[stormylin]

Whoops, ex looser made in excess of 3 G's a week. Taxes paid none ever. Contribution to feeding children he donated to the life of nearly Zip! Government isn't a great source at determining income, that is for sure.

Throw out statistics and look around though. It is pretty clear that people are working longer hours and struggling more.

That is everyone except Mulder

[stormylin]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

I'm sorry...I really tried to leave this post alone but I just couldn't stop myself. The premise of the post:



Followed shortly by:

As opposed to what? Symbols? Show tunes? Hieroglyphics?


Doesn't the language specifically state what it states? Or did you mean the language should specifically state its' intent? Or did you mean the language should be specific as to its' intent? Or did you mean the language used in the law should be specific? Or did you mean the intent in the law should use specific language?

Hi Grumb.... I mean HI GB!!!! What you just described in that paragraph above looks like a perfect example of legalese to me!!

[GoneForNow]

Throw out statistics and look around though. It is pretty clear that people are working smarter and making more money.

That is everyone except stormylin.

[Mulderator]

My ex looser husband has had weekly incomes of over $3000. He did masonary (sp), and more recently he sells used cars. My adult son worked with him for 3 days and in 3 days, the ex made well over 3000 dollars. But, by government standards he can only pay me $13.00 a week, because he lives in poverty. The fact is the bar owner is loaded (and the coke dealer) because of my ex's income. And that is all cash business as well

Well that's precisely why the statistic is nonsense. Its not only the under reporting of income, but they don't include many other sources of income that aren't reported on tax returns nor does it account for assets--there is simply no place that gets tracked.

I did tax returns for a few years out of college in my first job--It was not uncommon for small business owners to show little or no income even when they were accurately reporting. I can give you and example of a guy (sole proprietor) I remember specifically who made some large purchases because he got an excellent price--since sole proprietors are cash basis businesses, if a large outlay of cash occurs in a specific year, that person can show a loss or no income, which is artificial (i.e., he uses a loan or a second mortgage for the capital).

Thing is though, you try to educate some of these people and their so damn blinded by hate for Bush all they see is what the want to see. For me, it has nothing to do with Bush or whoever the hell is the next president--I make the same arguments because they are factually and statistically correct and because I understand it better having a financial background.

Originally Posted by stormylin

The poverty level is rising

Rising from what? If you say its risen the last few years, yes that's accurate, but its been ebbing and flowing for years--it always has and always will--depending on a number of factors. The percentage increase is too small to make anything of. My bet is the mathematical margin of error is probably at least a half percent.

And the other problem is everyone with their anecdotal stories and misperceptions. Everyone always remembers the "good old days"--especially these liberal hippie types who had their glory days in the 60s--when they were still relevant. The perception is that its much worse to today than 10 years ago--but the same perception was there 10 years ago and 10 years before that--and it will be here 10 years from now. You can't go by what you "think" is happening, you have to look at the actual purchasing power. And never in our history have so many people in this country been able to buy so much.

[stormylin]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

I'm sorry...I really tried to leave this post alone but I just couldn't stop myself. The premise of the post:



Followed shortly by:

As opposed to what? Symbols? Show tunes? Hieroglyphics?


Doesn't the language specifically state what it states? Or did you mean the language should specifically state its' intent? Or did you mean the language should be specific as to its' intent? Or did you mean the language used in the law should be specific? Or did you mean the intent in the law should use specific language?

Hey Mulder, I think GB caught that affliction of addiction that you have. Hear that? He couldn't resist.

Here try this GB it is against the law to physically assault another person. (Personally, I don't like that law. If you spit in my eye, I should have the right to belt you one ) So the law would need to state specifically what constitutes assault. And of course, self defense can Never be assault. And of course as well autonomic responses that result in some type of body contact can Never be assault. I'll bet Mulder is starting to get way too hooked on this thread now!! LOL!!!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by stormylin

Throw out statistics and look around though. It is pretty clear that people are working longer hours and struggling more.

Its not clear to me. I'm struggling a lot less today than I was 10 years ago and that's true for just about everyone I know. The problem is you've gone through a divorce, so of course you're going to be struggling more. But all things being equal, we have more purchasing power today.

What the real problem is, is that people today are more apt to try and "keep up with the Joneses". 20 years ago, people were perfectly satisfied with a 2000 square foot house. Now it has to be 4000 or 5000.

