How to Answer the Census.
in [Physics]
|
From: Remy McSwain on 20 Apr 2010 07:37 In news:a4128f98-ca77-4664-888a-cd2a9a63a3bd(a)w32g2000prc.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Name calling and "catagorizing" proves nothing. > If you are afraid to stand up for your privacy rights you are a > lazy > traitor to America. Ohhhhhh, the irony! Do you, or do you not accept the validity of the US Constitution? Why have you never answered that simple question?
From: Remy McSwain on 20 Apr 2010 07:41 In news:8b5e5ed5-8817-4bd2-a1c1-a5bbf9a8823f(a)y3g2000prb.googlegroups.com, Michael Price <micheal.john.price(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 21, 12:38 am, hal wrote: >> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:43:08 -0700 (PDT), knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com >> wrote: >> >>>> Great advise to give anyone outside your district. >>>> No point letting them get benefits and representation >>>> that you could have for yourself. >> >>>> Sue... >> >>>> http://2010.census.gov/2010census/ >> >>> Right, because I'm not a socialist. >> >> So you don't drive on the government run road system then? > > So because he uses something he was forced to pay for at > gunpoint he's a socialist? He knew the terms and conditions of his use of those things. >> And if your house is burning down you be sure to not call the >> socialist fire department. > > Why because you think he should pay for your fire service and a > private one > for him just so he say he's not a socialist? He knew the terms and conditions of his use of those things. >> Or the police if someone breaks into your home. Make >> sure your electricy doesn't come from any government owned dams >> for >> power plants. > > I'd be glad to make sure of that. By all means sell of the > government electricity > providers and privatise the cops. Then people like you can stop > complaining that > I use services you forced me to pay for. You weren't forced to pay for anything that you didn't agree to pay for.
From: Remy McSwain on 19 Apr 2010 09:42 In news:5ef8caea-5537-45f1-93d5-6e71bef7f5e3(a)r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 18, 8:42 am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > "Enumerate" means count the people. No it doesn't. That's only YOUR interpretation. > It doesn't mean get their name, rank, and serial number....yet.
From: knews4u2chew on 19 Apr 2010 11:38 On Apr 19, 6:42 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Innews:5ef8caea-5537-45f1-93d5-6e71bef7f5e3(a)r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, > > knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Apr 18, 8:42 am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Enumerate" means count the people. > > No it doesn't. That's only YOUR interpretation. > Gee, my "interpretation" seems to be just what it says in the dictionary. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enumerate Plain and simple. Just as the law should be. We don't need Black Robed Cultists to tell use "new" definitions for old old words.
From: Remy McSwain on 19 Apr 2010 12:06
In news:83ec2383-5287-4d0f-9a58-226f5b9a696b(a)c21g2000yqk.googlegroups.com, knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 19, 6:42 am, "Remy McSwain" <Paradis70...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: >> Innews:5ef8caea-5537-45f1-93d5-6e71bef7f5e3(a)r18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, >> >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Apr 18, 8:42 am, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> "Enumerate" means count the people. >> >> No it doesn't. That's only YOUR interpretation. >> > Gee, my "interpretation" seems to be just what it says in the > dictionary. > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enumerate Not in THIS dictionary: "1. to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list: Let me enumerate the many flaws in your hypothesis. " "as if in counting" doesn't mean simply to count. It means to list, which means note by description. > Plain and simple. Only to a plain simpleton. > Just as the law should be. The USC was never intended to be written as though to "enumerate" each and every way it should be applied to each and every case which could possibly arise in such a complex society. That's why it also says that it will be up to the courts to decide how the law should be applied to any given case. And the courts have decided that the current census is consistent with what the law says. Or do you reject that part of the USC which you've claimed to accept as valid? > We don't need Black Robed Cultists to tell use "new" definitions > for old old words. The USC, which you've said that you fully embrace, says differently. So do you embrace it, or not? |