# What the TEA Parties Want...



## California Girl

All seem perfectly reasonable to me. 

Contract FROM America 


1 Protect the Constitution

2 Reject Cap & Trade

3 Demand a Balanced Budget

4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform

5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington

6 End Runaway Government Spending

7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care

8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy

9 Stop the Pork

10 Stop the Tax Hikes


----------



## Annie

Seems pretty reasonable to me also, in the main. Saw this yesterday, thought you might enjoy it:

Contract From America Unveiled - Stephen Spruiell - The Corner on National Review Online



> Contract From America Unveiled   [Stephen Spruiell]
> A while back I wrote a piece on the efforts of some grassroots groups to draft a Contract From America for the 2010 election cycle. The groups offered 20 items and encouraged visitors to their website to vote for ten. Today they have unveiled the top ten items. I listed my ten in my piece. How does the final product match up?
> 
> ...


----------



## xotoxi

While I don't agree entirely with all that was written in that contract, I appreciate the fact that they are finally _proposing_ solutions, rather than _opposing _solutions.


----------



## Si modo

xotoxi said:


> While I don't agree entirely with all that was written in that contract, I appreciate the fact that they are finally _proposing_ solutions, rather than _opposing   _*solutions*.


[Emphasis added]  That's rather disingenuous, or plain silly, wording.  If the opposition viewed them as 'solutions', there would be no reason to oppose them.


----------



## xotoxi

Si modo said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't agree entirely with all that was written in that contract, I appreciate the fact that they are finally _proposing_ solutions, rather than _opposing _*solutions*.
> 
> 
> 
> [Emphasis added] That's rather disingenuous wording. If the opposition viewed them as 'solutions', there would be no reason to oppose them.
Click to expand...

 
How about "attempts at solutions"?


----------



## Annie

xotoxi said:


> While I don't agree entirely with all that was written in that contract, I appreciate the fact that they are finally _proposing_ solutions, rather than _opposing _solutions.



Personally I think you've not been listening to what is being said at the rallies. Not your fault, some have been small and very much led by a few, those that have been really grassroots and larger, failed to get fair coverage-until the past 2 weeks. Now the message is starting in the legacy media, but I'm really unsure if it's necessary any longer.


----------



## Si modo

xotoxi said:


> si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> while i don't agree entirely with all that was written in that contract, i appreciate the fact that they are finally _proposing_ solutions, rather than _opposing _*solutions*.
> 
> 
> 
> [emphasis added] that's rather disingenuous wording. If the opposition viewed them as 'solutions', there would be no reason to oppose them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how about "attempts at solutions"?
Click to expand...

K.  That's reasonable.


----------



## California Girl

Since people keep asking what the hell the TEA Parties want, I figure this should clear that question once and for all. 

Like it? Sign the contract.


----------



## G.T.

Tea Party sounds like a simple branch of Conservatism, then.


----------



## VaYank5150

California Girl said:


> Since people keep asking what the hell the TEA Parties want, I figure this should clear that question once and for all.
> 
> Like it? Sign the contract.



Since you credited NO ONE in your original post, are we to assume YOU are now speaking for all of the Tea Baggers?


----------



## strollingbones

are they still 'for profit' cause if they are..that sure answers your question about what they want...mo money!!!!


----------



## VaYank5150

strollingbones said:


> are they still 'for profit' cause if they are..that sure answers your question about what they want...mo money!!!!



No worries.  The RNC has PLENTY of money.  Oh, wait....


----------



## strollingbones

'Not about making money'
Despite Phillips&#8217; registration of Tea Party Nation as a for-profit corporation, he denies that he's one in a line of people trying to profit off the movement. 

&#8220;This is not about making money,&#8221; Phillips said. He derided what he described as non-profits' "begging for money" with fundraising letters and e-mail solicitations. There are also limitations, for example, on non-profits' political activities.&#8220;A for-profit corporation is not subject to any of those restrictions,&#8221; he added, &#8220;so, for me, it was simply a no-brainer." 

