Spectate's brother
-
@CodeSimian said:
so I think it's pretty obvious that boomzilla thinks the 5th and 16th are related.
No, not really. I thought I'd made it fairly clear in my last post, but obviously not explicitly enough. I was "arguing with crazy." I had assumed for the sake of argument that the nut from the OP had found some sort of thing that was different from the general argument saying that simply reporting income amounts was not violating the 5th. So the crazy guy had linked the 16th and the 5th. I gave another possible argument as to why he was still TRWTF in thinking that requiring him to file income taxes would be unconstitutional.
-
@boomzilla said:
@CodeSimian said:
so I think it's pretty obvious that boomzilla thinks the 5th and 16th are related.
No, not really. I thought I'd made it fairly clear in my last post, but obviously not explicitly enough. I was "arguing with crazy." I had assumed for the sake of argument that the nut from the OP had found some sort of thing that was different from the general argument saying that simply reporting income amounts was not violating the 5th. So the crazy guy had linked the 16th and the 5th. I gave another possible argument as to why he was still TRWTF in thinking that requiring him to file income taxes would be unconstitutional.Oops, did it again. Sorry!
-
@CodeSimian said:
In that case, I think you would forgive me for assuming that you were talking about ALL operating systems, not just Windows.
You're right. My original statement could have been phrased slightly better. Mea culpa. I should have been more specific: "Except in the case of implied repeal, that's not how Amendments work." Is that better? :-)
However, I still think I was right about which of us was referring to the special cases. After all, as morbius pointed out earlier, implied repeal hasn't been used in 200+ years, and that would make it the exception rather than the rule, don't you think?
-
@KenW said:
However, I still think I was right about which of us was referring to the special cases. After all, as morbius pointed out earlier, implied repeal hasn't been used in 200+ years, and that would make it the exception rather than the rule, don't you think?
Fair enough :).
