy and law elevating peoples civil rights
and liberties from the inception of this nation thru today.


Again, check your history. Y'all is wrong.

Let's have a good laugh

Were confederates, Southerners, Judge Roy Moore Liberals---or
conservatives?

Which supported Jim Crow---Liberals or conservatives?

Which party did conservatives leave after they introduced the Civil
Rights act?

The classical liberals, like the framers of the US Constitution were for
limited govt with enumerated powers. Today who is for limited govt the
conservative or the liberal? Your liberal/conservative comparison takes the
comparison out of context, I'm just putting it back into context ... Don't
try to hide behind the liberal label when it was the Democrats that
supported all the above you list ...

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 25, 9:12*pm, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:
On 1/25/10 19:48 , wrote:





On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:08:23 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
*wrote:

On 1/25/10 14:56 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:14:13 +0000 (UTC), * wrote:

And don't feed me the limpBALLS classic line about that the rich do pay
taxes.... * most don't pay anymore then, and more then less then we do.
Proven fact

TOo true

The "they pay most of the taxes" is a false claim, misdirection, and
totally stupid way of trying to deflect the core principles

* *According to the IRS:

* *86% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 25% of income
earners.

* *97% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 50% of income
earners.

* *50% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 1% of income
earners.

* *From the Wall Street Journal:

* *"Notably, however, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept
climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The
share paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other
words, despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw
their share of taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of
income.

THe taxes they pay are miniscule related to the amount they make.

* *So what?



Since they own 80% of all the wealth--I'd say they're getting off
cheap.

* *Thankfully, what you say isn't incumbent on the rest of us.

It already is, and has been for the last 29 years. One significant
measure of wealth, particularly for the average American, is personal
savings. Since Reagan took over and pushed through Reaganomics,
personal savings have steadily declined over the last 3 decades.
Looking at personal savings of the wealthy is pointless since they
have a variety of financial back-up plans always in action, from
varied investments to numerous personal assets to obscene salaries and
bonuses, all beyond that which is attainable by the average American,
so measuring their wealth is better measured in dollar income
thresholds.

http://www.motherjones.com/files/ima...al_Savings.jpg

http://www.uscentrist.org/platform/docs/irs-490px.gif

Interesting, isn't it, the correlation between the decline of the
average American and the steep rise of the top .1% over the same
period of time since Reagan? And that's for *point* 1%, not 1%.
That's how few have benefited so greatly under the trickle-down
theory, only it seems to have kind of trickled up at everybody else's
expense.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:15:20 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:05 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

The IDEOLOGY of (whatever) party is the issue---CONSERVATIVES fought
EVERY major innovation, policy and law elevating peoples civil rights
and liberties from the inception of this nation thru today.


Again, check your history. Y'all is wrong.

Let's have a good laugh

Were confederates, Southerners, Judge Roy Moore Liberals---or
conservatives?

Which supported Jim Crow---Liberals or conservatives?

Which party did conservatives leave after they introduced the Civil
Rights act?

The classical liberals, like the framers of the US Constitution were for
limited govt with enumerated powers. Today who is for limited govt the
conservative or the liberal? Your liberal/conservative comparison takes
the
comparison out of context, I'm just putting it back into context ... Don't
try to hide behind the liberal label when it was the Democrats that
supported all the above you list ...



Classical liberals dealt with relationships of government and the
governed. We revolted because that relationship between us and the
government was "broken"

Everyone liberal or conservative has a relationship with government ... its
the nature of man and govt. Anytime there is a revolution one can say the
relationship is 'broken' ... the American revolution was no different.

The government(s) of Europe were generally princes and royalty, the
idea of "less government" cannot be applied to the present rationale
of the idiot loonytarians and conservatives--it's used as a rhetorical
propaganda.

Are you saying our US Constituton had an expiration date on it? ... '"less
govt" cannot be applied to the present rational..."
The Framers really didn't mean what they wrote in the US Constitution about
a limited govt??? ... "The powers not delegated to the US by the
Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively " ... this is untrue??? ... read Art I sect 8 of the US
Constitution.