Asked if he hopes Tea Party Nation will be profitable, and he can take a salary, he said, "I'll be happy if we don't lose money. I don't think we'll lose money; I don't think we're going to make a whole lot of money. But we're not going to lose money."

Tea Partying for profit? - First Read - msnbc.com

i would look into the backgrounds of any organizers of a 'for profit' movement....wouldnt the core values of the movement organizers be an issue?


----------



## California Girl

VaYank5150 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since people keep asking what the hell the TEA Parties want, I figure this should clear that question once and for all.
> 
> Like it? Sign the contract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you credited NO ONE in your original post, are we to assume YOU are now speaking for all of the Tea Baggers?
Click to expand...


By your own words, I can know, for a fact, that you are an idiot. 

I have a question for your. How much more of a moron do you want to be?


----------



## VaYank5150

California Girl said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since people keep asking what the hell the TEA Parties want, I figure this should clear that question once and for all.
> 
> Like it? Sign the contract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you credited NO ONE in your original post, are we to assume YOU are now speaking for all of the Tea Baggers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your own words, I can know, for a fact, that you are an idiot.
> 
> I have a question for your. How much more of a moron do you want to be?
Click to expand...


Since you can't even answer the simplest of simplistic questions, who really is the moron here?  Or, perhaps you meant "moran"?


----------



## Si modo

VaYank5150 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since people keep asking what the hell the TEA Parties want, I figure this should clear that question once and for all.
> 
> Like it? Sign the contract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you credited NO ONE in your original post, are we to assume YOU are now speaking for all of the Tea Baggers?
Click to expand...

Credited no one in the OP?   does that mean?  The link is there.


----------



## California Girl

VaYank5150 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you credited NO ONE in your original post, are we to assume YOU are now speaking for all of the Tea Baggers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your own words, I can know, for a fact, that you are an idiot.
> 
> I have a question for your. How much more of a moron do you want to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you can't even answer the simplest of simplistic questions, who really is the moron here?  Or, perhaps you meant "moran"?
Click to expand...


No, sweetie, I meant what I said - moron. Why would I credit anyone. I gave a link to the contract. I speak on behalf of no one but me. I made no statement on behalf of the TEA Party. I am not surprised that you're not intelligent enough to know that. Hence my comment that you are, in fact, a moron.


----------



## California Girl

Si modo said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since people keep asking what the hell the TEA Parties want, I figure this should clear that question once and for all.
> 
> Like it? Sign the contract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you credited NO ONE in your original post, are we to assume YOU are now speaking for all of the Tea Baggers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Credited no one in the OP?   does that mean?  The link is there.
Click to expand...


It means that VaYank is a moron. I am not shocked by that. Are you?


----------



## Joe Steel

California Girl said:


> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Port
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes



Where did these misfits, malcontents and miscreants get the idea they represent America?  

At best they're a notable minority with naive and unsophisticated views based on misunderstanding of American culture.  More likely, they're just dupes, sad, lost dimwits who just aren't smart enough to realize they're not smart enough to think for themselves.


----------



## Si modo

Joe Steel said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Port
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did these misfits, malcontents and miscreants get the idea they represented America?
> 
> At best they're a notable minority with naive and unsophisticated views based on misunderstanding of American culture.  More likely, they're just dupes.  Sad, lost dimwits who just aren't smart enough to realize they're not smart enough to think for themselves.
Click to expand...


Over a quarter of America certainly CAN call themselves Americans and claim they represent her.  Protecting her Constitution is so unAmerican, huh, and couldn't speak for America?


----------



## Si modo

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you credited NO ONE in your original post, are we to assume YOU are now speaking for all of the Tea Baggers?
> 
> 
> 
> Credited no one in the OP?   does that mean?  The link is there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It means that VaYank is a moron. I am not shocked by that. Are you?
Click to expand...


