Radar, you've got me all wrong. I'm the guy who'd rather shoot the homeless than feed them.;) But in all honesty, well played. well played.

Girls, girls ... you're both pretty. Now kiss and make up. With tongue.

:mg: :eek: :smack: :hugnkiss: :shocking: :shock: :vomit:

Lookout knows I don't take it personally. :)

It's all fun until someone loses an eye.

Being against public funding in any way means you shouldn't be driving on the publicly funded roads.

You shouldn't be using publicly funded facilities such as rest rooms in parks.

Surely you get that? Surely you realize that's what your taxes pay for, aside from the other things like health and education.

Only a stupid cunt doesn't get that. Although, I suppose people who still use public roads while saying they shouldn't have to pay taxes must be stupid.

Were you a winner or a loser then too?

Back then, as now, I was a more intelligent, and better person than you and my campaign was very successful. It's cute when someone who has lost every argument with me has the temerity to call me a loser.

In America, we have a little thing called the Constitution and our constitution was created to restrict the powers of our government. It grants government certain powers and those include ROADS. I have no problem paying for services that I use. American taxes are paid for with gasoline taxes. I think a better way to do it would be to make the roads private and to pay tolls. And we should allow any private person to create toll roads if they buy the land and build them.

As far as parks, public restrooms, etc., I'd be for having privately owned parks run by nature conservancies. I'd pay a fee to use the park as long as it had clean restrooms that don't stink...which very few parks in America have.

Post roads?

I'm very proud of my education (public though it may be), at this age, if there is a flaw it is my own failing.

On that note...
My history professor (hist 1301 or US Hist 1) was listing some Catholic beliefs, "They don't believe in using contraception because sex is for the purpose of..." Guy in back of room, "What's contraception?"

I was trying so hard not to laugh out loud I didn't here the professor's response, kinda wish I did.

[insert shovel, w/2 cents]I just reckon it's why California needs me. We need at least one person who pays attention to foreign policy to counterbalance radar's view that foreign policy shouldn't exist -- constitutionally.

I think it's cute when someone bases their ethics and morality on an old piece of paper, written by people who lived in a very different world. Whether it's the Bible, the Koran or the Constitution.

I guess it's a good thing my ethics, morality, and rights don't come from any religious doctrine or old pieces of paper. I do respect the foundation of our government (the U.S. Constitution) and demand that our government abide by the limitations on its powers by that "old piece of paper" whose words are as fresh, carefully crafted, and meaningful today as they were the day they were written.

I'll thank you not to make baseless assertions or false claims about my position. I think America should have a foreign policy. I think we should trade freely and equitably with all nations and should never use our military to be involved in the disputes of other nations, to make enemies globally, or to otherwise stick our noses where it doesn't belong....like Iraq.

California needs you like Lincoln needed another hole in the head. America needs a workable and intelligent foreign policy like mine in the same way humans need oxygen to survive.

Libertarians are supposed to be extremely anti-Lincoln. I would think you'd be all for another hole in his head.

Highlighting mine.

Just a couple of things.

Firstly, so were you a winner or a loser when you ran? You didn't answer the question.

Secondly, with respect to your last couple of paragraphs; let's just use the question of roads for the sake of argument. If you don't pay taxes, who is going to provide the roads for you to drive on? I'm really interested to know what your solution would be (aside from putting tolls on all roads because this is simply not feasible and I don't have the time or energy to bother putting type the reasons why your suggestion is totally ludicrous).

Oh yeah, one other thing.

I'm pretty sure you're the only one who thinks you've ever 'won' every discussion you and I (or you and anyone else) have ever had. If it makes you feel good about yourself to think so, that's ok though. Surprisingly, I really don't lose any sleep over people like you who to me, are the bad apples that put a tarnished reflection on all their countrymen and women. I don't suppose you care about that though...considering you're an individual and don't care about your countrymen beyond the constitution and how it affects you as an individual.

Post roads?

I like this!
Let me know when it's officially a meme and I'll join in.

I was a winner before, during, and after I ran for office. I accomplished all of my goals of running a successful information campaign.

I never planned on winning the office. That would be impossible given the circumstances and the district demographics.

Before 1913, Americans didn't pay income taxes, but guess what? We had paved roads. We had a legislature. We had a military, etc.

Claiming toll roads isn't a feasible solution only shows that you know little to nothing about the subject and haven't dedicated any actual thought to the subject...much like every other subject, especially with regard to Israel and the middle-east.

