# Light Bulbs are getting Expensive / New Tax

Page 3 of 6
• posted on September 7, 2007, 6:31 pm

Interesting linguist turns. It says that the shall not exceed one for every 30K, then the comma, then the but (indicating an upcoming transition) and THEN the each state. The comma and the but both indicate a different clause and different thought. It reads basically that no state (including those with less than 30,000 people) will have less than one rep. The rest have to be apportioned so that they no more than represent 30K voters.

Actually one is generally looked at as a minimum in most areas of law, accounting, politics, physics, etc.

Maybe, probably not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 7, 2007, 9:37 pm

The first clause reads "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand" not "The number of people shall not exceed thirty Thousand for each Representative".
-- Doug
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 7, 2007, 10:08 pm

Same thing, different wording, after the original wording. Either way says specifically one rep or every 30,000 with a minimum of one per state. Sets maximums first one per 30K, then minimum of at least one per state.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 10, 2007, 3:51 pm
Kurt Ullman wrote:

So far, so good.

It doesn't say that. It says you can't have more than one rep per 30K voters, it does NOT say that you can't have more than 30K voters per one rep.

Then it's not the same thing. The OP implied that one per 30K is a minimum. You say (correctly) that one per 30K is a maximum. You can't have two per 30K, but you can have one per 100,000.
With one per 100K, "The Number of Representatives" does "not exceed one for every thirty Thousand".
--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 6, 2007, 2:13 am

What we really need is a smarter voter.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 6, 2007, 1:25 pm

True dat. So why are voters dumb? Maybe it's because public schools are not teaching civics anymore. But we will teach Islamic studies. How about American studies? The founding fathers were not racist pigs, they were truly brilliant men with a vision for a nation that had never been conceived before.
Anyone that takes the time to study their work will be duly impressed and gain an understanding of why America is great and why it is worth defending.
But that would not advance the socialist agenda, stupid me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 6, 2007, 3:20 pm
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

Easier would be a monarchy. Then you only need one smart person.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 6, 2007, 6:56 pm
HeyBub wrote:

Too inconvenient. I'd have to give up a lot of hobbies.
--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 6, 2007, 9:27 pm

Not practically possible. Term limits would be a practical,achievable solution.

Which rarely occurs.More often,you get a oppressive person. A BIG gamble,too.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 6, 2007, 3:29 pm
wrote in message

And a more honest major media. One that -reports- with much less slanting or favoring sides,keeps their opinion separate from news reports.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 4, 2007, 8:47 pm
YEp yep if you think that Daniel Moynihan is bad how about this Major that NYC have he would like charge all who visit city below 86th. street \$ 8.00 fee and truckers \$ 26.00. what truckers should do make surcharge for any delivery \$300.00 under 1 ton and \$500.00 over 1-5, 5 ton and up \$1000.00 no exceptions then let him dance jig

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 4, 2007, 9:10 pm
Tony wrote:

London, England has had this type of thing for some time now. They want about \$14/day. Since introducing the fee, private traffic has dropped nearly 40 percent, cyclists have nearly doubled and bus passengers have increased 50 percent.
Interestingly enough, the American ambassador who took his post in July 205 refused to pay the fees. Including fines, the embassy owes around a quarter-million dollars.
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 5, 2007, 12:37 am

How do they charge mopeds or small motorbikes? Or doesn't Britain have those?
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 5, 2007, 3:38 pm
Jim Yanik wrote:

That's what happens when there ought to be law types get in charge. The damned socialists have taken over England and are starting here with their traffic cameras, in the name of safety. It's all bull sh--. It's about the money.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 5, 2007, 12:34 pm

And only a month's supply of Senators ;)
Free men own guns - www(dot)geocities(dot)com/CapitolHill/5357/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 5, 2007, 1:20 pm

NO no you got that wrong croocvks own the guns crooks are permitted to carry guns but free people must hide
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 5, 2007, 1:36 pm

Which of course shows up why gun control laws don't work.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 5, 2007, 1:50 pm
wrote:

The USA has 90 firearms per 100 people, the highest ratio in the world. Laws that are not enforced don't work, but that doesn't stop Congress from making more laws.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 5, 2007, 2:02 pm

Heck works well with Immigration (G&D&R). Studies show that those areas with the most Draconian personal gun laws also have the highest rates of gun-related violence. Of course, no one has yet answered my questions about the other relationship, which is that they tend to be big cities. More target-rich environments that many areas in Utah, Colorado, etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on September 5, 2007, 2:57 pm
wrote:

I don't know all the laws in this country but it seems to me that Cities that have laws making it illegal even to own the weapon of any kind has most killing and largest crime and as I said I don't know all the laws and rules but it sure don't make any sense to me
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• Share To

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.