Not at all.  Six months ago, it would have surprised me.  Whoever is posting under that username now is a bonafide moron.


----------



## California Girl

Joe Steel said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Port
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did these misfits, malcontents and miscreants get the idea they represented America?
> 
> At best they're a notable minority with naive and unsophisticated views based on misunderstanding of American culture.  More likely, they're just dupes.  Sad, lost dimwits who just aren't smart enough to realize they're not smart enough to think for themselves.
Click to expand...


Everyone who disagrees with Obama: misfit, malcontent, miscreants, racists, haters. Seems there is a substantial number of these people in America. They are a group. Just like, say, liberals.


----------



## nraforlife

*3 Demand a Balanced Budget*


nice thought but the chances of achieving WITHOUT an immediate end to the M.E. Wars,  a drastic reduction in the remaining Military, and abolition of the Federal Reserve are essentially ZERO.

Already I hear the howls of rage from both neocons and their progressive sibs. OK 'smartest' folks around lets see YOUR list of specific spending cuts and /or tax increases which will close the deficit in say five years max.


----------



## California Girl

nraforlife said:


> *3 Demand a Balanced Budget*
> 
> 
> nice thought but the chances of achieving WITHOUT an immediate end to the M.E. Wars,  a drastic reduction in the remaining Military, and abolition of the Federal Reserve are essentially ZERO.
> 
> Already I hear the howls of rage from both neocons and their progressive sibs. OK 'smartest' folks around lets see YOUR list of specific spending cuts and /or tax increases which will close the deficit in say five years max.



Actually, the 'smart' people know that:

1. We cannot withdraw immediately. That would be dangerous both to the region and to us. 

2. There are vast savings that can be found in the defense budget without drastically reducing the numbers or competence of our Military. There are vast amounts of wastage in contracts etc... costs that balloon from initial quotes to final delivery etc. Huge savings, without negatively impacting the guys, their kit or their safety. 

We need an honest debate and hard decisions.


----------



## Joe Steel

Si modo said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did these misfits, malcontents and miscreants get the idea they represent() America?
> 
> At best they're a notable minority with naive and unsophisticated views based on misunderstanding of American culture.  More likely, they're just dupes.  Sad, lost dimwits who just aren't smart enough to realize they're not smart enough to think for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over a quarter of America certainly CAN call themselves Americans and claim they represent her.  Protecting her Constitution is so unAmerican, huh, and couldn't speak for America?
Click to expand...


According to a recent poll, they're only 18% of America and they're self-selected.  That's not representative.

Secondly, they don't understand the Constitution.


----------



## Xenophon

VaYank5150 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since people keep asking what the hell the TEA Parties want, I figure this should clear that question once and for all.
> 
> Like it? Sign the contract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you credited NO ONE in your original post, are we to assume YOU are now speaking for all of the Tea Baggers?
Click to expand...

She isn't speaking for you shiteater.

Now gets those balls off your chin and try making sense for a change.


----------



## California Girl

I'm gonna wait for VaYank to realize what an ass he made of himself and say sorry. I am confident that's gonna happen.


----------



## Joe Steel

California Girl said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did these misfits, malcontents and miscreants get the idea they represented America?
> 
> At best they're a notable minority with naive and unsophisticated views based on misunderstanding of American culture.  More likely, they're just dupes.  Sad, lost dimwits who just aren't smart enough to realize they're not smart enough to think for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone who disagrees with Obama: misfit, malcontent, miscreants, racists, haters. Seems there is a substantial number of these people in America. They are a group. Just like, say, liberals.
Click to expand...


Obama and the Democrats received the votes of a majority of the American People.  If you disagree with Obama, you disagree with America.


----------



## Xenophon

California Girl said:


> I'm gonna wait for VaYank to realize what an ass he made of himself and say sorry. I am confident that's gonna happen.



That is like saying you are waiting for Barry to make a speach without teleprompters where he doesn't stutter.

