Dirt poor?

[Skunks]

I skimmed a lot here, folks. In fact, I only read about two posts after page 1, and even that I haven't read lately.

But I did notice some stuff about being a minister.

I'm not a particularly religious person, and I was unaware of the tax benefits. But I'd still get a kick out of being Father George. Imagine being able to properly bless things like glasses of orange juice and important papers.

http://www.ordination.org/

[Brigliadore]

That why that 60% includes fruit, nuts, and vegetables as well.
I think when I last looked Nebraska was the largest producer of just grain, with one of the Dakotas close behind (I think it was south), but that could have changed in the last few years.

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by Brigliadore


I was lumping fruits, nuts, vegetables and grain into one large clump, so the 60% I quoted includes all the above. California is one of the largest produces of Soy which is considered a grain. Nebraska and the Dakotas do produce a large amount of corn and wheat but you have to remember that just because corn is being grown doesn't mean its going to be eaten by humans. Around 54% of the grain grown in this country goes into animal food (dog food, horse grain, cattle feed, chicken scratch, etc.).
The number I stated were from 2000 but at that time they were accurate. I had to do a report in collage on it for my agricultural science class, so i had to dig up all that data from the USDA.

as I read this post, I had a cliff claven- trivia-worked at the post office-white socks joke brewing that had some real promise, but then you bailed yourself out with the science class assignment alibi. It was a close one, I tells ya.

[Brigliadore]

Originally posted by lumberjim
as I read this post, I had a cliff claven- trivia-worked at the post office-white socks joke brewing that had some real promise, but then you bailed yourself out with the science class assignment alibi. It was a close one, I tells ya.

Ah, my collage years finally pay off. I knew there was a reason I spent all that money

[jaguar]

She's right. Quality of girls here is incredible. The really interesting thing is considering the diet here (hold the veggies, extra cheese, fat, bacon....) I have seen probably 2 overweight people so far in Switzerland as a whole.

If you think Switzerland is socialist you're only showing your own ignorance.

I'll sponser a political refugee claim marichiko

[wolf]

Switzerland gives you a fully automatic rifle to keep in your closet, just in case.

Now, that's homeland security.

I do have issue with their renting space to the UN (I have the same issue in NY, though, so that evens out).

[xoxoxoBruce]

I read somewhere that the Swiss are well behaved because nobody minds their own business. If someone sees you, everyone, including the police, knows. Is that true?

[lumberjim]

Originally posted by jaguar

If you think Switzerland is socialist you're only showing your own ignorance.

that's why i posed it as a question. Now that you've seen my ignorance, would you like to se my vehemence?

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
I read somewhere that the Swiss are well behaved because nobody minds their own business. If someone sees you, everyone, including the police, knows. Is that true?

That has not been my experience. Certainly, I felt a certain pressure from my family to conform when I visited there, but who hasn't experienced such pressures from their family, in one way or another? Other than that, nobody ever seemed especially interested in what I was doing. Everybody is too busy leading their own lives, going to work or school, taking care of their families, etc. Of course, I was never attempting to break any laws, either.

The country where I felt under constant surveillance (and may well have been) was Brazil. Whatever pretty face Brazil attempts to put on it, they are pretty much a military dictatorship. Armed soldiers can be found on every street corner. I never saw any such show of force in Switzerland. In Brazil in the city where I was staying, complete strangers would come up to me and recite details of my life (that I was staying with a professor of chemistry who taught at the University of Pernambuco, that I had just recieved a large shipment of books from the US, etc). This was disconcerting, to say the least. In Switzerland's sophisticated cities I never had an experience that was even remotely similiar. In my family's home villiage I was met with curiosity and friendly interest as "Rosa's American daughter," but no one ever reported my movements to the authorities.

[Radar]

Radar, I'm no Constitutional scholar, so maybe I'm missing something here... but I can't see how you reason out that Income Tax is theft. The US Constitution explicitly allows for future Amendments in Article 5:

Congress is indeed allowed to add amendments to the Constitution. Amendments may add something new, or repeal (take away) something old. Amendments MAY NOT be added that are contrary to another part of the Constitution. For instance, when an amendment was made to prohibit alcohol consumption (which was also an illegal amendment because congress does not have the authority to legislate all things or anything related to our bodies) and later wanted to change that, they repealed the amendment making it illegal. They did not add an amendment saying "Alcohol is legal". In Article 6 paragraph 2 of the Constitution it says no laws that are contrary to the Constitution may be created. An amendment is a law and therefore qualifies. You may not create a new amendment that is contrary to an old one. You can't have one part of the constitution say that something is legal and another part saying it is illegal.

The Supreme Court had already ruled income taxation to be illegal because it violated the apportionment clause in article 1 section 8. This is why in 1913, the income tax amendment was created and fraudulently ratified. This amendment required 36 votes to pass from the 48 states in the union. Philander Knox (Secretary of State at the time) claimed the 16th had been ratified by 38 states despite not having the required number of legal votes to pass.

Let me explain...