I was listening to the radio and they were talking about how parents are spending hundreds of dollars on Halloween Costumes! They give their kids Sweet 16 parties costing 10 or 20 thousand! They give their kids private lessons with sports instructors! None of this crap was done 20 or 30 years ago. People are not struggling to make a much more extravagant life style then they used to be satisfied with.

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by stormylin

Here try this GB it is against the law to physically assault another person. (Personally, I don't like that law. If you spit in my eye, I should have the right to belt you one ) So the law would need to state specifically what constitutes assault. And of course, self defense can Never be assault. And of course as well autonomic responses that result in some type of body contact can Never be assault. I'll bet Mulder is starting to get way too hooked on this thread now!! LOL!!!

You make this to easy. You can't physically assault someone. You can only physically batter someone. Assault means to put in a reasonable fear of harm or injury hence assault and battery. You assault a person without touching them but the same can't be said for battery. Keep trying.

[stormylin]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Well that's precisely why the statistic is nonsense. Its not only the under reporting of income, but they don't include many other sources of income that aren't reported on tax returns nor does it account for assets--there is simply no place that gets tracked.

I did tax returns for a few years out of college in my first job--It was not uncommon for small business owners to show little or no income even when they were accurately reporting. I can give you and example of a guy (sole proprietor) I remember specifically who made some large purchases because he got an excellent price--since sole proprietors are cash basis businesses, if a large outlay of cash occurs in a specific year, that person can show a loss or no income, which is artificial (i.e., he uses a loan or a second mortgage for the capital).

Thing is though, you try to educate some of these people and their so damn blinded by hate for Bush all they see is what the want to see. For me, it has nothing to do with Bush or whoever the hell is the next president--I make the same arguments because they are factually and statistically correct and because I understand it better having a financial background.



Rising from what? If you say its risen the last few years, yes that's accurate, but its been ebbing and flowing for years--it always has and always will--depending on a number of factors. The percentage increase is too small to make anything of. My bet is the mathematical margin of error is probably at least a half percent.

And the other problem is everyone with their anecdotal stories and misperceptions. Everyone always remembers the "good old days"--especially these liberal hippie types who had their glory days in the 60s--when they were still relevant. The perception is that its much worse to today than 10 years ago--but the same perception was there 10 years ago and 10 years before that--and it will be here 10 years from now. You can't go by what you "think" is happening, you have to look at the actual purchasing power. And never in our history have so many people in this country been able to buy so much.

Yea, the accountant that I fired was the WORST of them!! Mulder honestly I know where you are coming from The data that is fed to people is not correct, honestly I have yet to see a source that has proved me wrong.

I was a triple science major and I would love to sit here and tell you that this study or that research displays this or that. None of it displays much of anything because Liberals do dominate the press and what is reported aka fed to the masses as the truth is nothing other then advancing their own agenda. They dominate education and the institution of education feeds the masses this so called research. Quadruple But one thing I DO AGREE with you here on is the media is dominated by liberals. And socialism, communism what ever you choose to call it for the particular era is always the same, someone else that doesn't have the survival skill to live on their own (that would be the majority unfortunately) depends on all this rag liberal nonsense that is fed to them by way of the media, to convince most folks that the true survivors and hard workers have to support the rest of the folks. I say throw out everything you 'believe' is fact, and work you damn backside off. Then, don't purchase one thing from anyone that has a different philosophy.

Hey Mulder, I am not going to admit that I think you are right. So, can a moderator delete my response here

[stormylin]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

You make this to easy. You can't physically assault someone. You can only physically batter someone. Assault means to put in a reasonable fear of harm or injury hence assault and battery. You assault a person without touching them but the same can't be said for battery. Keep trying.

You are just bad!! Gbrumb, my 'interpretation of this is that you have put a reasonable fear that I may be harmed or injured... So you must be busted. Who is responsible for this 'feeling of fear'?

Come on now. Let's do Psych 101

GB calls Stormy Ugly And Stupid. The action of calling me Ugly and Stupid is A.

After Stormy is called Ugly and Stupid, stormy feels 'afraid'. (Hey lets say we are in sixth grade and I Am really afraid of names) Now stormy feels 'afraid' because of B- her feeling of being afraid.

Now Stormy has psychological problems that we will call C.

What caused stormy's damage? Did GB'a action of A- calling her ugly and stupid cause her psychological problems. No!! A did not cause C. B caused C. Stormy's 'feelings' of being afraid B caused C her psychological problems.

