Did you actually read the story on this?? Seems that Cuba was more involved with money and the hang up than anyone. Propaganda at it's best.
Cruz to introduce bill to bar Syrian refugees
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Did you actually read the story on this?? Seems that Cuba was more involved with money and the hang up than anyone. Propaganda at it's best.
Yes, I believe that it was vehemently and fervently opposed to taxing an individual on the one thing he truly owns- his labor!
It's not the same as, or equivalent to, being in favor of it either!
The 16th Amendment and Federal Reserve Act basically dealt the American People out of their own future. Jefferson was of the opinion that every 20 years a new Constitution should be drawn-up. That is fine by me. But, I know that I will stand in opposition to a private banking cartel and taxing an individual on their labor every time they ask for a vote. Even if the Founders were FOR THAT, I'd be opposed to it! It's theft, plain and simple. So is allowing an institution like The Fed to exist and devalue your currency. That is theft, plain and simple.
Karl Marx wasn't even born yet.
As you may recall, that's a position I have taken here often. Namely that earned income should be taxed least, if at all.
Looking up income tax on Wiki was fun. Apparently there was an income tax in China in 10 AD. After the emperor was overthrown, the income tax was canceled. The next notable instance, came under Henry II in 1188 to fund his Crusade.
The inception date of the modern income tax is typically accepted as 1799, at the suggestion of Dr Beeke, Dean of Bristol. This income tax was introduced into Great Britain by Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger in his budget of December 1798, to pay for weapons and equipment for the French Revolutionary War.
Based on that history, I'm guessing that the reason income taxes aren't part of the constitution - pro or con - is because they weren't given much thought.
No it's not, but I wasn't making that claim. Whereas Soup seemed to be arguing that being in favor of an income tax conflicted with the constitution.
Karl Marx wasn't even born yet.
As you may recall, that's a position I have taken here often. Namely that earned income should be taxed least, if at all.
Looking up income tax on Wiki was fun. Apparently there was an income tax in China in 10 AD. After the emperor was overthrown, the income tax was canceled. The next notable instance, came under Henry II in 1188 to fund his Crusade.
The inception date of the modern income tax is typically accepted as 1799, at the suggestion of Dr Beeke, Dean of Bristol. This income tax was introduced into Great Britain by Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger in his budget of December 1798, to pay for weapons and equipment for the French Revolutionary War.
Based on that history, I'm guessing that the reason income taxes aren't part of the constitution - pro or con - is because they weren't given much thought.
It's because the founders didn't think you should be taxed on your labor, only on what you decided to purchase.
I never said that it Conflicted with the Constitution, I said that it conflicted with the intent of the founders. There's an amendment, passed in 1913, that gives government the power to tax income, therefore you can't really say it's unconstitutional. Again, that doesn't mean that it was the original intent of the founders.
[1] I've never heard you (or anyone here) say that before. I've said something similar on several occasion and have been shot at by all sides - but especially by cons who claim to love the constitution more than anyone else.
[2] I agree on the banking cartel, and agree on income tax on earned income, as I previously expressed.
[3] Well of course. They're dead. And some of their ideas simply aren't working very well any more.
[4] I disagree. It's part of our compact. It's a badly managed part of our compact - so worthy of criticism and serious revision - but not theft.
I've heard of number one. I think one of his quotes is, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Please engage your brain before posting. Not only wasn't that what I was saying, it wasn't what Strum was saying, either. At least I hope it wasn't.
It's not nickpicking. I'm not even the one who set the parameters. That was your buddy, Huey.
What the founders thought and what the Constitution is now are two different things. That's why they gave us the power to amend it.
It's the same thing you guys were talking about. He has another quote which is the specific one Strumm is talking about, but it's basically saying the same thing, that the Constitution should be remade ever couple of decades.
I sure hope that this isn't your proof that Syrian refugees are terrorists, otherwise we're going to have to have a long talk about what the term, "fake," means.
Are you telling me that they didn't pass an amendment to incorporate the Income Tax?
Dude. I love it. Get digging yourself in deeper with how little you understand about how the Constitution works. Not to mention how inconsistent you are with the application of your spotty knowledge. Only in your world is the 2nd amendment constitutional, but the 16 amendment unconstitutional. You're clearly unable to understand that they're both amendments.
Did you eat paint chips as a kid? I never said the 16th amendment was unconstitutional. In fact, I said it WASN'T unconstitutional.
Nobody is saying Syrian refugees are terrorists. I don't know how you survive each day. What I'm saying, as was the article, is that there is a real threat that ISIS gets in passing themselves off as a Syrian refugee. Is that simple enough for you, or should we get a 5th grader to explain it to you?
Last edited:
Serious question - What about the refugee issue makes it any easier for an ISIS member to get into the country? Are the background checks or vetting any easier because they are considered a refugee rather than disguised as a tourist or here on a student visa or any of the other forms of legal entry into the U.S. (which are the only forms that count here because if we are talking illegal entry, then the ISIS member doesn't need to disguise themselves).
Actually, the security screening is much more rigorous, but don't let that detract from the right wing paranoia over the issue.
It is much more rigorous. But it isn't full proof. Not by a long shot. But don't let that detract from the left wing ME love fest.
So you believe ISIS terrorists plan to purposefully try to sneak into the U.S. as Syrian refugees and, thus, they are electing to undergo rigorous screenings in lieu of either (a) entering the U.S. illegally; or (b) entering the U.S. legally via other methods where the screenings aren't nearly as rigorous in comparison to the refugee process?
That's your argument for why no Syrian refugees should be admitted? That really is some Alice in Wonderland thinking.
Eat me. Drink me.
When it's spelled out, it makes it even easier for ISIS to get in. You think they aren't patient?
Point to where I said no Syrian refugees should be admitted. I'm simply stating that our competent government (sarcasm) had better get their act together on this one.
Thanks for the clarification. I assumed you supported the Cruz bill to stop accepting Syrian refugees, mention in the OP.
Nah, pretty much everything that comes out of Cruz's mouth sounds like it should be coming out of the other end.
Similar threads
