🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6vu8g4$eju$1@netra.msu.montana.edu>,
	"Larry Elmore" <ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net> writes:
> "Bob Taylor" wrote in message ...
>>In article <6vt0nj$223$1@netra.msu.montana.edu>,
>> "Larry Elmore" <ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net> writes:
>>> M O'Neill wrote in message <36213b4a.7759144@news.concentric.net>...
>>>>On 7 Oct 1998 18:30:11 GMT, unruh@physics.ubc.ca (Bill Unruh) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>sorry pal, the income tax is constitutional because the Supreme Court,
>>>>which under the constitution is the final arbiter of what is
>>>>constitutional, has ruled that it is.
>>>
>>> Do you have a specific reference for that? I was under the distinct (but
>>> possibly incorrect) impression that the Supreme Court has never, in fact,
>>> ruled one way or the other on the income tax, and that it simply refuses
> to
>>> look at any real case involving it or the IRS as a whole (individual
> agents
>>> being another matter).
>>
>>You are both wrong. Why don't you both do a little research?
> 
> Asking a question and getting a pointer in the right direction is generally
> a lot faster and less time-wasting than starting from scratch, as you should
> know if you've done much research. So why waste bandwidth on a snide remark
> instead of actually answering a polite question???

Snide? Scratch? I studied the Constition in school. I expect Americans to know
the U.S. Constitution. Sheesh.

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bob Taylor             Email: brtaylor@inreach.com            |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| Like the ad says, at 300 dpi you can tell she's wearing a     |
| swimsuit. At 600 dpi you can tell it's wet. At 1200 dpi you   |
| can tell it's painted on. I suppose at 2400 dpi you can tell  |
| if the paint is giving her a rash. (So says Joshua R. Poulson)|
+---------------------------------------------------------------+