• Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:00 PM
    It was a metaphor, for God's sake. Or is the cave man trope (as in the old Geico ads) politically incorrect?
    35 replies | 276 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:53 PM
    Really? I've seen the ad, and it features a scene of a guy coming up behind a woman and grabbing her butt and another of a bunch of kids chasing a smaller kid and yelling 'Freak!". So yes, the ad is talking about those bad traits. The only outrageous part of the ad was the line of guys standing behind their grills, as if outdoor cooking was somehow politically incorrect.
    35 replies | 276 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:28 PM
    When ferociousness takes the form of bullying or "grab 'em by the pussy", it's more Neanderthal than masculinity. And make sure they're pork ribs.
    35 replies | 276 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-17-2019, 01:50 PM
    One congressman doesn't have the power to pass legislation. Is that what a congressman actually said? And even if it was said, who said it? If it was some far-left wacko who has no clout, I wouldn't be worried, and I would respond, "Congressman, by what authority do you tell me who I can or can't have on my website? Haven't you read the First Amendment?" I would say the same thing to someone with clout, such as Skeletor (sorry, Pelosi). It wouldn't be too difficult to come up with a campaign like one I saw once in either a movie or TV western -- every day on Facebook anyone signing in would first see a page saying "The government didn't retaliate against Facebook yesterday for its content. Sign in tomorrow and see we still have the First Amendment." Of course, if I owned Facebook Jones wouldn't be allowed on in the first place.
    60 replies | 647 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-16-2019, 09:12 PM
    Don't you think that Roku's management took all of that into account? Suppose 30 or even 3,000 Roku users complain about its carrying reruns of Will and Grace episodes because the show has a gay character. Do you think for one minute that Roku management would seriously consider cutting the reruns just to placate the complainers if its research showed that 300,000 of its 24 million users watched the reruns? I can't stand SJW's or the PC culture, but I also respect the right of a private company to make its own business decisions, even though I might disagree with its determination.
    60 replies | 647 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-16-2019, 08:51 PM
    I view that as political posturing, not a threat.
    60 replies | 647 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-16-2019, 06:02 PM
    I couldn't agree more, although I feel it's perfectly acceptable for private parties to urge a boycott of Roku unless they drop Jones. I question whether the pressure came from Roku's subscribers and those urging a boycott rather than the government. Regarding the congressional hearings, I seem to recall that Congress grilled Zuckerberg about privacy issues, not about carrying people whose speech the congressmen didn't like. Did I miss any threats by the congressmen regarding the substantive content of Facebook, YouTube, et al.?
    60 replies | 647 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-16-2019, 04:50 PM
    Unless the government pressured Roku to drop Jones it seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable business decision. Someone's liberty to listen to Jones's claptrap doesn't include the right to demand that a private business broadcast it, and nongovernmental people and entities (whether they meet your definition of "elites") have every right to use their power to persuade Roku or any other media outlet from carrying material they don't like, so long as they don't get the government involved.
    60 replies | 647 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-16-2019, 03:33 PM
    And how does deciding not to carry Jones's program interfere with anyone's liberty?
    60 replies | 647 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-16-2019, 02:29 PM
    When did making a business decision in a private company become anti-liberty?
    60 replies | 647 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-16-2019, 11:38 AM
    I think that it would be very helpful to know what the law really is, as opposed to inaccurate descriptions or (at the other extreme) crackpot and paranoid versions. I had never heard of this organization before you mentioned it. Better come up with a different delusion. It may be discouraging to shatter ignorant fantasies, but that's what exposure to the facts often does.
    36 replies | 423 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    36 replies | 423 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-16-2019, 10:32 AM
    The point was that it's not necessary for Congress to regulate pot in order to tax it, which is what I thought you were saying ("we must control it at the Federal level so we can tax it "). If Congress were to repeal all federal laws criminalizing or otherwise regulating pot it could still tax it (although the tax could be problematic if pot was illegal under state law -- see below). See The License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866), upholding federal taxation of things (intrastate sales of lottery tickets and liquor) that at the time were outside of Congress' regulatory authority. The reason there's no federal tax on pot currently goes back to Leary v. U.S., 395 U.S. 6 (1969), in which the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 because it required persons subject to the tax to incriminate themselves.
    36 replies | 423 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-16-2019, 08:01 AM
    Untrue. The law's been clear for a long time that the federal power to tax isn't limited to things that Congress can otherwise regulate.
    36 replies | 423 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-11-2019, 10:05 AM
    Agreed. But what kind of consent do you think the DOI was referring to? The unanimous consent of all individuals? The consent of a majority? The consent of a majority of elected representatives? True, but that's the risk in any representative form of government, including those adopted by the States and their citizens. Any objection to the powers given to Congress in the Constitution can also be made to the powers given State governments in their respective constitutions and to the powers given to city governments in their respective charters or (if you want to go farther down) to neighborhood associations in their respective governing documents.
    16 replies | 1891 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-11-2019, 08:53 AM
    But the DOI wasn't declaring a state of anarchy in which each individual had to consent before the law applied to him. To the contrary, it declared that the colonies were free and independent States with the power to do all things such States can do. The consent it referred to wasn't the consent of each individual but rather a collective consent. And how the powers given to Congress under the Constitution were to be exercised was to be determined through a representative system in which the consent of the people is given indirectly. And since this was the same system that was used in each of the States, I don't see any conflict between the DOI and the Constitution.
    16 replies | 1891 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-10-2019, 07:49 AM
    Another myth.
    19 replies | 386 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-09-2019, 10:29 AM
    Politicians always say misleading things. Remember "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it."? Even Ron Paul is guilty -- ""We should have the lowest tax that we’ve ever had, and up until 1913, it was 0 percent. What’s so bad about that?" -- ignoring the Civil War era income tax that lasted for 8 years. He has also claimed that the federal income tax was ruled unconstitutional during the Civil War period (to the contrary -- it was ruled constitutional) because there was no explicit authorization for it (there was). But the income tax is voluntary in the sense that the system relies on the disclosure by taxpayers of information about one's income and deductions that is solely within their possession. Yes, there are information returns that the IRS gets from payors of wages, dividends, and interest, but there are many other types of income that don't involve information returns.
    19 replies | 386 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-09-2019, 09:23 AM
    Not this voluntary crap again... "Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant. Judge Learned Hand, dissenting in Commissioner v. Newman, 159 F2d 848 (1947).
    19 replies | 386 view(s)
No More Results
About Sonny Tufts

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1

Signature


We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold

Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,488
Posts Per Day
0.60
General Information
Last Activity
Today 09:33 AM
Join Date
04-25-2012
Referrals
0

04-06-2018


03-17-2018


03-08-2018


08-03-2017

  • 10:57 AM - Hidden

12-15-2016


No results to display...
Page 1 of 26 12311 ... LastLast

01-18-2019


01-17-2019


01-16-2019


01-11-2019


01-09-2019



Page 1 of 26 12311 ... LastLast