"Dave" wrote in message ...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 20:17:48 -0500, "Paladin" noneofyourbusiness.www said:

the double jeopardy aspect of the consumption tax

One needn't be a proponent of the consumption tax to address this idiotic
claim. "Double jeopardy" refers to criminal proceedings only, and occurs
when one is twice placed at the risk of punishment for commission of a
single crime. Apparently the word has been hijacked by a bunch of
propagandists because it has a nice appealing sound to the unthinking crowd.
It has nothing whatever to do with whether a particular tax is fair or
unfair.

From a strictly constitutional viewpoint you are correct, sir. However, in pedestrian everyday
language, double jeopardy has acquired a wider meaning. That being a descriptor involving
getting nailed twice for the same thing. The same thing is not necessarily a crime. In other words,
the definition has broadened from constitutional to de facto. The language evolves. You should, too.

Now that I've gotten that small formality out of the way, how about butting out if you don't care
to make some semblance of an intelligent reply. One would think you have nothing intelligent to say
judging from your obvious obfuscation using lame objurgation.

Paladin
(Have gun - will travel)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com