twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Is 1 star more than no stars? I mean does it work like that here?1 starred.
Get a job and pay for your own studies since you apparently made shitloads before, you fucking mooch.
Is 1 star more than no stars? I mean does it work like that here?1 starred.
Get a job and pay for your own studies since you apparently made shitloads before, you fucking mooch.
so civil, clayton.
No, but it displays a lack of stars if enough people choose 1 star.Is 1 star more than no stars? I mean does it work like that here?
I'm not glossing over anything. You just don't know what any of it means, despite the fact that it's well-established. I'll go line by line for you:I know right? Remember this link? Or are you glossing as you did before? Lol, lets not do this here, I don't have it in me tonight.
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm
If something is a federal crime and not a state crime, federal courts and not state courts have jurisdiction.S[SIZE=-1]EC[/SIZE]. 9. And be it further enacted, That the district courts shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States, committed within their respective districts, or upon the high seas; where no other punishment than whipping, not exceeding thirty stripes, a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, is to be inflicted;
The federal district courts, not the state courts, also have exclusive jurisdiction over civil admiralty and maritime cases.and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made, on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respective districts as well as upon the high seas;
Despite the grant of exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts in admiralty/maritime cases, any existing state common law remedy related to those cases is preserved. Without this clause, the First Judiciary Act would have eliminated existing state common law remedies in admiralty/maritime cases.saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it;
Further grants of jurisdiction to the federal courts.and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters than as aforesaid, made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States. And shall also have cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, or the circuit courts, as the case may be, of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States. And shall also have cognizance, concurrent as last mentioned, of all suits at common law where the United States sue, and the matter in dispute amounts, exclusive of costs, to the sum or value of one hundred dollars. And shall also have jurisdiction exclusively of the courts of the several States, of all suits against consuls or vice-consuls, except for offences above the description aforesaid. And the trial of issues in fact, in the district courts, in all causes except civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, shall be by jury.
no bucky, its only good if you're a pig and engage in conversation with an accent much like eric cantor's during your weekly round of golf and have women in your life you refer to as "muffy"so civil, clayton.
would you say that to schuylaar over lunch just for taking advantage of the tax code that america has put into place?
this just proves that double standard is alive and well in this country and it's name is FOX/republicunts..okay for them to manipulate the system..now one of their "own"..me..has decided to turn the tables becoming a poverty level citizen..that of course if different..if you have money? steal away..no money?..you're a mooch on society..I know right? Remember this link? Or are you glossing as you did before? Lol, lets not do this here, I don't have it in me tonight.
http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm
Fox news makes me sick half the time also.
shy.......good for you, might be the only way to get any of that SS back.
I have never been one to blame someone for taking something that was offered, never.
I would like to say first that I don't fault you for maximizing your tax return. Even for someone like myself, who is opposed to handouts in the form of tax credits, has no problem taking advantage of the ones that are in place. While I would vote for the removal of such loopholes, I'll use them while they are here.this just proves that double standard is alive and well in this country and it's name is FOX/republicunts..okay for them to manipulate the system..now one of their "own"..me..has decided to turn the tables becoming a poverty level citizen..that of course if different..if you have money? steal away..no money?..you're a mooch on society..
I am beginning to see this the other way, as well. See both sides.I would like to say first that I don't fault you for maximizing your tax return. Even for someone like myself, who is opposed to handouts in the form of tax credits, has no problem taking advantage of the ones that are in place. While I would vote for the removal of such loopholes, I'll use them while they are here.
But the distinction with someone like Romney, and you is important. Romney uses loopholes to keep some of his money, while you use loopholes to get money from others.
In other words, Romney has a net deficit to the IRS, while this year you are realizing a net gain, as am I.
I don't begrudge anyone for following the law and realizing some benefit from it, though I think the law ought to be changed, for folks like Romney and us.
This thread is about taxes tokeprep.I'm not glossing over anything. You just don't know what any of it means, despite the fact that it's well-established. I'll go line by line for you:
If something is a federal crime and not a state crime, federal courts and not state courts have jurisdiction.
The federal district courts, not the state courts, also have exclusive jurisdiction over civil admiralty and maritime cases.
Despite the grant of exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts in admiralty/maritime cases, any existing state common law remedy related to those cases is preserved. Without this clause, the First Judiciary Act would have eliminated existing state common law remedies in admiralty/maritime cases.
Further grants of jurisdiction to the federal courts.
ahhhhhhh now you're getting there..romney's loophole's on millions he denies the federal government are not commensurate to my living at poverty level and leveraging tax credits, which i am entitled to..when you deny the federal government, you deny the people of america..I would like to say first that I don't fault you for maximizing your tax return. Even for someone like myself, who is opposed to handouts in the form of tax credits, has no problem taking advantage of the ones that are in place. While I would vote for the removal of such loopholes, I'll use them while they are here.
But the distinction with someone like Romney, and you is important. Romney uses loopholes to keep some of his money, while you use loopholes to get money from others.
In other words, Romney has a net deficit to the IRS, while this year you are realizing a net gain, as am I.
I don't begrudge anyone for following the law and realizing some benefit from it, though I think the law ought to be changed, for folks like Romney and us.
even if romney's effective rate were 50% i bet he'd still be a lot better off than that of someone in the middle class paying the same 50%.How is Romney denying the Federal govt, by using the loopholes that are there to build the wealth, in the first place? Why is a denial when he does it, but not when you do it. It was his earn money, that is difference. But I am all for taking advantage in self rule. That is the system. It is how the balances check, the checks to keep the balance.
And let us not forget is charitable giving %, is higher than most in his tax brackets. I his certainly higher that any of the droid of Politics.
No.... I think the consumer pays the tax. You are talking about value add tax chain, to tax the growers. They will tax the consumers also.Well, if this is about taxes, it is important to remember the first tax that was inacted by the first president.
That was the whiskey tax and settled out by GW marching in troops to put down the rebellion and collecing the money.
Hmmm, the govt is hard up for cash now and some places are taxing mj.
I'd pay a tax to legally have a garden.
+repppppppppppamazon.com