Anyone notice that both campaigns...

[Marvin S]

I like the idea of the FairTax that has been promoted by Mike Huckabee, the plan can captue revevue from those that don't pay taxes. Examples of those that w6uld be taxed:

illegal aliens
drug dealers
prostitution
The tax is based on personal consumption.

Richard - You had a chance to present this on another thread - but here's an answer. Several years back in an effort ensure all paid something into the system, especially the coupon clippers, the AMT was born. It was meant for those rich people who paid little or no tax. Today the class that gets hit hardest is the middle class. The Fair Tax idea stinks.

Of the three groups of people you mention the first two should not exist if enforcement was doing their job, the third should be legalized, regulated & taxed heavily.

This is by far one of the best ideas out there. It would definitely keep people from righting off personal items as work related as well as tax those that use the most and want toys. Even though I really like this idea I completely understand that I would be one of those being taxed hard. I have alot of toys. Huckabee was a pretty darn good governor for Arkansas. Actually I think he was quite a bit better than Clinton.

The Huckster is not a viable choice in those states that vote red - being better than Clinton is not a great recommendation - & he likes to spend if one can believe the reports done on his record.

Setting tax policy based on a concern of perceived injustice is not a good baseline to start from. I believe the Flat Tax to be the the tax that has the greatest potential to be an income generator for government without the built in flaws of the other systems.

[Bob Gutermuth]

By what stretch of any imagination does either the Constitution or the Geneva convention apply to enemy combatants who are not part of a nations armed forces? Those who fight for Al Qaeda are not part of a recognized army of any nation state.

[Pete]

Watching one of those 60 minute type shows they mentioned that our prisons contained 29 percent illegal alliens of the estemated 12 that crossed. I don;t know if that number is true or not. But an average of 70 grand a year that we spend on the inmates ( number also given by talking head) That a whole lot of wasted money. And a large percentage of creeps we have given a free pass to rape and pillage.
We already have the people captured . why not pack um in to a cattle truck and haul them from wence they came. After the border is closed they can't get back in unless we let them.

There is a really good reason why this mess continues and goes unchecked.

Pete

[cotts135]

By what stretch of any imagination does either the Constitution or the Geneva convention apply to enemy combatants who are not part of a nations armed forces? Those who fight for Al Qaeda are not part of a recognized army of any nation state.

The wiretapping was done on American citizens not always on Al Qaeda.

The Supreme court stated in Hamdan that: "the Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva applies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda."
Further reading of that ruling would suggest that because of the CIA's interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, the Administration might be in danger of violating the War crimes act.

You can check this link:http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...1-3466E273D342

[YardleyLabs]

By what stretch of any imagination does either the Constitution or the Geneva convention apply to enemy combatants who are not part of a nations armed forces? Those who fight for Al Qaeda are not part of a recognized army of any nation state.

The 4th amendment is the law of the country, not the person. It applies to all government activity in the country. In addition, warrantless surveillance has not been restricted to non-citizens.

The concept of "enemy combatants" is exactly what the Geneva Convention was written to address. I assume you actually meant to say "illegal combatants" which had been the term used by the administration in its efforts to deny convention rights to those detained. The administration has lost every single court test of this theory. The language of the treaty is very clear. Either the detained individuals are combatants,which would make them subject to the Geneva Convention, or they are criminals, which would make them subject to our justice system.

Either way, the administration's activities have been lawless by design. That is, the administration has argued that the activities are above the law because they are being carried out on the orders of the President as Commander in Chief during a time of war. Nothing in our Constitution has ever been interpreted to give the president such broad authority. The whole nature of our government of checks and balances is that no one, including the president, is above the law.

[Bob Gutermuth]

I totally disagree with SCOTUS on this decision.

America has done worse to its own citizens, eg the Lincoln conspirators, who were held in deplorable conditions and tried by military tribunal though all were civillians. In more recent times the German saboeturs involved in Operation Pastorius were tried by military tribunal not a civillian court. Members of both conspiracies were executed. Yet I have never heard anyone complain about their treatment. Here we are talking about a group with the ability to get nukes and kill thousands of our people, if it were up to me I would have hired some people who are ex-Kempetai and let them work on the terrorists.

[Hoosier]

So are the liberals strict constitutionalist on the 4th amendment, but also believe the constitution is a living document in all other situations. You can't have it both ways. Not that I want to start anything with Jeff he's a little to articulate for me.

[YardleyLabs]

I totally disagree with SCOTUS on this decision.

America has done worse to its own citizens, eg the Lincoln conspirators, who were held in deplorable conditions and tried by military tribunal though all were civillians. In more recent times the German saboeturs involved in Operation Pastorius were tried by military tribunal not a civillian court. Members of both conspiracies were executed. Yet I have never heard anyone complain about their treatment. Here we are talking about a group with the ability to get nukes and kill thousands of our people, if it were up to me I would have hired some people who are ex-Kempetai and let them work on the terrorists.

How is it that you cling so tightly to the 2nd amendment and are so willing to flush the others down the tubes? We have clearly done some terrible things in war and the courts have normally dragged their heels in reviewing these cases to avoid a confrontation that would actually create a problem in the prosecution of war. At issue in the administration's legal losses has been the fact that it has never been able to show any clear and present danger warranting an emergency action. Of all the "wars" we have ever been involved with, this one is probably the least threatening we have faced as a country and the one least deserving of special treatment by the courts. In many cases, the administration appears to have taken its legal positions only to establish precedent for extending Presidential power.

[Bob Gutermuth]

It is my opinion that the Constitution is meant to give rights to citizens and those legally in the country, ergo I have no problem with extraordinary treatment of those who are neither, or those with whom America is at war. While this is not as big a shooting war as say WWII, it is potentially the most destructive of any war we have fought. In no previous war did we have the chance of a nuke device or CBW weapon being set off on our own soil and killing private citizens, nor were we fighting such a covert war with enemy combatants free to come and go and act as a fifth column within the nation to such an extent as is possible now. My concern is with the rights and welfare of law abiding loyal Americans and the rights or lack thereof vis a vis the enemy and their agents is no concern of mine.

As to the RKBA, if the government cannot or will not protect me and mine I will.

[mjh345]

I totally disagree with SCOTUS on this decision.

.

So I presume we should just ignore any SCOTUS decision you totally disagree with. Remember the majority of the SCOTUS was appointed by conservative Republican presidents

From the tenor of your posts, that would be a scary situation