Our Founders took (as an experiment) the notion that "rights" are not
given by princes and kings (or despots)---but from a "higher
power"--and instituted a "rule of law"--that certainly was setting a
lot of "government in motion"

It set NO 'lot of '"government in motion''' ... The Federal Govt role/powers
were limited and enumerated by the Constitution ... States were suppose to
do the most of the 'every day' governing of the people.

the "less government" isn't applicable because early 18th century was
rural, agrarian, and "government" was small out of lack of need. The
influx of millions of immigrants, the industrial revolution, westward
expansion finally created a mess because of "less government" (or
worse, government siding with wealth and industry)

The US Constitution CAN be changed ... don't give me that 'rule of law' when
the Constitution's limited powers are ignored. One of the reasons for that
"broken" relationship you write of above, between the American colonist and
Great Britian was "He (King George) has erected a multitude of New Offices,
and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their
substance." ... sounds like what people are complaining about today doesn't
it? ... classical liberal thought of the Framers isn't it? So its the
conservatives and not todays liberals that are on the side of the Framers
and many of todays Americans. Many Americans today have some of the same
grievances as listed in the Dec of Ind.

Your last sentence mixed "party label" and "ideology" (again) to
associate or infer something that isn't relevant

Of course its revelant ... todays liberal has nothing in common with the
Framers of the US Constitution ... todays liberal wants to centralize power
in the hands of the Fed Govt and have the people completely dependent. ...
healthcare, education, retirement etc from and dependent on the Fed Govt.
.... centralized power to control the people. The conservative is for
smaller govt and protection of individual rights. Today its the liberals
(Democrats) that are for centralized govt control while the Republicans
(conservatives) are for a more limited govt and less control. To the extent
that anyone still believes in the Constitution its the conservatives.

Conservative policy/ideology can adopted by any group---but the
policy, not the label it adopts is relevant

True, and the conservative believes in smaller and limited govt. ...

The major cause of most of our woes was "opposition" to change, from
the support of the crown, the support of slavery, to the opposition to
most all of the policy that made us great.

The above was classical liberalism and has nothing to do with todays
liberalism. Breaking away from Great Britian and freeing slaves was
classical liberalism which was for individual freedom. Today's liberal is
for central govt control ... the govt gives you healthcare, education,
retirement, gives tax money to favored businesses etc. ... central control
and not individual freedom.

You can call yourself a liberal, progressive or whatever else you want to
call yourself but in the end you are a Democrat who believes in collectivist
govt. control.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

bpnjensen wrote:

Well, whatever else they've done - they have handed the elections and
thus, the lawmaking machinery, to the wealthiest corporations in
America.

Wealthiest corporations in *America*???

Heard on the media last night (01/25) that this ruling also applies to
FOREIGN corporations.

Has anyone else heard this or can it be verified?

-If- it is indeed true, people on these NGs that support the ruling
are either extremely naive -- or should be in jail (along with the
Supreme Court) for supporting such a treasonous idea.

Sorry, but I don't want some Saudi or Chinese company donating millions
to support a candidate of THEIR choice in an AMERICAN election.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:45:15 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 08:15 , wrote:

You mean the tax rate on the wealthy that not one ever went broke
paying?



So that's your goal?

No, the goal is for them to share in the expense of running a society

Commeasurately with the wealth they have.

What is the obligation of the citizen who pays no taxes for the expense of
'running society?'

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

Stevie Nichts wrote:

We've seen how utterly ineffectual campaign-finance laws have
been -- or haven't you noticed that money somehow manages
to get spent?

So?

Murder is against the law -- and yet people still commit murder. Are you
saying that just because some break the law, we should have no law? I'll
make one of your great leaps and say it looks like you are touting anarchy.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:42:18 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 08:13 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:12:19 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

THe taxes they pay are miniscule related to the amount they make.


So what?

They must, therefore, pay more.



Why?

Because "we" say so

"we" make it possible for them to amass wealth

"they" don't fight wars or work

"they" certainly don't go broke by paying a commeasurate share of
their amassed wealth for that privilege.

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in
society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system
that authorizes it and moral code that justifies it." The Law Frederic
Bastiat

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On 1/26/10 10:57 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:41:50 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 08:13 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:05 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

The IDEOLOGY of (whatever) party is the issue---CONSERVATIVES fought
EVERY major innovation, policy and law elevating peoples civil rights
and liberties from the inception of this nation thru today.


Again, check your history. Y'all is wrong.

Let's have a good laugh


Your needle is stuck.

