XPost: rec.radio.shortwave   
   From: bit_bucket@gmx.com   
      
   On 11/16/2011 7:25 PM, flipper wrote:   
   > On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:50:08 -0800, John Smith   
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 11/16/2011 4:30 PM, D. Peter Maus wrote:   
   >>> On 11/16/11 18:14 , flipper wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>> virtually expands   
   >>>>> the limits of interpretation to include flea markets, garage sales,   
   >>>>> and one on one cash transactions.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You're way late to the game, then, because there's nothing in the bill   
   >>>> that "expands the limits" to "flea markets, garage sales, and one on   
   >>>> one cash transactions" more than the already existing law.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Your selective attention is interesting.   
   >>>   
   >>> It's the broadness of the language that expands the limits. Because the   
   >>> broadness of the language does nothing to limit the definition of the   
   >>> terms. And, one more time, the legislators voting for the bill   
   >>> specifically intend for the law to include garage sales, flea markets   
   >>> and one on one cash transactions. This by their own admission.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>> As I said, one of the legislators voting for the bill. I'm in   
   >>>>> media. I frequently interview legislators about their intents, and   
   >>>>> their actions. I've been attempting to get the Attorney General on   
   >>>>> the line to explain how this law affects street level commerce.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No offense intended but none of that means anything. What legislator,   
   >>>> what did he say, and why would I presume he knows better than the   
   >>>> author? And why should I take 'your word' or 'opinions'?   
   >>>   
   >>> Well, that IS the crux of the argument, then, isn't it.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Louisiana has been attempting to get control of cash transactions   
   >>>>> since I lived there in the 80's.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> What in the world does that mean? Just 'who' is "Louisiana?" Maybe   
   >>>> they shouldn't vote for "Louisiana" next time if Mr. "Louisiana"   
   >>>> supports wacky things.   
   >>>   
   >>> Wow. Obfuscation 101. This discussion has suddenly become a waste of   
   >>> bandwidth.   
   >>>   
   >>> Bottom line...I've lived there, you haven't. I deal with the legislators   
   >>> in Louisiana every week, you don't.   
   >>>   
   >>> You're entitled to your skepticism. Enjoy it.   
   >>>   
   >>> Have a good evening.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Only an imbecile would support the law in the first place ... why screw   
   >> around with imbeciles?   
   >>   
   >> He just needs to be told what an ignorant fooker he is and blown off ...   
   >> that is the problem today, people get confused and think they should be   
   >> "nice" to nuts, nuts need to be protected from hurting themselves and   
   >> those around them ...   
   >>   
   >> Regards,   
   >> JS   
   >>   
   >   
   > I take it your definition of "imbecile" is "not a thief."   
      
   Intelligent thiefs are never caught, so difficult to analyze them ... or   
   else they are criminal public servants and all have get-out-of-jail-free   
   cards provided by their rich corporate, bankster, wall street puppet   
   masters ... so, you have a point, they are just well protected imbeciles ...   
      
   Regards,   
   JS   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)