Comparing Amendments

Discussion in 'History' started by Flanders, Aug 18, 2012.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,533
    Thanks Received:
    630
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,570
    All of the talk about Romney’s tax returns leaves me cold. I should say all of the headlines about tax returns leaves me cold because I don’t read the stories, and I’m outta there the minute a talking head broaches the subject. To me, the government taxing income has done more to tear down this country than all of the other betrayals combined. With hatred of a tax on income a firm belief it is impossible to care if one politician or another fails to produce tax returns.

    Let me cop a plea here and say that there was a time when I believed that only government employees and elected officials should be required to report their incomes. I naively thought stiff prison sentences would reduce the number of crooks in government to a minimum. It did not take me long to realize that my position was hypocritical. I now believe that a tax on income is so reprehensible that Democrat crooks in Congress should not have to file a tax return.

    Let’s face it, stickup artists like Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, etc., filed tax returns in every year they were sending tax dollars to their family businesses. Harry Reid’s land deals are casebook studies for young wannabe crooks.

    Like I always said, most of them arrive in Congress wearing dirty underwear and leave as millionaires. Those who arrive as millionaires not only protect their fortunes they get institutional protection for any larceny they might get up to while in Congress. My point: The XVI Amendment did nothing to stop small, medium, and large crooks in government from stealing. I just don’t see how it can be any worse without an income tax.

    The XVI and the XVIII Amendments provide the appropriate comparison. Throughout the Prohibition era the police, judges, elected officials, etc., were on the take. Government apologists swore bootleggers were successful because servants of the law were underpaid. Comedians of the day chuckled that bribes were nothing more than income supplements.

    Propagandists in today’s countless TV shows tell us government officials are straight arrows. Once in a while a storyline will depict beat cops taking a bribe from a local drug pusher, but how many shows have you seen where the officials at the top get their payoffs from drug kingpins? The fact is that drug dealers are more successful than bootleggers ever dreamed of being while government officials are overpaid. The question is: Where the hell are all of those tax dollars going?

    After the XXI Amendment repealed the XVIII Amendment one old drunk put it in perspective: Repeal is a con job. There is no more booze available now than there was during Prohibition.

    I suspect that repealing the XVI Amendment won’t see an increase in the number of crooks in government.

    Class warfare

    If you happen to hate the wealthy per se the number of tax dollar millionaires created by the XVI Amendment is ample justification for engaging in class warfare. Check the massive transfer of wealth that went from private sector producers to government coffers to tax dollar hustlers because of the income tax if you doubt me.

    Finally, I always thought the tax return is a violation of the Fifth Amendment in that the taxpayer is forced to testify against himself before being charged with a crime:


     
  2. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,533
    Thanks Received:
    630
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,570
    Yesterday’s article by Michelle Malkin fortifies my suspicion:

    Not only does MM identify a few lady crooks in government, she reminds us that depraved females populate the highest levels of the federal government. Crooks are crooks, but I’m pretty sure there were no female perverts and crooks in government during the Prohibition era.

    NOTE: I always thought it illogical to assume there were no morally corrupt females in Congress simply because none were ever outed. Any institution that sells its concept of moral superiority by force naturally attracts the most morally depraved individuals.

    Secretary Janet Napolitano is not a member of Congress, but she and her gal pals represent the first sex scandal in history I am aware of that shines a light on depraved females in the upper echelons of government. Happily, now that the dam broke it won’t be long before the ladies in Congress get the equal treatment they claim they want.

    The most troubling aspect of depraved ladies in high places is that they are usually feminists who would send American men to die fighting in foreign lands for human Rights. In reality: A female degenerate’s Right to govern is what they want soldiers to die for.

    Former Catholic HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is the worst of the worst because she is the cruelest of Hussein’s butchers:


    MM says this about Sebelius:

    The Liberal Sisterhood of the Plundering Hacks
    Michelle Malkin
    Aug 17, 2012

    The Liberal Sisterhood of the Plundering Hacks - Michelle Malkin - [page]
     
  3. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,932
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,868
    Of course it does, you’re a partisan republican.

    No one ‘hates’ the wealthy, that’s yet another rightist contrivance, along with ‘class warfare.’

    Romney’s not being accused of a crime, the 5th Amendment restricts only the government, law enforcement, or other prosecutorial public sector entities, not the private American voter demanding honesty from Romney.

    Indeed, the tax return issue has nothing to do with whether or not Romney did anything ‘wrong,’ most believe the returns are perfectly legal. It’s likely Romney’s hiding something that will be politically damaging, where it will cost him the presidency, not his freedom.

    It’s also telling how you and others on the right just don’t get it: it’s not about the returns, it’s about the arrogance and incompetence Romney has exhibited concerning the issue, clearly demonstrating he’s not qualified to be president.

    And your citing of Michelle Malkin only serves to undermine your credibility.
     
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2012
  4. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,533
    Thanks Received:
    630
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,570
    To C_Clayton_Jones: I see you did not take my advice offered in a previous thread:

     

Share This Page