NITR0

Lots of conflicting info. The truth. Yes, you can legally buy a full automatic firearm. Yes, you do have to have a Federal Tax Stamp to do so. It takes a little waiting to get the stamp, but it's not expensive. It's $200. The true, legally allowed, fully automatic weapons themselves run in the $15,000 range. The only full automatic firearms you are legally allowed to own with that stamp are those made prior to 1986. It is illegal to own any fully automatic firearm manufactured after 1986 (unless you are a licensed security agency or law enforcement agency). If you w

What you described, it sounds like the thermostat has gone bad.

No, workers do not have to be present in Georgia, simply because the construction in and of itself can present a danger. The code reads as follows: § 40-6-188. Highway work zones; reduction in speed; signage e) 1) In order for a person to be cited or convicted for exceeding a speed limit, reduced or otherwise, in any highway work zone as provided in paragraph of this subsection, there must be present in the highway work zone at the time of the offense the signage required by this Code section and either: ('a') Work zone personnel; or ('b') Barriers, on-site work

It is definitely one of the most reliable weapons ever manufactured. It was also one of the most horribly inaccurate weapons ever produced. The term "spray and pray" is synonymous with the AK-47, but it would run through any kind of environment you could throw at it and keep on running.

They have to do a task to get their lunch. At that point, it doesn't become free, it becomes work & getting paid. I guess my question is... How could this go anywhere? The child labor laws should kick in.

Nope, you do not own the airspace over your property. It's considered sovereign property of the US Government. The FAA has complete control over all airspace. And the 500ft rule that you are referring too is a required distance from people or man made structures and that rule doesn't apply on aircraft take off and landings.

It's quit clear that this chart shows the hole story: But when you considar how men dominate women and Christian conservatives drink there coffee pored by Georgia politician's who got bad marks on they're report card, the chart below seems to convay all the data and includes the climate changes that happen because of dino farts. If you cross reference that to the 1.2 million Americans that Obamacare has helped, the chart clearly shows... not a damn thing.

I never said it did have anything to do with it. I had no idea of the date the current tax system went in to place. I had a rough idea of when the polygamy law was put in to place. If you go back and read what I wrote, when Mr. Dis asked what possible reason the government would want to be in your business concerning the issue, I stated that it could possibly be because they don't want to lose the tax money. I didn't say the law had anything at all to do with the tax system. I said it **could** be a reason, and I sure as hell wouldn't put it past the government, based on their prio

No, sorry, that is not what the 16th amendment is. The 16th amendment allows the federal government to collect taxes WITHOUT going through the state to do so. Meaning, it allows them to tax income directly without a middle man. As a matter of fact, the federal government placed a 3% income tax to help fund the civil war.... just a few years before 1909.

Nobody said anything about the ruling having anything to do with taxes. Seeing as it doesn't really restrict anyone's individual rights or liberties, the question was brought up as to why the law was originally enacted. The taxes thing came about as a possible explanation as to why the law would have been enacted to begin with.

Same here. If someone wants 15 wives, that's their business as long as they don't treat them as slaves. As long as what they do doesn't affect me, I don't care what someone else does. I love my wife dearly, but like you, I sure couldn't handle two! Although, sometimes I think it might be easier for her if she had help in handling me! Maybe it's upbringing, moral obligation, or faith, but I just can't comprehend sharing the love I have for my wife with anyone else.

Yes, they *could* exist without me, but it doesn't mean that they absolutely "DO" exist without me. Remember, the time the polygamy laws were enacted, women didn't work on a professional level and were merely home-makers... they were not the independent, strong willed, educated professionals that we have today. A scenario that comes to mind, and I'm no tax expert by any means, but you're telling me that a single woman (or man, for that matter), 40 years old, living with her parents and not employed still qualifies for a ~$3500 tax exemption?? If she has no income, how can she

My thinking was that was that it *could* have been part of the reason for polygamy being illegal. As far as taxes, yes, it doesn't give you any more deductions now, because multiple spouses weren't allowed....so no one could take advantage of it. Filing dependents gives you (if I recall correctly) a $3500 deduction per dependent. If I am married with one spouse who has no income, I can claim my spouse and my children. If I am married with 4 spouses, I can claim my spouses and my children (providing there was no law against it). That reduces my gross income, which puts me in a lower tax

When I sit and watch you all day long, I learn quite a bit about ignorance and I'm so glad to not be a part of it. The simple fact that you can't figure out how more dependents mean more tax deductions, which means less money paid in taxes to the government, tells me you are ignorant.

It must be nice to live in ignorance.

Oh dear God, the Postman doesn't believe me! What will I ever do? How can I go on living, knowing that the Postman doesn't value what I say? OH the humanity!

You really are a special kind of stupid, aren't you? Where exactly did I say anything about them paying their own taxes? Since you obviously don't know this, most married people filed jointly. That means, the tax burden is shared. However, only one person can be claimed head of household. It doesn't matter if it's man or woman who is head of the household, if the man has more than one wife, those other wives could be (and in most cases would be) considered dependents for tax reduction purposes. Maybe you should try reading that dictionary, by Daniel Webster, that you talked ab

No, believe me... people don't understand you at all.

Bahahahahahahaha! I'm rolling on that one! Edyoukashun is the kee! Its knot a matter of being too lazee, its a matter of focussing yore time to the things that make ewe money and letting the remedeal tasks to those who dont poessess the scills or edyoukashun to do the hier level jobs. Lerning to spell and compreehend basic english is a kee to parshul sucksess!

Something as serious as around 7-10 thousand years ago, the plush rainforests and monsoon type rains that were typical of Egypt, of which now the country is a dry baron desert? All those damn high polluting companies and automobiles they had back 10,000 years ago turned the plush rainforest in to that desert. It's called the natural cycle of the earth.

I'll tell you why it's the government's business... I take more than one wife... then I can claim more than one spouse on my income tax deductions. That means less money for the government... You know when there is a possibility the government is going to not collect tax money, there is going to be a law made that ensures they get that money.

Those number their posting makes no since. I think they are making those claims in vane. Weather or not the 1.2 million number is correct, the hole program is bad jew-jew. Cents when did these numbers get sew high? I'm gonna have to go to the libarry to check some facts.

And I'm betting that you didn't see her go to a better restaurant to get him something that wasn't so poisonous or go home and cook a meal to bring back to the man and his dog either.....<?> Chances are that if you hadn't been there, she would have done nothing except gone back and whine and complain to her friends that she was approached by a homeless man and how bad he stunk, etc... and never offered him anything.

Most people let their blinker fluid get low and don't ever fill it up.

The law specifically states "headlights" and DRL's are not headlights. They don't conform to the same lighting specifications as headlights and are not meant as a substitute for headlights. As feelip said, the rest of the required lights that are to be displayed aren't there when solely relying on DRL's.