Senator Mike Lee: It's about the Right

[One Brow]

I bet you wear long sleeved turtlenecks exclusively.

Never. I always exercise my right to bare arms.

 

[babe]

No one will force me to wear long sleeves!

Yaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!

cultivate that love of freedom, and remember it when somebody is howling about the rising incidence of skin cancer, and demanding that laws should be enacted to require everyone to wear long sleeves and sunscreen too. Not to mention those long flowing robes the Arabs have learned to wear. . . . .

kudos for the sense of humor. . . . .

 

[PearlWatson]

I see your point. How about going back to the only Constitutional tax in the original Constitution. Tariffs collected at ports of entry, or maybe even exports of scarce resources. Income tax and property tax are problematical and unhealthy taxes.

A better argument for not taxing corporations on income or profits is just that it's a double tax on the individuals who own shares in the Corporation.

The better argument about where people who own shares in corporations do get their representation on taxation is simply that every individual (including shareholders) does get to vote, it they are citizens.

I can only guess at the implications of those things, but at the very least a vote should be correlated with taxation amount. In our current system The Takers (pay no income tax) should have no vote, since they only vote to take more.

 

[PearlWatson]

That is my favorite type, as long as the peers are selected without consideration for political affiliations. Which peer-reviewed studies, conducted by whom, suggested that concealed carry laws have been the only policies to dramatically reduce multiple public shootings?

lol. The only fair way to play that discounting game is if I can throw out the peer reviews, and studies for that matter, done by liberals.

 

[One Brow]

lol. The only fair way to play that discounting game is if I can throw out the peer reviews, and studies for that matter, done by liberals.

Any mainstream science publication, or any government agency publication, will do just fine. Those are the sources I have used. If you can't produce a study unless it has funding from Smith & Wesson or the NRA, you should ask yourself why.

 

[PearlWatson]

Any mainstream science publication, or any government agency publication, will do just fine. Those are the sources I have used. If you can't produce a study unless it has funding from Smith & Wesson or the NRA, you should ask yourself why.

How about criminologists? or economists? Are those considered "mainstream scientists?" even if they happened to be Republican or Conservative?

 

[One Brow]

How about criminologists? or economists? Are those considered "mainstream scientists?" even if they happened to be Republican or Conservative?

A mainstream science publication cannot be a criminologist nor an economist nor a biologist nor any other type of person, nor can a government agency publication be one. Criminologists and economists can write such publications, of course. I would not rule out a mainstream science or government agency article simply because it was written by a criminologist or an economist.