It just ain't gonna happen.


----------



## VaYank5150

California Girl said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your own words, I can know, for a fact, that you are an idiot.
> 
> I have a question for your. How much more of a moron do you want to be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you can't even answer the simplest of simplistic questions, who really is the moron here?  Or, perhaps you meant "moran"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sweetie, I meant what I said - moron. Why would I credit anyone. I gave a link to the contract. I speak on behalf of no one but me. I made no statement on behalf of the TEA Party. I am not surprised that you're not intelligent enough to know that. Hence my comment that you are, in fact, a moron.
Click to expand...


I stand corrected.  My apologies.


----------



## Joe Steel

nraforlife said:


> *3 Demand a Balanced Budget*
> 
> 
> nice thought but the chances of achieving WITHOUT an immediate end to the M.E. Wars,  a drastic reduction in the remaining Military, and abolition of the Federal Reserve are essentially ZERO.
> 
> Already I hear the howls of rage from both neocons and their progressive sibs. OK 'smartest' folks around lets see YOUR list of specific spending cuts and /or tax increases which will close the deficit in say five years max.



Balanced Budget?

No problem.

Raise taxes.

What's next?


----------



## Si modo

Joe Steel said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did these misfits, malcontents and miscreants get the idea they represent() America?
> 
> At best they're a notable minority with naive and unsophisticated views based on misunderstanding of American culture.  More likely, they're just dupes.  Sad, lost dimwits who just aren't smart enough to realize they're not smart enough to think for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over a quarter of America certainly CAN call themselves Americans and claim they represent her.  Protecting her Constitution is so unAmerican, huh, and couldn't speak for America?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to a recent poll, they're only 18% of America and they're self-selected.  That's not representative. ....
Click to expand...

Wrong.  It's more than a third, actually.



> ....  Secondly, they don't understand the Constitution.


That's certainly vacuous.


----------



## Xenophon

Joe Steel said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> *3 Demand a Balanced Budget*
> 
> 
> nice thought but the chances of achieving WITHOUT an immediate end to the M.E. Wars,  a drastic reduction in the remaining Military, and abolition of the Federal Reserve are essentially ZERO.
> 
> Already I hear the howls of rage from both neocons and their progressive sibs. OK 'smartest' folks around lets see YOUR list of specific spending cuts and /or tax increases which will close the deficit in say five years max.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Balanced Budget?
> 
> No problem.
> 
> Raise taxes.
> 
> What's next?
Click to expand...

Some common sense for you.

Raise taxes=increased unemployment=lower tax revenues=larger defciet

getting it yet?


----------



## Nosmo King

If the 'vast majority of Americans' pay no federal income tax;  if taxation rates are just too tough for rich people to take anymore; what are all those non-tax paying middle class people doing at Tea Parties protesting high taxes?


----------



## California Girl

Si modo said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over a quarter of America certainly CAN call themselves Americans and claim they represent her.  Protecting her Constitution is so unAmerican, huh, and couldn't speak for America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to a recent poll, they're only 18% of America and they're self-selected.  That's not representative. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.  It's more than a third, actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....  Secondly, they don't understand the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's certainly vacuous.
Click to expand...


You expect more from Joe Steel of the Obamanation? I don't.


----------



## Joe Steel

Si modo said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to a recent poll, they're only 18% of America and they're self-selected.  That's not representative. ....
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's more than a third, actually.
Click to expand...


That's Rasmussen.  I don't believe it.  Even a CBS News poll is more reliable than Rasmussen.



> Eighteen percent of Americans identify as Tea Party supporters. The vast majority of them -- 89 percent -- are white. Just one percent is black.
> 
> Tea Party Supporters: Who They Are and What They Believe


----------



## Si modo

Nosmo King said:


> If the 'vast majority of Americans' pay no federal income tax;  if taxation rates are just too tough for rich people to take anymore; what are all those non-tax paying middle class people doing at Tea Parties protesting high taxes?


