On 11/16/2011 4:30 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 11/16/11 18:14 , flipper wrote:

virtually expands
the limits of interpretation to include flea markets, garage sales,
and one on one cash transactions.

You're way late to the game, then, because there's nothing in the bill
that "expands the limits" to "flea markets, garage sales, and one on
one cash transactions" more than the already existing law.


Your selective attention is interesting.

It's the broadness of the language that expands the limits. Because the
broadness of the language does nothing to limit the definition of the
terms. And, one more time, the legislators voting for the bill
specifically intend for the law to include garage sales, flea markets
and one on one cash transactions. This by their own admission.



As I said, one of the legislators voting for the bill. I'm in
media. I frequently interview legislators about their intents, and
their actions. I've been attempting to get the Attorney General on
the line to explain how this law affects street level commerce.

No offense intended but none of that means anything. What legislator,
what did he say, and why would I presume he knows better than the
author? And why should I take 'your word' or 'opinions'?

Well, that IS the crux of the argument, then, isn't it.



Louisiana has been attempting to get control of cash transactions
since I lived there in the 80's.

What in the world does that mean? Just 'who' is "Louisiana?" Maybe
they shouldn't vote for "Louisiana" next time if Mr. "Louisiana"
supports wacky things.

Wow. Obfuscation 101. This discussion has suddenly become a waste of
bandwidth.

Bottom line...I've lived there, you haven't. I deal with the legislators
in Louisiana every week, you don't.

You're entitled to your skepticism. Enjoy it.

Have a good evening.


Only an imbecile would support the law in the first place ... why screw
around with imbeciles?

He just needs to be told what an ignorant fooker he is and blown off ...
that is the problem today, people get confused and think they should be
"nice" to nuts, nuts need to be protected from hurting themselves and
those around them ...

Regards,
JS

On 11/16/2011 7:25 PM, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:50:08 -0800, John
wrote:

On 11/16/2011 4:30 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 11/16/11 18:14 , flipper wrote:

virtually expands
the limits of interpretation to include flea markets, garage sales,
and one on one cash transactions.

You're way late to the game, then, because there's nothing in the bill
that "expands the limits" to "flea markets, garage sales, and one on
one cash transactions" more than the already existing law.


Your selective attention is interesting.

It's the broadness of the language that expands the limits. Because the
broadness of the language does nothing to limit the definition of the
terms. And, one more time, the legislators voting for the bill
specifically intend for the law to include garage sales, flea markets
and one on one cash transactions. This by their own admission.



As I said, one of the legislators voting for the bill. I'm in
media. I frequently interview legislators about their intents, and
their actions. I've been attempting to get the Attorney General on
the line to explain how this law affects street level commerce.

No offense intended but none of that means anything. What legislator,
what did he say, and why would I presume he knows better than the
author? And why should I take 'your word' or 'opinions'?

Well, that IS the crux of the argument, then, isn't it.



Louisiana has been attempting to get control of cash transactions
since I lived there in the 80's.

What in the world does that mean? Just 'who' is "Louisiana?" Maybe
they shouldn't vote for "Louisiana" next time if Mr. "Louisiana"
supports wacky things.

Wow. Obfuscation 101. This discussion has suddenly become a waste of
bandwidth.

Bottom line...I've lived there, you haven't. I deal with the legislators
in Louisiana every week, you don't.

You're entitled to your skepticism. Enjoy it.

Have a good evening.


Only an imbecile would support the law in the first place ... why screw
around with imbeciles?

He just needs to be told what an ignorant fooker he is and blown off ...
that is the problem today, people get confused and think they should be
"nice" to nuts, nuts need to be protected from hurting themselves and
those around them ...

Regards,
JS


I take it your definition of "imbecile" is "not a thief."

Intelligent thiefs are never caught, so difficult to analyze them ... or
else they are criminal public servants and all have get-out-of-jail-free
cards provided by their rich corporate, bankster, wall street puppet
masters ... so, you have a point, they are just well protected imbeciles ...

Regards,
JS

On 11/17/2011 1:49 PM, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:30:28 -0800, John
wrote:

On 11/16/2011 7:25 PM, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:50:08 -0800, John
wrote:

On 11/16/2011 4:30 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:
On 11/16/11 18:14 , flipper wrote:

virtually expands
the limits of interpretation to include flea markets, garage sales,
and one on one cash transactions.

You're way late to the game, then, because there's nothing in the bill
that "expands the limits" to "flea markets, garage sales, and one on
one cash transactions" more than the already existing law.


Your selective attention is interesting.

It's the broadness of the language that expands the limits. Because the
broadness of the language does nothing to limit the definition of the
terms. And, one more time, the legislators voting for the bill
specifically intend for the law to include garage sales, flea markets
and one on one cash transactions. This by their own admission.



As I said, one of the legislators voting for the bill. I'm in
media. I frequently interview legislators about their intents, and
their actions. I've been attempting to get the Attorney General on
the line to explain how this law affects street level commerce.

No offense intended but none of that means anything. What legislator,
what did he say, and why would I presume he knows better than the
author? And why should I take 'your word' or 'opinions'?

Well, that IS the crux of the argument, then, isn't it.



Louisiana has been attempting to get control of cash transactions
since I lived there in the 80's.

What in the world does that mean? Just 'who' is "Louisiana?" Maybe
they shouldn't vote for "Louisiana" next time if Mr. "Louisiana"
supports wacky things.

Wow. Obfuscation 101. This discussion has suddenly become a waste of
bandwidth.

Bottom line...I've lived there, you haven't. I deal with the legislators
in Louisiana every week, you don't.

You're entitled to your skepticism. Enjoy it.

Have a good evening.


Only an imbecile would support the law in the first place ... why screw
around with imbeciles?

He just needs to be told what an ignorant fooker he is and blown off ...
that is the problem today, people get confused and think they should be
"nice" to nuts, nuts need to be protected from hurting themselves and
those around them ...

Regards,
JS


I take it your definition of "imbecile" is "not a thief."

Intelligent thiefs are never caught, so difficult to analyze them

There is, no doubt, a good chunk of the prison population that thought
the same thing.

... or
else they are criminal public servants and all have get-out-of-jail-free
cards provided by their rich corporate, bankster, wall street puppet
masters ... so, you have a point, they are just well protected imbeciles ...

Sounds pretty 'smart' to me since, according to you, they've got you
beat.


Regards,
JS

I should have known it would be too difficult for you to connect the
dots, so let me just give you the answer ...

The intelligent crooks, perverts, child molesters, intern molesters,
treasonous terrorists, economic terrorists, etc. are illegally holding
our public servant offices and displaying their get-out-of-jail-free-cards.

Regards,
JS