A reasonable person would say that if someone wrote a document, that they meant that document to convey specific facts, beliefs and concepts. It is therefore reasonable to try to grasp what the author tried to convey, which becomes more difficult as time passes. It is unreasonable to claim that any interpretation is reasonable and acceptable. The truth was what I just wrote should be self-evident.

you think the US is the only corrupt government? believe it or not, there are places worse than ours, as far as corruption... and cheaper too... didn't Chevrolet just move 7 more plants to Mexico?- right after they got the bailout? Obama tried to talk them into staying, but they are gone... might as well close Michigan up, or sell it to canada, nothing going on up there... they don't have to move any skyscrapers or real estate holdings, they just sell them to foreign invevestors, like they have been doing... and mexico is not the only country out there, there are plenty of small countries that would take way less in bribes than here...

The bible is very easy to understand and interpret...unless you want to accurately understand and interpret the scriptures.

well, what happens if they start pissing all the rich people off and they move somewhere else? they would take there money with them, and then there would be no taxes....

Yet a prime example of the title of the thread.

The last quote was first, the first quote was last.


So I'll show an example of how I came to the first quote.
http://mingle2.com/forum/show_posts_by_user/117819

well, it is theirs... who are we to take it away from them? would that make us communists? isn't the same idea Russia had?.. and they fell apart... go figure

punish the rich, so thats your answer?

It's not my fault you have no sense of beauty while looking at the universe or the fossil records.

Maybe it's the fact that some are actually scared of the "beauty" and not the other way.

Perhaps some people are just "ugly" and the only way they can feel better is to put down everything and everyone.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and
the bill for all ten comes to $100 and If they paid
their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
...like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.)

So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed
quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the
owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good
customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of
your daily beer by $20." so drinks for the ten now cost
just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way
we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected...They
would still drink for free...But what about the other
six men - the paying customers? How could they divide
the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
share?'...They realized that $20 divided by six is
$3.33...But if they subtracted that from everybody's
share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each
end up being paid to drink his beer..So, the bar owner
suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to
work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing
(100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before...And
the first four continued to drink for free...But once
outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their
savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the
sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got
$10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man.
"I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got
ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the
seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got
only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute,"
yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks,
so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But
when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something
important. They didn't have enough money between all
of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college
professors, is how our tax system works. The people
who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from
a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the
atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

2/3 of both houses to propose amendment
3/4 tof State legislators to adopt the amendment. KerryO

The article,
The one vote short was in the Senate.
The House had already passed it.

First, I don't idolize others as you. Any man can be wrong and Scalia is not my favorite SC Justice.

Second,

2/3!

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

As the article stated and most 7 grade civic students know that.

Third, That is the opinion of only one vet. I can point you to a lot more than that who still think Bush was right in invading Iran.

Question;

Why would you want to burn the flag?
Burning Cloth means nothing, right?
If your wish is to inflame the passions of other more respectful and appreciative people, then you are in fact inciting violence.
If you want to burn cloth burn your drawers.

I do not like thee, Doctor Fell,
The reason why I cannot tell;
But this I know, and know full well,
I do not like thee, Doctor Fell.

It was against the law until 1989 to desecrate Old Glory.

It was made legal due to the efforts of only a few Americans and a case brought before the SC. It was not put to a vote by the majority. It was made legal on a technicality of language.

"We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents."

In fact an Amendment to the US Constitution has been proposed and a majority did support it.

On June 22, 2005, a flag burning amendment was passed by the House with the needed two-thirds majority. On June 27, 2006, the most recent attempt to pass a ban on flag burning was rejected by the Senate in a close vote of 66 in favor, 34 opposed, one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to send the amendment to be voted on by the states.

The principal function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute; it may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger."

“ Those who would burn the flag destroy the symbol of freedom, but amending the Constitution would destroy part of freedom itself."
—Vietnam veteran Richard Savage

Call it what you want but it's disrespectful and unappreciative.

Beware when you desicrate her that there are many who are willing to give the ultimate sacrifice to defend her.
Are you willing to give as much for your disrespect.
You might find one day that you can not hide behind the law.

There are lots of ways to impress the freedoms you enjoy.

Being disrespectful to Old Glory and what it means to others isn't being appreciative or deserving of them.

The penalty for desecrating Old Glory should be a loss of citizenship.

Thank you for your opinion, I'll file it under Gratuitous Assertion as usual.

Y'all are insulting and unappreciative.

It does more then hurt feelings.

1) This is a huge topic to get into...Basically, it's like this. God wanted to bring Jesus into the world, so that people would follow him to salvation. The world in Noah's time was irredeemably corrupt, down to one good man in the world. If Jesus had been born into that world, he wouldn't have found followers worthy of him and nobody would have wanted to hear his teachings. So God had to nearly wipe out humanity in order to save humanity. Killing those children while they were morally neutral was a mercy to them when compared to them living a sinful life with no hope of salvation.

Well then, with that logic someone who buys a Gun or a Taser should be able to go around and do what they want with it, since it's theirs.