But not on a false claim that conservatives weren't responsible for
most of the bad things that happened to America and were opposed to
all the changes that made us great


Again, your needle is stuck.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On 1/26/10 11:09 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:42:18 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 08:13 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:12:19 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

THe taxes they pay are miniscule related to the amount they make.


So what?

They must, therefore, pay more.



Why?

Because "we" say so




Some logic, there, Bubba.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On 1/26/10 11:09 , wrote:

"they" certainly don't go broke by paying a commeasurate share
of their amassed wealth for that privilege.


They already do. 50% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the
top 1% of income
earners.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On 1/26/10 11:10 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:45:15 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 08:15 , wrote:

You mean the tax rate on the wealthy that not one ever went broke
paying?



So that's your goal?

No, the goal is for them to share in the expense of running a society

Commeasurately with the wealth they have.



They already pay far more than commensurate taxation would assess
by orders of magnitude.

What you propose is not sharing the expense but punitive
confiscation for providing the impetus that drives the economy.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On Jan 26, 1:38*pm, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
bpnjensen wrote:
Well, whatever else they've done - they have handed the elections and
*thus, the lawmaking machinery, to the wealthiest corporations in
America.

Wealthiest corporations in *America*???

Heard on the media last night (01/25) that this ruling also applies to
FOREIGN corporations.

Has anyone else heard this or can it be verified?


Not sure if it would, but a lot of corporations are owned by
foreigners. If you think someone like Rupert Murdoch is an American
just because he became a naturalized citizen, well, think again. He
only did so because legally only US citizens are allowed to own
American TV stations.


-If- it is indeed true, people on these NGs that support the ruling
are either extremely naive -- or should be in jail (along with the
Supreme Court) for supporting such a treasonous idea.

Sorry, but I don't want some Saudi or Chinese company donating millions
to support a candidate of THEIR choice in an AMERICAN election.

Well, it's going to happen, thanks to the right-wing faction of the
Supreme Court. First, right-wingers practically sink the country
financially and now they're just giving it away to any unscrupulous
cabals out there for the taking of it.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On 1/26/10 13:32 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:59:37 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 10:57 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:41:50 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 08:13 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:11:05 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

The IDEOLOGY of (whatever) party is the issue---CONSERVATIVES fought
EVERY major innovation, policy and law elevating peoples civil rights
and liberties from the inception of this nation thru today.


Again, check your history. Y'all is wrong.

Let's have a good laugh


Your needle is stuck.

But not on a false claim that conservatives weren't responsible for
most of the bad things that happened to America and were opposed to
all the changes that made us great


Again, your needle is stuck.



Lame grade school evasion

Noted.


Ditto.
:)

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

D. Peter Maus wrote:

86% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 25% of income
earners.

97% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 50% of income
earners.

50% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 1% of income earners.

Lies, damnable lies and statistics....


To paraphrase Clinton, it all depends on what your definition of 'income
earner' is.

Many of the wealthiest people have very, very modest annual
honourariums. Their real income is directed or manipulated through non
taxed channels.

Paying forty percent tax on one twentieth of your total income is a
sweet deal.



mike twain II

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On 1/26/10 13:50 , m II wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

86% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 25% of income
earners.

97% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 50% of income
earners.

50% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the top 1% of income earners.

Lies, damnable lies and statistics....



Nice edit. You removed the reference: From the IRS.


To paraphrase Clinton, it all depends on what your definition of 'income
earner' is.

Yes, speaking of LIES.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On 1/26/10 13:59 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:00:25 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

Because "we" say so

Some logic, there, Bubba.

Glad you think so---it's worked very well for a couple of centuries



Not the way you do it, no.

Your premises are gratuitously based in the fundament that 'there
are no enemies on the Left, and that there is no honor on the Right.'

Gratuitously denied.

That's also worked for a couple of centuries.

The notion that you can simply plunder private wealth under the
brand of 'fair share of expenses for running the society' flatly
denies that the private wealth is already taxed at a dramatically,
confiscatorily, higher rate than the base of the population. Which
those who consume the bulk of services provided by the society pay
little share of the expenses of running the society. Many, nearly
25%, pay zero share at all.

If you're going to tax income, and claim 'fair share' then tax
all income. Otherwise call it for what it is: Plunder of private
wealth. In which case the word 'fair' doesn't belong in your mouth.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On 1/26/10 14:00 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:03:19 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

On 1/26/10 11:09 , wrote:

"they" certainly don't go broke by paying a commeasurate share
of their amassed wealth for that privilege.