I love how you think it's wrong for the people who use a service to pay for it, and for those who don't use it to be exempt from paying for it. It shows how irrational you truly are.

I'm a shining example of what a truly patriotic, well-educated, and hard-working American can be. I'm a credit to my country and improve the reputation of America and my countrymen. When I travel to other countries, I am an ambassador of good will and friendship to all nations, but would still never allow my government to step beyond the boundaries of its limited powers. I care about myself, my family members, and my fellow citizens. This is why I constantly stay on the side of freedom, and away from stupidity like socialism. I fight for my freedom and for the freedom of those who are too stupid to know what freedom is. Even those who stupidly look to government to solve their problems.

:speechless:

But only Post roads, right?

Post roads!
Post roads!

Post exclusive roads? Or enough roads to get the mail thru (which pretty much covers everywhere most people want to go)?

That's a question that was answered by the Courts in the late 1800s, but I'm sure Radar will have the correct answer for us through divination of the meaning as originally written. We wait.

All court interpretations are meaningless. Just read the plain sense of the document, stupid sheeple!

Everyone should live in the way they did when the Constitution was written. Then it can be accepted for the truth that it is. Roads? Who needs roads? Your slaves can cut across country.

Pssst. Slavery was/is unconstitutional.

Those who wrote it owned slaves.

Jefferson might have written that "all men are created equal", but he bought and sold human beings all the same. Obviously when they wrote about men (not women, not mankind) it didn't include people of different coloured skin. After all, the Native Americans were hardly treated as equal either.

Now I don't judge present day America on its shameful history. Not slavery and not the Ku Klux Klan. I hope that I'm not judged on Colonial Britain and Amritsah. But I don't push a bigoted old piece of paper as the basis of everything that is right and true in this country.

I get my mail at my house. In order for the postal service to deliver mail to my house, a road must be built. This means that all roads are post roads because they all lead to some address.

As far as the original intent of the founders, they intended for people to get their mail. A postal road back then was a road to connect post offices so mail could be delivered between them. Since then, the postal service has changed a bit, and delivers to a lot more places. It's up to the fed to make sure there's a road everywhere that mail is delivered.

And that you should contribute to them - ie: pay taxes.

Do you think every country that has a constitution, every organization that has a charter, should just throw it out the window and forget about it after its written? Because people at the time had some different beliefs than we do now - nothing they believed then has any value to us now? Look beyond the roads for a minute.... you don't see any tax money being wasted anywhere that maybe wouldn't be if were sticking more closely to the 'rules'?

So you know the answer but you're not going to tell me because Radar pisses you off?

It's called postage stamps and gasoline tax. I pay for both of them.

I have no issue with the average American's average regard for the foundation of your laws. It's just Radar's blinkered belief that it is the beginning and end of all possible solutions for your country that is so alien to me. Honestly, fom my POV it's the same as the convoluted "laws" Hassidic Jews follow which are apparently based ont he 10 Commandments.

Seems like there's nothing written down that can't be deified.

I have never said that the Constitution is the beginning or end of any solution. Government doesn't solve problems. Government is force. It should only be used when necessary and only when directed in the right way.

All possible solutions for our country rest in the hands of our citizens. They can work to solve their own problems, or seek help from each other. But government is not the answer. I don't deify the Constitution. I remember that it is the foundation of our entire government and that it was created specifically to restrict and limit the powers of the federal government.

In many rural areas, mail is not delivered to an address. Instead, mail is collected at the post office and the addressee must go and pick it up in person.

The federal government should only pay for roads as far as the postal service needs them to deliver mail in a timely fashion...like freeways between cities.

I guess the states can handle roads beyond that, and this is done through gas taxes.

I pay the post office in the form of stamps to build post offices and to sort and deliver mail. Actually most of this is paid for by junk mail people, but I pay my share in this form. For the rest of the roads, I pay via gas tax. I'm always willing to pay my fair share for the services I actually use.

random - o m g moment
 

G.W.B's mantra.

I swear!

Let's work from Answers.com since the Wikipedia entry lacks one crucial aspect of post roads. (Once the W is not so slow, I may improve the entry.)

http://www.answers.com/topic/post-roads

Mail routes between New York and Boston took shape in the late seventeenth century. These roads traced routes that became great highways and are still known as the post roads. The Continental Congress began creating post roads during the revolutionary war.

Okay, fine, but why use the term "post roads" and not just simply "roads"?

To designate a highway as a post road gave the government the monopoly of carrying mail over it; on other roads, anybody might carry the mail.