Several states have laws that when a new amendment is proposed, the legislature that receives the amendment may not vote on it and must pass it to the next one. This is to allow voters the chance to elect those who agree with their particular view on the amendment. Several states did not follow this procedure and since they violated their own state constitutions, their votes do not count.

Thirty-Three states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, which is a power the states do not possess. Some of these had change the language to have the exact opposite meaning of the original amendment. Their votes also don't count. In some cases the governor of a particular state didn't sign the amendment even though required to do so, etc. Some states have no record of voting on it at all or voted against it but their votes were counted for it.

But even if all these irregularities, and illegalities were gone and the correct number of states did vote to ratify the amendment, it would still be illegal for several reasons. It violates and is contradictory to several parts of the Constitution.

It violates the 4th amendment; the government routinely searches through financial records, bank statements, etc. without a warrant.

It violates the 5th amendment; the IRS 1040 form says the information will be shared with law enforcement agencies and we are not required to incriminate ourselves. What if someone earned their money by selling drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. Tax offenders, are not given due process of law.

It violates the 6th amendment; tax offenders are not given no trial by jury and can not call witnesses, etc.

It violates the 8th amendment because excessive bail is the norm in tax cases and property is seized which falls under cruel and unusual punishment.

It violates the 9th amendment which says all rights NOT listed in the Constitution belong to the people by violating our natural right to keep the fruits of our labor.

It violates the 10th amendment which prohibits the federal government from taking part in or legislating areas in which they hold no authority such as a person's income.

It violates the 13th amendment which makes slavery (involuntary servitude) illegal by forcing us to work for the government without compensation and against our will.


Income taxes violate everything America was created for. You have mentioned that we live in a democracy. We do not live in a democracy, we live in a democratic republic. Our country was created this way to protect individuals from tyranny on the part of the majority. Democracy has its limits. Some things may never be voted on. The rights of one person are more important than the desires of millions, and no matter how many people vote to steal from another person, it doesn't make it right legally or morally.

The powers of government are very specific and very limited. The Federal government DOES NOT have carte blanche to legislate and govern any areas they choose and MAY NOT make laws that violate the rights of the citizens because the citizens are the masters and government is the servant.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by Radar
Congress is indeed allowed to add amendments to the Constitution. Amendments may add something new, or repeal (take away) something old. Amendments MAY NOT be added that are contrary to another part of the Constitution.

That's not true. Your claim of fraud during ratification may have merit, but an ammendment can change any aspect of the Constitution. That is, in fact, the purpose of the amendment process. You can claim that income tax violates your human rights, and therefore shouldn't be in the Constitution, but claiming that it is unconstitutional on its face is fatuous.

The founding fathers put the amendment process in place so as not to bind future generations with the fashions of the time. This is a good thing, but it also allows future generations to make mistakes. Nothing in the Constitution is untouchable by ammendment.

[Radar]

Your claim of fraud during ratification may have merit, but an ammendment can change any aspect of the Constitution.

Very true. An amendment may change any aspect of the Constitution. It may do this by adding to or repealing something. This may work for any part of the Constitution. For instance if in 1913 thirty-six states had followed thier own state laws concerning voting on an amendment, had not changed any of the wording, had the governors sign the bill, and sent it back to Congress repealing the aportionment clause and all of the amendments contrary to the new amendment, the amendment would have been legally ratified and be a valid law. But that's not what happened.

You can claim that income tax violates your human rights, and therefore shouldn't be in the Constitution, but claiming that it is unconstitutional on its face is fatuous.

I'm sorry but the statement I made concering the fact that the income tax amendment is unconstitutional on its face is an accurate one.

Neither amendments (laws), nor any other law, or court decision may contradict any part of the Constitution. This is clear in Article 6 paragraph two.

The founding fathers put the amendment process in place so as not to bind future generations with the fashions of the time. This is a good thing, but it also allows future generations to make mistakes. Nothing in the Constitution is untouchable by ammendment.

I agree. The founders made the Constitution so we could change it. It may be changed by adding to it or taking away from it. Any part of it may be added to or taken away, but only within the areas that government has legal authority to govern and may never limit the rights of citizens. The Constitution was made to limit government and not to define or limit the rights of citizens.

The powers of government are EXTREMELY limited, especially the federal government.

[jaguar]

I read somewhere that the Swiss are well behaved because nobody minds their own business. If someone sees you, everyone, including the police, knows. Is that true?

Er. No. Quite the opposite in fact. Try getting information out the bank here, even if you're law enforcement you're going to have a hell ofa time, particularly at private banking and high level banking (1-3m+) where banks will make life living hell for law enforcement trying to follow a paper trail.

Also the only country I've found where smartcard/encryption ebanking login is standard.
Photography laws are incredibly strict and the level of privicy protection is higher than any other country I've come across.

[Radar]

I thought that was strange too. Switzerland is known for protecting privacy more than any nation on earth and minding thier own business.

[blue]

Originally posted by lumberjim
Now that you've seen my ignorance, would you like to see my vehemence?

Oh, my, god...best, comeback, EVAR!

I am so proud of you LJ.

(I told you I'd say something nice about you...and I mean it even)