They already do. 50% of all Federal Income Taxes are paid by the
top 1% of income
earners.

But they own 90% of the wealth

They contribute no bodies for war


False on its face.


Look at the number of Veterans who sit at the top of that wealth.



They contribute to no policy or acts which make society better

Also false on its face. Look at the number of Congresspersons who
served. Compare that number to the number of wealthy in the
Congress, and when you compare THAT number to the number of
Democrats in Congress, you see that the preponderance of private
wealth in the hands of Congress persons is primarily in the hands of
Democrats, as substantial number of which who served.

You may want to actually look at the facts before you assert
'fairness' in your plunder of private wealth.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On 1/26/10 14:04 , wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 13:05:32 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:


They already pay far more than commensurate taxation would assess
by orders of magnitude.

Nonsense

they pay a pittance on the wealth in percentage of what they "earn"
where the bottom earners pay nearly all of their income after living
expenses.



Go back a few posts. The IRS numbers are there.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

D. Peter Maus wrote:

Lies, damnable lies and statistics....



Nice edit. You removed the reference: From the IRS.


That has no bearing on the case. You know full well that Government
NEVER lies or mis-represents ANY situation.

I noticed that the US Military have turned away five airplanes carrying
food and medicine to the Haitians. It seems they need the space for the
munitions they will be using in the invasion of Venezualan next year.

Using a disaster of such magnitude to aid in further military conquest
is OBSCENE.

That is one sick administration you have, I'm sorry to say. I, like
others, had thought Obama would be different. Things are obviously
beyond his control.

mike




--
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /
/ /\ \/ /\'Think tanks cleaned cheap' /\ \/ /
/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/

Densa International©
For the OTHER two percent.



Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage,
I block all postings with a Gmail, Google Mail,
Google Groups or Hotmail address.
I also filter everything from a .cn server.


For solutions which may work for you, please check:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On 1/26/10 15:19 , m II wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

Lies, damnable lies and statistics....



Nice edit. You removed the reference: From the IRS.


That has no bearing on the case. You know full well that Government
NEVER lies or mis-represents ANY situation.

I noticed that the US Military have turned away five airplanes carrying
food and medicine to the Haitians. It seems they need the space for the
munitions they will be using in the invasion of Venezualan next year.




Where the hell do you get this ****?



Using a disaster of such magnitude to aid in further military conquest
is OBSCENE.

That is one sick administration you have, I'm sorry to say. I, like
others, had thought Obama would be different. Things are obviously
beyond his control.


Obiteme is an empty suit. Was when he was in Chicago. Was in the
Senate. He's not in control of anything.

He's, at best, a figure head, run by the Party.

Oooohhh....Fans of History: Sound familiar?

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 1/26/10 15:19 , m II wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

Lies, damnable lies and statistics....



Nice edit. You removed the reference: From the IRS.


That has no bearing on the case. You know full well that Government
NEVER lies or mis-represents ANY situation.

I noticed that the US Military have turned away five airplanes carrying
food and medicine to the Haitians. It seems they need the space for the
munitions they will be using in the invasion of Venezualan next year.


Where the hell do you get this ****?

He's a Canuck. They teach 'em that in what passes as school up there.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 1/26/10 15:19 , m II wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

Lies, damnable lies and statistics....



Nice edit. You removed the reference: From the IRS.


That has no bearing on the case. You know full well that Government
NEVER lies or mis-represents ANY situation.

I noticed that the US Military have turned away five airplanes carrying
food and medicine to the Haitians. It seems they need the space for the
munitions they will be using in the invasion of Venezualan next year.


Where the hell do you get this ****?

He's a Canuck. They teach 'em that in what passes as school up there.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On 1/26/10 16:55 , dxAce wrote:


"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 1/26/10 15:19 , m II wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

Lies, damnable lies and statistics....



Nice edit. You removed the reference: From the IRS.


That has no bearing on the case. You know full well that Government
NEVER lies or mis-represents ANY situation.

I noticed that the US Military have turned away five airplanes carrying
food and medicine to the Haitians. It seems they need the space for the
munitions they will be using in the invasion of Venezualan next year.


Where the hell do you get this ****?

He's a Canuck. They teach 'em that in what passes as school up there.




