...replacing example.com with slashdot.org somewhere in your coed.
You know, just so the links on your site would work. It might be a nice feature to have.
Sigh... More word games and rhetoric. That's pathetic. That section of The Consitution is nothing less than an explicit iron-clad prohibition on imposing taxes on out-of-state buyers.
You can try to contradict it all you want, but you are wrong. Your pathetic argument amounts to nothing more than "Well, it's ok if everyone gets illegally screwed just as much as everyone else." Your argument is complete nonsense. Screwing people "equally" does not nullify an explicit prohibition against screwing people.
Seriously. The only thing you can offer to support your argument is saying it doesn't mean "what it was meant to say", and then claiming that "the courts", rather than the law itself has the final say. Now, as for this "interpreting The Constitution" nonsense:
Contrary to what anti-American collectivists (known as "liberals" here in America) would have everyone believe, there is no "interpreting" The Consitution. It means precisely what it says. It does not change unless it is amended according to the legally specified process for amending it. No court, official, nor law other than a Constitutional Amendment can alter it. Period. No "if's", "and's" or "but's" about it. Arguments that it can be "interpreted" are nothing more than attempts to hoodwink citizens into doing nothing while their rights and other sections of The Constitution are violated wholesale by corrupt people in the government.
Yep. And this post to an earlier slashdot article on the same subject neatly deals with all the little rhetorical and word-game arguments that some miscreants are trying to use to excuse what's being done.
Slashdot Mirror
...replacing example.com with slashdot.org somewhere in your coed. You know, just so the links on your site would work. It might be a nice feature to have.
Sigh... More word games and rhetoric. That's pathetic. That section of The Consitution is nothing less than an explicit iron-clad prohibition on imposing taxes on out-of-state buyers.
People like you remind me of this character.
You can try to contradict it all you want, but you are wrong. Your pathetic argument amounts to nothing more than "Well, it's ok if everyone gets illegally screwed just as much as everyone else." Your argument is complete nonsense. Screwing people "equally" does not nullify an explicit prohibition against screwing people.
Seriously. The only thing you can offer to support your argument is saying it doesn't mean "what it was meant to say", and then claiming that "the courts", rather than the law itself has the final say. Now, as for this "interpreting The Constitution" nonsense:
Contrary to what anti-American collectivists (known as "liberals" here in America) would have everyone believe, there is no "interpreting" The Consitution. It means precisely what it says. It does not change unless it is amended according to the legally specified process for amending it. No court, official, nor law other than a Constitutional Amendment can alter it. Period. No "if's", "and's" or "but's" about it. Arguments that it can be "interpreted" are nothing more than attempts to hoodwink citizens into doing nothing while their rights and other sections of The Constitution are violated wholesale by corrupt people in the government.
Yep. And this post to an earlier slashdot article on the same subject neatly deals with all the little rhetorical and word-game arguments that some miscreants are trying to use to excuse what's being done.
Haven't we talked about this before?