would be a matter of citizenship and not attached to religion. And, according to the Supreme Court, the police don't have to show up if they don't want to.

Old Seer wrote:

The court seems to have lost the meaning of "private property". The constitution has become skewed to mean anything they want it to.

Government has become religion. Whatever is convenient. Whatever justifies theft(aka taxation).

digitalbeachbum wrote:

The Federal government is now taking sides on religious grounds. They wouldn't give federal funding to a Mosque asking for funding for their playground.

Who says the a Mosque couldn't get funding for their playground? There was nothing in the ruling that only Christian churches could get funding. If the court rules the other way, the government would be favoring non-religious groups over religious ones. This would about to regulating what speech could be said inside.

The fact is that all taxtation ends up being financial support for a special group or interest. Taxation is a  totally irrational concept for a society that purports to be for equality, justice and fairness. You are only mad about these welfare queens because it is a group you despise, quite hypocritical.

EXC wrote:

 Those of you who hate this decision:

Do you want to ban all schools that mix religion with secular instruction? Should a church  be allowed to run a school?

Should all private institutions not be allowed to receive these funds? A commercial mall for instance?

Should people that want to send their kids to religious schools be exempt from paying taxes for public schools?

 

You are one dense idiot! The purpose of the tax code ISN'T to prevent ANYONE from using the same laws. If you take tax payer funding you cannot discriminate. This bullshit allows a backslide idiot.

You watch this shit backfire when the first American Muslim school files a lawsuit claiming they have the right to discriminate against Christians.

 

Morons like you must not understand what it was like 50 years ago for miniorities, much less 100 years ago or at the founding. 

This is a horrible decision and fuckfaces like you are advocating going back in time. 

postage costs are a tax. I paid 13.00 clams and a crayfish for a copy of my Dad's Death dertificate. According to a US Marine or two that I was on a forum with a while back who were on city and county boards said, governmknet can only collect tax. The fee Idea is only to make it look like we're paying less and calling it a "fee" is to hide the term "Tax". And I suppose it came from their legal guys to inform them of that. The legal designate has to be consulted on practacally evry thein they decide or want to make law. Tax---fee or or other wise can only come from tax. Some middle classers ( according to the constitution there's no such thing in government as a "class" of anybody)The only legal term that government can atribute to a person is - person or citizen. Some floks )refered to as "the middle class" are paying as high as 55% of thier money received as tax, combining all taxes, fees and attachments.

Social Security is not a tax, becasue it is returned at a later date--it's merely a goverment mandated retirement collection. However, it is now placed as a tax becasue it has become included in the general funds whch are derived from "Tax". But it still is not a tax. I think that's because there is an Opt Out clause somewhere in the works that people don't know about or are unaware of.

Don't expect the Supreme Court to go according to the constitution--if it did in all cases---the governmnet would be anulled. So, to skate around the issure they now have to use the "for the greater good clause" which does not apply to hardly anything except the Gov can do good works for the greater cause. Eminent domain is for "the greater cause", but however--it cannot possibly take someone's private property and give it to another private citizen for the greater good---which the Supreme court has rules as constitutional. IT CAN"T BE. As a farmer I can conspire with the county to get someone' elses farm--be casue I can do a gtreater good with his property, as long as I use that property for the greater good--and can profit from it. The reason I bring all this up is to show how things over time get skewed to fit whatever the gov wants. That also has to do with taxes---ant money government collects is "tax". Anything else is skewing the teem tax---or you'll come to the conclusion on your own (which they can't have) that you're being "taxed" to much. The term "fee" hides the tax.

 

EXC wrote:

No one forces you to buy a postage stamp. So how can it be a tax? We're force to pay SS, so it is a tax. A fee is something you pay to receive a product or sevice in return. Of course someone always tries to hijack language for their advantage. Such is life in a competitive world.

How did land become private property in the first place? No one created it with their work. In USA, the 'eminant domain' of white settlers enabled them to claim it as their own from native tribes. So the government decided in the first place who would own the land. So why can't the government take it back? Government should collect money from user fees on land use instead of taxing work and entrepreneurship.

You are forced to buy a stamp to use the postal service.

You are forced to pay SS if you work for a law abiding employer.

Land became private because the American Indians were raped, pillages and lied to by the French, the Spanish and the English (to name a few) settlers.

Old Seer wrote:

All the whinning about Trump in Washington DC is being done by scumbags no different then Trump himself. The difference is--Trumps things are in the open and their's is hidden.

1) You contradicted yourself. Drumpf is either a scumbag, no different than the others OR Drumpf is not a scumbag and he doesn't hide things?

2) HAHAHA. Drumpf is a master at hidding things.

politics it's very hard not to be contradictory, as politics is inheirently in itself contradictory.