XPost: alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption, alt.politics.economics
XPost: alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama
XPost: alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.politics.socialism.mao,
lt.politics.trump
XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy, alt.apocolypse
XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.infowars
XPost: alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,
alt.politics.guns
From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov
On 7/10/22 8:32 AM, -hh wrote:
> On Saturday, July 9, 2022 at 10:41:15 AM UTC-4, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 7/8/22 2:53 PM, -hh wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 8, 2022 at 10:36:13 AM UTC-4, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 07:32:41 -0700, Rudy Canoza
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> naturalization test in order to vote,
>>>>>
>>>>> Literacy tests for voting are unconstitutional, o oozing scarlet red
maxipad.
>>>>> Looks like you failed your own test.
>>>>>
>>>>> You dumb mackerel-reeking cunt.
>>>>
>>>> Try using a dictionary, you stupid cunt
>>>
>>> He did.
>>>
>>>> He never said anything about literacy.
>>>
>>> Except it was, because passing a 'naturalization test' requires literacy,
either in the
>>> primary definition: 1) "the ability to read and write", or as competence
on a topic,
>>> as per the word's secondary definition: 2) "knowledge of a particular
subject, or
>>> a particular type of knowledge"*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> * OED's phrasing is: "competence or knowledge in a specified area"
>>>
>>> TL;DR: poll taxes & poll tests have both been determined to be
unconstitutional,
>>> with loophole attempts closed off by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which
also
>>> included property-ownership requirements, and moral character tests too.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm interested in knowing why Democrats think Americans should pay taxes …
>
> Oh, look: it’s a change in subject attempt!
>
>
>> … to a Government that has refused to protect those taxpayers from
>> a foreign invasion?
>
> Refused? That’s false because CBP, DoD, DHS exist and are funded.
And NOT enforcing immigration laws in a way that would protect against
invasion and NOT protecting the States from an invasion that was caused
by the Democrats policies since Jan 20, 2020.
>
>> The Constitution is an agreement that says if the Government
>> does this then we the people will do that .. but since the
>> United States Government is in breach of contract, …
>
> False, for the contract agreement you’re trying to claim does not exist.
>
And yet we have it in actual text and it's called the Constitution which
lays the foundation for the existence of the United States and without
that "contract" being honored by both sides, it become worthless and the
government's claim to power is baseless when they fail to hold up their
part of the contract.
>
>> Article I
>> Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
>> Duties, Imposts and Excises, *to pay* the Debts and *provide for the*
>> *common Defence* ...
>> Notice the word *SHALL* and how it's used in these Constitutional
Articles...
>
> No, you should note that “provide for” is not a ‘contract’ that
needs to
> be conducted to no less than to your personal satisfaction.
That would be for a Judge to decide wouldn't it, but if there is no
Judge because they worked for the other party in the Contract and it's
already dissolved then "Yes" it does have to be conducted to my
satisfaction, and the proof is that the the power is derived from the
governed and I am the governed. Which means when they no longer live up
to the contract then I can dissolve their power over me.
>
>> Article IV
>> Section 4. The United States *shall guarantee to every State* in this
>> Union a Republican Form of Government, and *shall protect each of them*
>> *against Invasion* ...
>
> That’s each State, not each citizen. Because in addition to DoD, every
State
> also has a Federally funded National Guard, the provisions for protection
> are indisputably in place.
That includes protecting the borders and protecting the people against
domestic violence.
>
>> So far the Democrats have failed to do any of that after the last
>> Presidential election in 2020 so why would we the people be interested
>> in sending them any FEDERAL tax dollars when they failed to hold up
>> their part of this contract? Shouldn't we stop payment and press charges
>> for FRAUD as is the case with all cases of FRAUD?
>
> Even if your claim was correct, you’re going to have to get in line behind
the
> 2017 Republican promises that the TCJA would increase GDP growth to
> over +4% (it didn’t), as well as because of “trickle down”, be a net
tax revenues
> gain instead of the reality of a $9T loss (& increase in deficit).
That's NOT written in the Constitution, so no we don't need to do
anything about it, but the Democrats in office have violated their oath
of office that they were sworn to and ignored their mandate that begins
with "shall" and then it explains what their office requires of them.
What the Democrats did was they took office and intended to lie and
steal and NOT do their jobs. That's a crime, but a campaign promise or
goal is simply a the projection of a goal while not under oath or legal
binding of the public office. SO the promise to grow the GDP if elected
is maybe a sign of incompetence and unethical it's NOT criminal but what
the Democrats are doing while in office when they took the oath to
protect WE THE PEOPLE from invasion and domestic violence and then NOT
even attempt it and to stop the building of a border fence that was
doing the job, isn't "just" incompetence it's an organized undermining
of the protection that "shall" be carried out.
It's called SABOTAGE and TREASON... and it's illegal.
--
-That's karma-
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