Huh! So that's the original understanding of the term, when the C was written: Post roads provide a monopoly on mail on those roads to the Feds. That was the understood meaning all along, and during the 1800s they began converting regular roads to "post roads". These were and remain roads that the Feds did not build and did not maintain. But they became "post roads". And even the rivers:

Steamboat captains also carried letters and collected the fees for them, until in 1823 all navigable waters were declared to be post roads, which checked the practice.

Day-um! And that was what they did during the period you say was "free". Gawrsh!

Private letter-carrying companies after 1842 did much house-to-house mail business in the larger cities; but the postmaster general circumvented them in 1860 by declaring all the streets of New York, Boston, and Philadelphia to be post roads.

Through your interpretation you've just prevented all private mail delivery. Nice goin', genius.

I haven't "interpreted" anything. Someone said that if we followed the Constitution, we'd have no roads. I said we would. I was correct. Post roads are roads. They are all roads. It's nice that now the government will back off from making the claim that only the government may use those roads for mail delivery, but it doesn't change the fact that all roads are post roads or the fact that nothing I've said would prevent private mail delivery. The government's bogus claims of exclusive access to these roads would prevent it, not anything I've said.

I am unfamiliar with your source so I the veracity of your claim of the roads being the exclusive domain for government to deliver mail is questionable. Even if this is the case, the government has long considered itself to have a monopoly over delivering mail and over the use of force. The government claims the Constitution applies to citizens and not to the government when it furthers governmental power and the Supreme Court agrees. The Federal government says the Constitution doesn't apply to it when it comes to slavery, pollution, and a host of other things.

The roads between Boston, NY, Philly and points south, were established long before the revolution. Indian trails became horse trails and then wagon roads.
In 1737, when Benjamin Franklin was appointed Deputy Postmaster General by the King, he was charged with placing mile posts along those roads to determine the cost of sending mail. That's why they are called "post" roads.
Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Then why did the C not just say "roads"?

Probably because post roads are for delivering the mail, but not all roads back then led to a post office or a delivery address. Most of the roads back then were trails or paths that led to homes as someone mentioned earlier, back then the post office didn't deliver to homes. It delivered to other post offices. But the times have changed and now all roads are used to deliver the mail.

Bruce mentions that there were posts for each mile of road. Perhaps this is the reason. It really doesn't matter though.

What matters is the U.S. Constitution grants authority to the federal government to collect taxes to pay for roads and the fact that we had roads for 137 years before the 16th amendment was fraudulently ratified to create permanent income taxes. Lincoln created the first income tax in America, but it was temporary for the reconstruction effort. It did open the door for Taft though.

UT, quit interpreting, dammit!

HOLY SHIT!!!!!

Radar just said the words "probably" and "perhaps" in relationship to an issue of constitutional interpretation!

Radar, you can't have it both ways. It very much does matter what kind of roads the Constitution granted congress the power to create, because anything beyond that specific type of road is an illegal expansion of power, and the road crews hired to build those roads should refuse to do it, and must in all good conscience quit their jobs.

As you yourself have so eloquently argued before.

If you're looking for someone to argue that the federal government isn't overstepping its limited authority, you won't find it with me. All roads paid for by the federal government in which postage is not carried, is an unconstitutional use of federal money and an illegal expansion of power.

Thanks for your kind words saying I have argued eloquently. It's nice to hear even though it's an attempt to be sarcastic.

I wouldn't say contractors should quit their job if they are part of an illegal expansion of power on the part of government. But if they are good citizens, they will agree not to take part in that particular project.

As far as any ambiguity goes with regard to the Constitution, don't kid yourself into thinking I've said anything that wasn't accurate and clear. The Constitution says that the federal government may collect taxes to pay for roads. UT asked why the Constitution didn't merely say "roads" rather than "post roads". I speculated as to the reason and described why the roads currently being used by mail carriers are still legitimate uses of the federal government. The words "perhaps" and "probably" were used in discussing the possible reasons behind the use of the term "post roads" by the founders; not over the actual meaning of the Constitution or the words within it.

I want to know if you're winning or not Radar? Seems to me no one much is seeing your point of view yet.

I'll check back on your progress later. lol

And about this? I guess you don't believe all men (or women) are created equal then?

What an arsehole. lol

I had written a long rant in response to Ali's misconception about the relationship between States and roads. Bruce said it nicer and better.