Ah...yes....I forgot he's a Leaf.


Must be a bumper crop of vegetables every year.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 1/26/10 16:55 , dxAce wrote:


"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 1/26/10 15:19 , m II wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

Lies, damnable lies and statistics....



Nice edit. You removed the reference: From the IRS.


That has no bearing on the case. You know full well that Government
NEVER lies or mis-represents ANY situation.

I noticed that the US Military have turned away five airplanes carrying
food and medicine to the Haitians. It seems they need the space for the
munitions they will be using in the invasion of Venezualan next year.


Where the hell do you get this ****?

He's a Canuck. They teach 'em that in what passes as school up there.



Ah...yes....I forgot he's a Leaf.

Must be a bumper crop of vegetables every year.

Proven with every post.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

Ahh needs tah step em down ah leetl bits.Teh three peecis uv three
quarter eench wyde by one quarter eench thick stryps uv wood.Ahh wants
teh peece uv plywood Ahh issa oosin furr ah pach panil onna mah 1983
Dodge van insyde civer ober thah enygine tah bee flush onna teh
outsyde.Patcyh panil issa three sixtiinths eench thick, enygine civer
areah Ahh issa aygonna patch issa bouts wun ates eench thick, anna Ahh
wants its tah bees flush wen Ahh J.B.Weld teh peecis tahgeddar.
Ahh reckon assa how mah bilt sander weel thin downa thos three stryps uv
wood reel reel gud, faister dan ah cat kin lik its arse.
cuhulin

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

On 1/26/10 17:21 , dxAce wrote:


"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 1/26/10 16:55 , dxAce wrote:


"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 1/26/10 15:19 , m II wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

Lies, damnable lies and statistics....



Nice edit. You removed the reference: From the IRS.


That has no bearing on the case. You know full well that Government
NEVER lies or mis-represents ANY situation.

I noticed that the US Military have turned away five airplanes carrying
food and medicine to the Haitians. It seems they need the space for the
munitions they will be using in the invasion of Venezualan next year.


Where the hell do you get this ****?

He's a Canuck. They teach 'em that in what passes as school up there.



Ah...yes....I forgot he's a Leaf.

Must be a bumper crop of vegetables every year.

Proven with every post.



Sad, but true, Steve. Sad, but true.

But then, what would you expect from a country that would name a
town Upper Dildo.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 1/26/10 17:21 , dxAce wrote:


"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 1/26/10 16:55 , dxAce wrote:


"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 1/26/10 15:19 , m II wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

Lies, damnable lies and statistics....



Nice edit. You removed the reference: From the IRS.


That has no bearing on the case. You know full well that Government
NEVER lies or mis-represents ANY situation.

I noticed that the US Military have turned away five airplanes carrying
food and medicine to the Haitians. It seems they need the space for the
munitions they will be using in the invasion of Venezualan next year.


Where the hell do you get this ****?

He's a Canuck. They teach 'em that in what passes as school up there.



Ah...yes....I forgot he's a Leaf.

Must be a bumper crop of vegetables every year.

Proven with every post.



Sad, but true, Steve. Sad, but true.

But then, what would you expect from a country that would name a
town Upper Dildo.

Well, when one considers that they are at least pleasuring themselves a good
amount of the time then at least they can't cause to much trouble.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 1/26/10 15:19 , m II wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

Lies, damnable lies and statistics....



Nice edit. You removed the reference: From the IRS.


That has no bearing on the case. You know full well that
Government NEVER lies or mis-represents ANY situation.

I noticed that the US Military have turned away five airplanes
carrying food and medicine to the Haitians. It seems they need
the space for the munitions they will be using in the invasion
of Venezualan next year.


Where the hell do you get this ****?

On 1/26/10 16:55 , dxAce wrote:

He's a Canuck. They teach 'em that in what passes as school up
there.

D. Peter Maus wrote:

Ah...yes....I forgot he's a Leaf.


Must be a bumper crop of vegetables every year.

Jeez, Mouse, can't you do better than to perpetually be a boot-licking
sycophant* for someone like Lare? It's very unbecoming of you.

*For those of you whose Funk and Wagnall's is in the shop, sycophant: a
self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite, toady, yes man,
flunky, fawner.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 1/26/10 16:55 , dxAce wrote:


"D. Peter Maus" wrote:

On 1/26/10 15:19 , m II wrote:
D. Peter Maus wrote:

Lies, damnable lies and statistics....



