MY final word on IRS scandal.

[Catherine]

This one's for you, Joan -- from a fellow Californian, too.

http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2013/05/28/karl-marx-was-a-tea-partier/?singlepage=true

[taxxcpa]

This makes a good point: The parasites are not the fat-cats, but the "entitlement" do-nothings. That is not to say that everyone who receives tax-paid benefits is a parasite, since there are some who are mentally or physically incapable of doing anything productive.

the Tea Party movement can be accurately defined as a workers’ revolution.

Karl Marx, were he alive today, would approve.

At least he would if he was able to follow his own theories to their logical conclusion. Unfortunately, the arc of history has exposed an untenable logical paradox at the heart of Marxist theory: What if the “workers” — the actually productive people in society whom Marx assumed were motivated by resentment — instead were motivated by a desire for self-determination? What if the “parasitical class” was not merely (as Marx posited) the do-nothings at the top but the do-nothings at the top and the bottom?

[kcjenkins]

Non-profit group waited for tax-exempt approval for almost 2-1/2 years. IRS agent lectures the president of the organization about forcing its religion and beliefs on others and inaccurately explains that the group must remain neutral on issues such as abortion.

Press Release: http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/8247

Full audio: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ProLife
RevolutionIRScall.wav
Full transcript: http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ProLifeRevolutionCallTranscriptIRS.pdf
Audio clips with words graphically displayed on screen:
http://vimeo.com/67822932

[Guest Taxed]

That's what happens when the law is clouded with conflicting language.

They should really go back and strictly enforce the original language and intent of the law. "Exclusively" not "Primarily"??

[jainen]

>>strictly enforce the original language<<

Easier said than done!. There is a lot of disagreement about whether the original meaning of some words in the second amendment, like "arms," includes technological concepts that didn't even exist until 200 years later. And even more fundamental is the question about what exactly the original language WAS, especially about that first comma that was approved by Congress but not copied in the ratified version.

[Jack from Ohio]

>>strictly enforce the original language<<

Easier said than done!. There is a lot of disagreement about whether the original meaning of some words in the second amendment, like "arms," includes technological concepts that didn't even exist until 200 years later. And even more fundamental is the question about what exactly the original language WAS, especially about that first comma that was approved by Congress but not copied in the ratified version.

Does this mean that the 1st Amendment should not apply to technologies that did not exist at the time? Radio, TV, Internet...

I think NOT! I do not think the writers of the constitution and the bill or rights were being exclusionary about any parts of it. "Oh, but if things change, these rights may not apply." MALE BOVINE SCAT!!

[Guest Taxed]

Speech and thoughts have remained the same except the medium of communication has improved (Radio, TV, Internet) in the last 200 years. At the same time the lethality of weapons have improved several thousand times compared to the good old single shot musket!

I wonder if the framers of the constitution if they could go "back to the future" to the 21 century, would have written the constitution the way it is now.

I can see Jainen's point.

Sorry got off topic a bit.

[Jack from Ohio]

Speech and thoughts have remained the same except the medium of communication has improved (Radio, TV, Internet) in the last 200 years. At the same time the lethality of weapons have improved several thousand times compared to the good old single shot musket!

I wonder if the framers of the constitution if they could go "back to the future" to the 21 century, would have written the constitution the way it is now.

I can see Jainen's point.

Sorry got off topic a bit.

So the mediums for communicating words and speech have only improved technologically a little bit? Apply the concept to all of the 10 amendments or none. Your contention seems baseless. There were weapons of mass destruction (cannon and black powder) when they framed the constitution.

[Catherine]

1828 Dictionary (oldest available free online):

http://1828.mshaffer.com/

http://issuu.com/minutemom/docs/spring_2013 see article starting on page 24. Some minor editing problems that do not affect readability.