[mini-rant]Radar makes a mistake tying everything to the long dead document which attempted to enumerate the powers of the Federal Government. There are no longer any significant checks to the power of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Please remember that when you call for more Federal control of roads, morgages, health care, or security, you are feeding the same creature that puts American combat boots on the ground all over the planet.[/rant]

Roads, Federal, State & County(Parish), are funded by fuel taxes. :lame:

All roads paid for by the federal government in which postage is not carried, is an unconstitutional use of federal money and an illegal expansion of power.

AND

all roads are used to deliver the mail

THEREFORE

All Federal involvement in roads is Constitutional. Which is really what you were saying in the beginning, we just didn't believe you would make such a case.

I mean, even the Feds don't use that interpretation. That interpretation is a wild granting of power to the Feds. But whatever, you're the man now dog.

It occurs to me that this is one of those threads non-Americans find to be utterly American. But would probably enjoy the quirkiness of regardless.

I'd assume Radar would see this differently. For him the Constitution is like the 10 Commandments before a few millenia of tinkering made an indecipherable mess of some pretty simple rules. He'd like to do the impossible, turn back the clock on entropy...

I was only using roads as an example of a public facility, so I apologize for my misconception as to where the funds come from. It's not exactly that way here although a portion of road maintenance is paid for by fuel taxes, not all is.

My point is and always has been against Radar's notion that it's illegal for the government to expect citizens to pay personal income taxes.

If roads is a bad example, perhaps we could use public libraries instead. Perhaps it's not the same there, but here most towns and definitely all cities have public libraries which are funded mostly by government grants but also through some patronage but of course, the government funding is raised through taxes.

If you'd rather, we could look at police. Who's going to pay their wages if there's no income tax? Or how about judges and magistrates?

There are a whole range of public facilities and systems which would not be possible if it were not for income taxes.

As I've said before, if you don't want to pay taxes, that's fine, but you go and live away from society. Be self sufficient and do your thing. I have no problem with that what so ever. If that's what people want to do, they should go ahead and do it, but you only make yourself a hypocrite if you live within society and don't pay your taxes.

IIRC Radar is okay with other forms of taxes, such as fuel taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc. It is only when the tax rate is directly tied to income that he objects.

That's a lovely little speech Radar, but you've blown a hole in your own foot with a lot of the tripe you've posted here. You constantly tell most if not all of us how you're better or more intelligent than us. You have some very strange ideas about how certain documents should be interpreted and quite frankly, you're incredibly rude and condescending in practically every single post you decide to create.

If that's a shining example of what an American is, then you and your countrymen have a problem.

I'm only rude to those who richly deserve it. You're as rude as I've ever been and you're consistently wrong on every subject and then get snippy when you are corrected.

If more Americans were like me, America would be loved throughout the world...including Australia. You are an anomaly because every other Australian I've ever met is very kindhearted, caring, worldly, and classy. In other words, they are everything that you are not.

I'm a much better American than you are an Australian.

Yep I know thanks Clod

You are right on all counts other than property tax. I don't think I should ever be taxed on what I own, or what I earn. Owning property is a right. Keeping the fruits of your labor is a right. I have a problem being taxed for exercising my rights. I have no problem with paying taxes or fees for services I use.

I suppose you think that's a winning post Radar? lol

Let's just have a look at the elements for a minute so you can see why it's not.

Which must include pretty much everyone on this forum at least. From what I've observed, you've been rude to everyone at one time or another.

Not correct and I have no problem being corrected by someone who knows better than me.

Firstly, this is only your opinion. It'd be interesting to do a poll on it don't you think? I wonder also if you're implying that you're better than most other Americans here.

You have no idea how kindearted, caring, worldly (although this is not a word that has any relevance with regard to any group of people made up of individuals) or classy I am. Just because I don't sprout off all the good deeds I do or boast about the people I help or do nice things for doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It just means I don't tell you about. You're making a very mistaken assumption here and it's so far wrong it's funny.

Maybe you are and maybe you aren't. I suppose that'd be another interesting poll. I suppose you'd have to ask what makes a better American and also what makes a better Australian. Maybe the same ideals apply and maybe they don't. Once again, this is a very presumptive statement and is also simply your opinion until you can show me how you've quantified it and proven your theory.

So in summary, I'd say no, this is not a winning post. There is far too much left to speculate about yet. :)

Wait a minute. What do you mean? Are you really suggesting we are born with a natural right to own real estate? or a car? or anything for that matter? owning these things is a privilege, a luxury really. you work for your money and you purchase them if you are able.