Leaderboard

And you have just PROVEN my point: that a fact-based argument from our Founding Principles gets turned into "You're just a Know-It-All!!!" followed by more name-calling. Frankly, you didn't even deserve this much of a response.

To paraphrase from "The Princess Bride" -- "This word debate, I don't think it means what you think it means." Merriam-Webster: Definition of DEBATE a contention by words or arguments: as a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides There is no provision in that definition for screaming, hissy fits, name-calling, side-stepping issues, ignoring facts, or cutting off the other person with ad hominem attacks. So poor Ms. Maddow would be left with NOTHING to say or do. If she (or any of the other soi-disant "commentators" of the left) could/would debate the issues, either Publius Huldah or Michael Badnarik would mop the floor with her (or any of the others) in about 3 seconds.

cute, but the analogy fails; miserably; on several levels. In any case, I'm thinking his resignation will be "reluctantly accepted" by the President abut 6:15 pm on Friday.

Since we're all rambling here, did anybody notice that "thump" today. That's the sound of the bus rolling over Eric Holder.

It is Freedom Outpost, not Frontier Post. If you can't even get that right, how much respect can we be expected to grant you? That video link sounded really intelligent to me, I did not hear a single false statement in it. I can see where a liberal might not LIKE what she said, but not liking it does not make it wrong.

Anyone who has not upgraded their hardware and operating systems by now, will continue to have trouble with ATX. It has been posted here MANY times that for the program to be at least "useable in a somewhat reasonable manner" you need WIN7, lots of RAM and several other things previously detailed on this board. Still, people refuse to upgrade hardware while holding on to the software. I upgraded my standalone at home to 12.17 and have not seen any issues yet. More information about the network when I go back to the firm on Monday.

Installed 12.17 at 4:00. No smoke so far!!

I have no choice. 12.16 has been a disaster!!!

Depends on what you need -- how user-friendly, whether it's going to be you or client using it, if you want/need control of tax payments or want them seamless, etc. Medlin Payroll (Jerry posts here sometimes) is excellent. Still has somewhat of a DOS feel (no problem & even some nostalgia for those of us who remember DOS!), easy to use, very flexible, dirt cheap. I do not recommend it to clients who are not computer-savvy, though. If you want clients to do payroll eventually (or you to do it for them but relatively painlessly), there is online SurePayroll by Paychex. I have a couple of clients who use it. I can get reports, they have access from whatever computer, all taxes get paid automatically. Some folks also think well of CFS's tax software (www.taxtools.com) but I have not tried it for myself.

I have an idea. Give their stuff back to them and let the hairstylist they are presently getting their advice from continue to handle this high-level tax planning. If you take this project on, you'll wish you had never seen them when the IRS correspondence begins. And anything that doesn't meet their wierd expectations will be your fault.

I do not watch mainstream TV and have not for years -- too busy, and I got far too sick of the blatant leftist bias. My time is worth more. I read. What's the problem with what Sheriff Mueller wrote? Article VI of the Constitution states that all laws "made in pursuance of this Constitution shall be the supreme Law of the Land." The key phrase is "made in pursuance." Laws antithetical to the Constitution (which document includes the Bill of Rights by full incorporation, see Article VII) are, in Madison's words, "usurpations of powers NOT granted; therefore null and void." The Sheriff states he will not allow the enforcement of soi-disant "laws" which are actually merely usurpations. He thereby upholds the Constitution, as he swore to do. How is upholding the supreme Law of the Land paranoid? Why is standing by the oath one swore suspect? You need to look at your basic principles -- do you really think one should swear an oath, NOT intending to uphold it? Or that being forsworn is no big deal? Really? There is no honor and no integrity in that stance; how can you then call yourself an honorable person; one of integrity? Or are those merely old-fashioned, meaningless terms as well? They are NOT; not to me. As for the Republican party today -- they have been almost entirely taken over by the "Progressives" -- and the Democrat party has been completely subsumed by that same group outlook. Read a bit about the history of the Progressives and their antecedents, the Fabian Socialists. That ought to give you a serious case of the willies. Their stance is one of utter contempt for humanity; eugenicists and tyrants all. One of their members and spokesmen, George Bernard Shaw (yes, the famous author) stated flat-out that everyone should be required to go before a panel, yearly, to justify their existence (showing how they had produced more than they had consumed) and if they could not so do, they should be killed, as a service to humanity. Humanely, of course. They are despicable. If you understood what these people stand for, and how they have been working to destroy this country from within (for decades) you would recoil in horror and do everything in your power to bring their plans out from under the rocks they hide beneath, and to stop them.

http://www.countysheriffproject.org/

Jack I think you are missing the point. Even Sheriff Joe Arpio knows that he is not the final arbiter. Please read Catherine's post and then my tongue and cheek reply "Don't tell Sheriff Joe Arpio that he is the final arbiter..." You will get it!

I am acquainted with the Sheriff in my county. I went to school with two different deputies. I fly straight, fly right so I don't look over my shoulder. Those that break the law are the ones who should worry. Back to the point... How is Sheriff Joe Arpio of Maricopa County, AZ enforcing the sentences of convicted criminals handed down by the court system, make him the final arbiter? More exaggeration and extrapolation of the exaggeration.

Exaggeration, then extrapolation from the exaggeration. That is how the liberal mind presents their positions. This method is used more frequently when a liberal mind is confronted with facts, truth and logic that disprove his position.

