XPost: rec.radio.shortwave
From: bit_bucket@gmx.com
On 11/17/2011 1:49 PM, flipper wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:30:28 -0800, John Smith
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> There is, no doubt, a good chunk of the prison population that thought
> the same thing.
>
>> ... 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 ...
>
> Sounds pretty 'smart' to me since, according to you, they've got you
> beat.
>
>>
>> Regards,
>> JS
I should have known it would be too difficult for you to connect the
dots, so let me just give you the answer ...
The intelligent crooks, perverts, child molesters, intern molesters,
treasonous terrorists, economic terrorists, etc. are illegally holding
our public servant offices and displaying their get-out-of-jail-free-cards.
Regards,
JS
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