Nice edit. You removed the reference: From the IRS.


That has no bearing on the case. You know full well that
Government NEVER lies or mis-represents ANY situation.

I noticed that the US Military have turned away five
airplanes carrying food and medicine to the Haitians. It
seems they need the space for the munitions they will be
using in the invasion of Venezualan next year.


Where the hell do you get this ****?

He's a Canuck. They teach 'em that in what passes as school up
there.



Ah...yes....I forgot he's a Leaf.

Must be a bumper crop of vegetables every year.

On 1/26/10 17:21 , dxAce wrote:

Proven with every post.

D. Peter Maus wrote:

Sad, but true, Steve. Sad, but true.

Jeez, Mouse, can't you do better than to perpetually be a boot-licking
sycophant* for someone like Lare? It's very unbecoming of you.

*For those of you whose Funk and Wagnall's is in the shop, sycophant: a
self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite, toady, yes man,
flunky, fawner.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:35:04 -0600, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote:

they pay a pittance on the wealth in percentage of what they "earn"
where the bottom earners pay nearly all of their income after living
expenses.



Go back a few posts. The IRS numbers are there.

They pay less of their wealth than the poor do.

Period.

You're obviously having yours, boy.

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

I am a bussy, bussy Bee.I woiks on sumpin teel I gits tarred of tHat,
tHen I woiks on sumpin else till I gits tired of that, tHen I woiks on
sumpin else.On and on and on it goes,,,,

Looks like Mike Rowe on Dirty Jobs, tHe Discovery channel, caints
operate a left handed monkey wrench.
Left handed monkey wrenches really do exist.
cuhulin

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment
 

D. Peter Maus wrote:

I noticed that the US Military have turned away five airplanes carrying
food and medicine to the Haitians. It seems they need the space for the
munitions they will be using in the invasion of Venezualan next year.




Where the hell do you get this ****?


http://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/Art...aspx?e=2268601

http://www.adetocqueville.com/20100120233036_IMD30.htm

http://tinyurl.com/ydwmula

and more...



...and as always, the US evangelists are calling Haiti satanic. It seems
to be a prerequisite for invasion or occupation. The label comforts the
religious fundamentalists back on the farm.

http://tinyurl.com/ydrwubf

http://www.detnews.com/article/20100...352/1020/rss09




mike

Supreme Court reinstates First Amendment- Who pays tax? Notus!
 

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:08:23 -0600, D. Peter Maus wrote:

On 1/25/10 14:56 , wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 18:14:13 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

And don't feed me the limpBALLS classic line about that the rich do
pay taxes.... most don't pay anymore then, and more then less then
we do. Proven fact

TOo true

The "they pay most of the taxes" is a false claim, misdirection, and
totally stupid way of trying to deflect the core principles

From the Wall Street Journal:

"Notably, however, the share of taxes paid by the top 1% has kept
climbing this decade -- to 39.4% in 2005, from 37.4% in 2000. The share
paid by the top 5% has increased even more rapidly. In other words,
despite the tax reductions of 2001 and 2003, the rich saw their share of
taxes paid rise at a faster rate than their share of income.

WSJ?! that is owned by ... Who?!

*how most millionaires get away with paying little or no taxes.

Most of the wealthy incorporate their personal assets and properties into
a small paper C-corps. All their houses, cars and investments are under
these style companies that have allot of tax instruments. (really meant
for a company likes "Joe's Plumbing") The board members, (the
millionaire's self and families) draw a salary and as with any company,
write this off as a expense.

All the millionaire's REAL income from his real bread winning company is
moved into this small paper c-corp shelter by having this c-corp hired as
a consulting company by the big bread-winning company thus sheltering his
income from personal taxes. The millionaire (and family, as stated above)
is payed a small salary to have some spending cabbage (like a $4k/month
allowance) but since the sum is low, there is only a little income that
is actually taxed. The amortization of the c-corp assets can now also be
written off. House workers such as gardeners, cooks and maids are
expenses that are once again written off. There are many angles this can
take. Specially, with over-sea investments! (nudge nudge wink wink)

This is just a small peak at how the rich get by with paying so little if
any taxes.

Buffet admits that he pays less tax then his receptionist!!!

Remember, "stupid people pay taxes!" -Leona Helmsley