Where are you getting this "judge, jury, and executioner" hysteria? Certainly not from anything that has been posted thus far.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin says, "The more things change, the more we must rely on the principles that never change." Do some reading on the Constitution and its principles -- I've cited web sites, books, articles, YouTube videos; take your pick. Yes, the _world_ has changed -- but the principles of freedom, morality, self-government, self-regulation, responsibility including our duty to aid our fellow humans -- NONE of those have changed one iota. THOSE are what the Constitution is founded upon.

There was a great cartoon in The New Yorker magazine a couple years ago: two cavemen sitting & talking. Once says to the other, "I don't get it. We get lots of fresh air and exercise, the water and air are clean, everything we eat is organic and free-range -- and no one lives past thirty!"

The Supreme Court is NOT the final arbiter of whether or not something is Constitutional. That job is NOT part of their assigned duties (read the Marbury vs. Madison case of 1803; just a couple of pages of clear text; available at Justia Law). The states and people can nullify, and -- believe it or not -- the county sheriffs are the final arbiters/sentinels of what is or is not Constitutional in their counties. See the County Sheriff project for info.

If you are concerned about stress, you are in the wrong business!

Have you considered immigrating there? Otherwise, what is the point of your comment? <<<"Catherine I hope you would agree that the world and America has changed drastically since 1789">>> Maybe 1913 would better fit your example??

KC -- First THANK YOU for the link to the Galveston County program; I had been looking for that and couldn't find it. Next -- here in Mass we have had way too many House speakers, Senate presidents, and other officials leave office only to shortly thereafter end up in the hoosegow for illegal activities while in office. I was told some years ago that the Democrat Party in Mass (we essentially have single-party rule here; the Republicans have a scant handful of office holders and no Independents at all) _wants_ ethically challenged petty (or not-so-petty) crooks who could not get elected without strong party support -- because they TOE THE LINE and do what they are told by the party -- else they lose their cushy jobs and all their chances to enrich themselves illegally. Once out of office, the party doesn't care what happens to them -- so off to Club Fed they go. So we end up with rep's stuffing their bra's with bribes, on camera. Rep's appearing at press conferences without their trousers to bi+ch about how "the man" is against them. Rep's claiming to know nothing about their in-law's illegal businesses and having no idea where their personal wealth (from the spouse working in that illegal business) came from... et cetera. It is disgusting.

You make several excellent points (and I'm with you on the vacations and paying off the cards monthly). The one point I'll make here is that capitalism is based on PRODUCTION, not consumption. The Keynesian economists have this exactly backwards. (Read Peter Schiff's "How An Economy Grows and Why It Crashes" before tackling von Mises or Hayek; it's where I send my daughters' friends when they have questions.) Quick proof? The iPod. No one was clamoring for it before it existed. Production first; then comes consumption. Proof some more? FedEx. The guy who started the company got an "F" on the project where he laid out the business model; the prof said flat out that "no one needs documents overnight and besides there are fax machines." Production (here, of a service -- that now has a huge air and truck fleet too) first.

That debate was long and arduous. It was held in 1787, when a convention was called to re-vamp the Articles of Confederation, a "perpetual union" that was falling apart after only ten years. That convention came up with the Constitution, which was presented to the states and ratified in 1789. Read the works the Framers read (Aristotle, Plato, Marcus Aurelius, Cicero, Bastiat, Locke, etc.; I have read portions of their works and am in absolute awe over the breadth of knowledge of the framers -- there is NO equivalent group today) about the structure and purpose of government, the history of governance, inherent rights, the origins of civil society, the causes of breakdowns of civil societies over the ages... You'll not do much better than they did no matter how long you take. As for your very valid question about OK damages -- yes, they _would_ do well with no Federal help. Look at recent history: after Superstorm Sandy, church groups and private charities got to _more_ places and gave _more_ aid than the feds did -- and the help they gave was pertinent to that specific spot's needs. Was there one over-arching group over all of them? No. Did some places get missed? Probably. Do places (and people) get missed when the feds are in charge? Yes. Do people scam the system? Yes; more likely to succeed with larger agencies. Private groups _will_ step in to fill voids. If the feds backed off, more private groups would step in. There was a drought in TX during the administration of Grover Cleveland (Democrat). Congress voted $50K in aid to be sent for relief. Cleveland vetoed the bill, saying there was no Constitutional justification for that aid coming from the feds. In response, private groups raised and sent over $100K to TX in relief. So TX came off two times better relying on private aid alone. Here is a link to a great true story involving Rep. Davey Crockett (of "Remember the Alamo!" fame): http://personalliberty.com/2010/04/09/sockdolager-a-tale-of-davy-crockett-charity-and-congress/

You may have all the colors, but you have demonstrated time and again that (1) you have no understanding of the principles that this country was founded upon, and (2) that you are mainly not interested in discussing issues when you have the option of ad hominem attacks. What Herman Cain accurately calls the "SIN" tactics: Side-step the issue, Ignore facts, and Name-call.

The Patriot Act is a complete and utter violation of the 4th Amendment. If we understood the Constitution, we would declare it "a usurpation of powers not granted, therefore null and void" (see the Federalist papers, possibly #44 or #43, for Madison's words on this topic). Who is the "we" here? The states, which (together with the general citizenry) CREATED the federal government and whose creature the fedgov't is. 10th Amendment, (paraphrased; full text in many places) "all powers not delegated to the feds, nor forbidden to the states (Art 1, Section 10, mainly), are reserved to the States and the People." So far as giving up liberty for safety, Ben Franklin said that best: "He who gives up a little essential liberty for temporary safety deserves neither -- and that is what he receives, in the end."

Got it today. I guess my e-mail telling them I was not a member of the Tea Party did the trick. Tom Hollister, CA