40,000 new laws enacted for 2011

darkdestruction420

darkdestruction420

Well-Known Member
the supreme court is not an advisor, they make the rules and determine constitutionality of things and make their own choices/decisions about it, they dont advise anyone, they tell them what to do and whats what. The only people who could challenge them and overrule them are the president and senate and congress(who are elected officials)., its all part of the 3 checks and balances of the executive branch system. s
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Johnnyorganic said:
Federal judges can be included, too.

BUT, they are ALL subject to impeachment.

Which ULTIMATELY makes them answerable to some elected official(s).
Click to expand...
yeah but his answer did make me stop and think about how much power the supreme court judge actually has. Have to admit when I'm wrong.
 
fatality

fatality

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
Over the last 2 years the government has added more than 3 TRILLION dollars to the debt. Tax breaks right now are not going to compensate for the enormous interest payments on the debt. That is what your kids are saddled with.

So, unless you teach them how to build businesses and become the rich, you know, the people you hate... They are going to have to pay for all this spending on fixed incomes working for the rich, you know, the people you hate.

Meanwhile the rich will continue to raise the prices on goods and services to compensate for inflation and they will continue to get rich while your kids fight to just manage to pay for food and fuel because the government has devalued the dollar to the point where most people just cant make ends meet...

It is the government that is destroying the middle class and causing the divide and people just dont see that.
Click to expand...
that's deep
 
fatality

fatality

Well-Known Member
it's gunna suck when our world becomes ran by the machines, it will be governments doings....
 
fatality

fatality

Well-Known Member
the poor in our country are ultimately paying the government for the government to turn around and build cyborgs that will get minds and think for themselves, then kill us all, and it is because our government wants to pick on the less fortunate..... they bill us....then kill us kill bill
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
fatality said:
the poor in our country are ultimately paying the government for the government to turn around and build cyborgs that will get minds and think for themselves, then kill us all, and it is because our government wants to pick on the less fortunate..... they bill us....then kill us kill bill
Click to expand...
whether this was in all seriousness or as a total joke, it just goes to prove one thing: stoners are funny.
 
beardo

beardo

Well-Known Member
fatality said:
the poor in our country are ultimately paying the government for the government to turn around and build cyborgs that will get minds and think for themselves, then kill us all, and it is because our government wants to pick on the less fortunate..... they bill us....then kill us kill bill
Click to expand...
[youtube]W1czBcnX1Ww[/youtube][/QUOTE][youtube]bfXlpMCSG98[/youtube][youtube]YPoANTKo5kA&feature=related[/youtube]
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i predicted this type of nonsense. perhaps you would like to answer the questions i posed in my next post...



so what is your solution? should we send every american a questionairre asking "do you consent to be taxed?"

your naivete is fucking AWESOME.
Click to expand...
The fact that you predicted someone would disagree with you makes you correct on THAT point. It doesn't mean the argument you presented is accurate though. I'll ignore your insult and ask you to address the points I make.

Consent is something an individual makes for themself, it is a decision that only THEY can make or not. You, nor a group of people can
"consent" for anybdy else, if that individual has not expressly agreed themself there can be no "consent".

What passes for "consent" in this country and what IS consent by the true definition of the word are two different things.

You ask for my solution and seem to say that because it would be so difficult to obtain "true consent" (by asking everybody if they consent to being taxed) that somehow it is acceptable to change the meaning of the word. You are attempting to rationalize the system of taxation by saying everybody has given their consent, when they haven't. The fact is, SOME people consent to taxation, SOME do not. Even if ALL are forced to participate, it does not mean ALL consent.

Whether people SHOULD pay taxes and whether they DO consent are two different topics, merging the two does not change the true meaning of the word consent.

For all to consent, yes you would have to ask EVERYBODY and ALL would have to agree for unanimous consent to exist.

Serious question...Have you ever read any Lysander Spooners essays? Please consider checking him out.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/NoTreason/NoTreason.html

See link to Spooner essay above. In particular the essay marked III. will provide the best information relevant to our discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top