In summary B caused C, Stormy's feelings caused her problems. GB didn't do a thing.

I only said that if you or Mulder spit at me, expect a smack!! LOL!!

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by stormylin

GB didn't do a thing.

What I tell my wife all the time.

[Rollin' Rog]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

Let be clear here. Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with right to privacy, abortion, discrimination, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, right to peaceably assemble, right against self-incrimination etc etc etc.

My last shot. The 14th Amendments' only real function is to make federal constitutional restrictions and/or prohibitions as well as federal laws applicable to the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

If you take the time (which you won't) and read the actual court opinions you will find that the court states something like "the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination as applied to the state of Georgia through the 14th Amendment yada yada yada"

You may have YOUR opinion of the 14th amendment, but it is not the prevailing interpretation. Nor is it Alito's. I have found nothing in his writings to suggest he is prepared to roll back this interpretation of the 14th --if you believe otherwise, cite.

Have you read Roe?

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=410&invol=113


In fact his concern with privacy issues dates back to his college days.

I find it interesting that you have not cited a single opinion of his in support of your contentions. Obviously he is not YOUR kind of conservative -- and that is reassuring.

Personally I really like the guy. I've read most of his relevant opinions now, and can find only one that dissappoints -- his dissent on the case involving attorney malfeasance.

If he were offering tech support at TSG and one of his answers differed from mine, I'd be quickly looking to see where I screwed up.

[GoneForNow]

I give up, your as thick as a brick. The 14th Amendment has no NEW RIGHTS IT JUST APPLIES THE EXISTING ONES TO THE STATES. I don't give a rats arse what Alito or Scalia or Mary Poppins position is, liberal or conservative.

Through the doctrine of Incorporation, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has also brought about the application of nearly all of the rights explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the adoption of this amendment, the Bill of Rights acted only as a restraint on federal, not state, governments, and a state's relations with its citizens and those of other states was legally restrained only by that state's constitution and laws and those provisions of the United States Constitution that limited the powers of the states. While many states modeled their constitution and laws after the federal government's, those state constitutions did not necessarily include provisions comparable to the Bill of Rights.

HERE

[stormylin]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Its not clear to me. I'm struggling a lot less today than I was 10 years ago and that's true for just about everyone I know. The problem is you've gone through a divorce, so of course you're going to be struggling more. But all things being equal, we have more purchasing power today.

What the real problem is, is that people today are more apt to try and "keep up with the Joneses". 20 years ago, people were perfectly satisfied with a 2000 square foot house. Now it has to be 4000 or 5000.

I was listening to the radio and they were talking about how parents are spending hundreds of dollars on Halloween Costumes! They give their kids Sweet 16 parties costing 10 or 20 thousand! They give their kids private lessons with sports instructors! None of this crap was done 20 or 30 years ago. People are not struggling to make a much more extravagant life style then they used to be satisfied with.

I have written in detail what people view as a quality life and how what people see as quality takes away from true quality of life......if you look at this picture exactly. If that makes any sense. I will try to put this in a simple term. Buy a 40 thou dollar plus SUV to cart the whole family around. Calculate fuel, payments insurance and gas. In that extravagant SUV, you never see your kids. They are behind you and Distract you if you drive. You tell them to shut up because you are trying to drive. Throw out the Suv, and walk to the park. Hold your kids hands and play with them while you walk together.

We do need to get back down to appreciating what is important.

I hear you about struggling with divorce. Alimony is indentured servitude. The wife got the 6000 sq foot house, has a degree, and keeps hauling my husband back to court because she can't get a job. Don't get me started on this alimony aka welfare sh***

[stormylin]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

What I tell my wife all the time.

LOL, I suspect your wife needs to
'feel' suspicious!!

[Rollin' Rog]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

I give up, your as thick as a brick. The 14th Amendment has no NEW RIGHTS IT JUST APPLIES THE EXISTING ONES TO THE STATES. I don't give a rats arse what Alito or Scalia or Mary Poppins position is, liberal or conservative.



HERE

GB all that means is that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights apply to the states. The Court interprets what they are, how they apply, and what rises to the level of a constitutional right. You don't like the broad interpretation. Fine.

But this thread is not about you and your opinions -- despite where others may have taken it. It is about Alito and where he is likely to lead the court.

So sorry you cannot address that. I won't torture you any more. Did enough of that in the "Torture" thread, and I don't want to run afoul of any international conventions