Anti-tax activists stage protest

Sterling Silver wrote:

Continuing to feawen,
Being fairly new to all this posting phenomenon, I have been disgusted at all the bad writing I have seen. I am not talking about the spelling and grammar, I have resigned myself to people not knowing how to spell, etc. But the following drives me up a wall: "traveling 25 knots per hour", "irregardless", "5:00 a.m. in the morning", "there" or "their" for "they're", "your" for "you're", "She bought tickets for Dave and I", "would of" instead of "would have" or "would've", "ect" for "etc." I hope you're not telling me this stuff is acceptable, or you overlook it to get to the content. How could you possibly accurately discern content with mistakes like that. I also am amazed that your professor would tell you to overlook errors such as this.

This post not only made me smile, I laugh as well. My professor would, and did, tell me to critique a piece of writing based on content rather than mechanics. How can you not know a person's meaning if you look at the rest of their sentence? If I were to write "Their is a big oak tree in my front yard" would you not know that I meant "there"? Are you telling me that you cannot discern a person's meaning if they say "I would of bought a loaf of bread but instead I bought some rolls" because they didn't use "would have"? Of course I know that some of the words and phrases posted are grammatically incorrect, or that the words are misspelled, but apparently I'm not as anal about it as you are because I understand their meaning and intent.

feawen wrote:

<quoted text>
This post not only made me smile, I laugh as well. My professor would, and did, tell me to critique a piece of writing based on content rather than mechanics. How can you not know a person's meaning if you look at the rest of their sentence? If I were to write "Their is a big oak tree in my front yard" would you not know that I meant "there"? Are you telling me that you cannot discern a person's meaning if they say "I would of bought a loaf of bread but instead I bought some rolls" because they didn't use "would have"? Of course I know that some of the words and phrases posted are grammatically incorrect, or that the words are misspelled, but apparently I'm not as anal about it as you are because I understand their meaning and intent.

I'm glad you got a laugh out of it. You say anal, I say I'm just striving for excellence. Once again, I get taken down for trying to make things better. If that makes you feel superior, then go for it. Have a nice day.

Sterling Silver wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm glad you got a laugh out of it. You say anal, I say I'm just striving for excellence. Once again, I get taken down for trying to make things better. If that makes you feel superior, then go for it. Have a nice day.

I suppose that's the problem with text on a page, it doesn't always convey the meaning intended. I was chuckling (laughing) because of the memory of the previously mentioned professor whose teachings were invaluable and his laughter infectious. If the truth be told, I thought that you were trying to show your superiority to the unlearned masses who post and wanted to let you know that there is another side to the equation. Maybe anal was the wrong term since at one time I was as much a stickler for spelling to the point of sending a friend a dictionary for his birthday. To my son's dismay, I even sent back a letter that his teacher wrote to me complete with misspelled words circled in red. I have relaxed quite a bit in the last 20 years.

What this crowd needs is a 'beer summit'.
; )

I was looking for the number of attendees present?

mswhyte wrote:

States Rights is one of those terms that makes me feel real uncomfortable. Because it ususally ends up being the rights of a few versus the rights of the entire population. It also comes across as code language for an agenda that includes suppression of people of color. Yes, I did say this. In their zeal to defend America this movement is coming across as an anti everyone else except them statement. This is not the America we should want to see emerging in this decade.

"State Rights" is a Constitutional provision that the forefathers used to keep the concentration of power close to home. People in Florida should not be determining the internal affairs for the people in Alaska, etc.

The forefathers in their other writings about the Constitution, made it clear that the States were to retain their sovereignty and govern their internal affairs. The federal government was to govern external affairs and help preserve and protect the union.

They had just freed themselves from the British Parliament, who having ruled then from across the ocean, could not be sympathetic to their cause. They firmly believed that the people held the most power, and each State must be a Republic governed by the people. Then, proving a for State representation, the federal government itself, was governed by the States.

The power flows from the bottom up, with the people being the base of power. This an a totally inverted form of government,(the monarchy,) that they came from. This is what made America great. Now that is being slowly eroded and we are seeing power and control being concentrated at the top. If this is not stopped, we will end up with a Nanny State Federal government at best, worst case a dictatorship, or something in between.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

OF COURSE: The Constitution, besides limiting the federal government, also provides protection for our individual liberties with the Bill of Rights. No state, local government, or individual is allowed to encroach on those.

Robin wrote:

<quoted text>
"State Rights" is a Constitutional provision that the forefathers used to keep the concentration of power close to home.

And the negroes in unheated shacks.

The sad thing about all of this is that no matter if more than 70% of Ohioians said they didn't want tax reform as shown on this blog, Brown and Kilroy will vote for it. Please watch how they represent us and remeber it when they ask for our vote when they need it.

JBM wrote:

The sad thing about all of this is that no matter if more than 70% of Ohioians said they didn't want tax reform as shown on this blog, Brown and Kilroy will vote for it. Please watch how they represent us and remeber it when they ask for our vote when they need it.

Kilroy is a joke! She would jump off a cliff if told to do so by her party. She represents only one person...herself.