Wanting "no federal income tax" has nothing to do with the Tea Party, so I have no idea what you are wanting to say.


----------



## Joe Steel

Xenophon said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> *3 Demand a Balanced Budget*
> 
> 
> nice thought but the chances of achieving WITHOUT an immediate end to the M.E. Wars,  a drastic reduction in the remaining Military, and abolition of the Federal Reserve are essentially ZERO.
> 
> Already I hear the howls of rage from both neocons and their progressive sibs. OK 'smartest' folks around lets see YOUR list of specific spending cuts and /or tax increases which will close the deficit in say five years max.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Balanced Budget?
> 
> No problem.
> 
> Raise taxes.
> 
> What's next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some common sense for you.
> 
> Raise taxes=increased unemployment=lower tax revenues=larger defciet
> 
> getting it yet?
Click to expand...


Yes.

You have no understanding of economic or tax policy.

I've got it.


----------



## Si modo

Joe Steel said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to a recent poll, they're only 18% of America and they're self-selected.  That's not representative. ....
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's more than a third, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's Rasmussen.  I don't believe it.  Even a CBS News poll is more reliable than Rasmussen.
> ....
Click to expand...

Typical partisan.  Putting his head in the sand.


----------



## Joe Steel

Nosmo King said:


> ...if taxation rates are just too tough for rich people to take anymore;



They're not.

The rich are unconscionably under-taxed.


----------



## Xenophon

Joe Steel said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Balanced Budget?
> 
> No problem.
> 
> Raise taxes.
> 
> What's next?
> 
> 
> 
> Some common sense for you.
> 
> Raise taxes=increased unemployment=lower tax revenues=larger defciet
> 
> getting it yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> You have no understanding of economic or tax policy.
> 
> I've got it.
Click to expand...

No, you don't and you just proved it again.

Tell us genius, why is the US economy in such dire trouble?

Because its reached the point where it cannot pay the principle on loans and can barely keep up with the interest.

'Raising taxes' doesn't fix that, what fixes it is to cut spending.

But that would mean your hoped for socialist utopia joins the edsel as bad ideas gone and forgotten.

Get used to that btw, because its coming.


----------



## California Girl

VaYank5150 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you can't even answer the simplest of simplistic questions, who really is the moron here?  Or, perhaps you meant "moran"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, sweetie, I meant what I said - moron. Why would I credit anyone. I gave a link to the contract. I speak on behalf of no one but me. I made no statement on behalf of the TEA Party. I am not surprised that you're not intelligent enough to know that. Hence my comment that you are, in fact, a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stand corrected.  My apologies.
Click to expand...


Ouch! That had to hurt. 

Apology accepted. Back to our corners. Ready for round 2?


----------



## Si modo

Joe Steel said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Balanced Budget?
> 
> No problem.
> 
> Raise taxes.
> 
> What's next?
> 
> 
> 
> Some common sense for you.
> 
> Raise taxes=increased unemployment=lower tax revenues=larger defciet
> 
> getting it yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> You have no understanding of economic or tax policy.
> 
> I've got it.
Click to expand...


Well, if your economics education allows you to come up with only one solution to balancing a federal budget, that says all about your education.


----------



## VaYank5150

Si modo said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 'vast majority of Americans' pay no federal income tax;  if taxation rates are just too tough for rich people to take anymore; what are all those non-tax paying middle class people doing at Tea Parties protesting high taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> Wanting "no federal income tax" has nothing to do with the Tea Party, so I have no idea what you are wanting to say.
Click to expand...


You must have missed the interview by Neil Cavuto at the Tea Bagger party in Atlanta yesterday, I guess.  The person he interviewed wanted EXACTLY that.....


----------



## Xenophon

VaYank5150 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 'vast majority of Americans' pay no federal income tax;  if taxation rates are just too tough for rich people to take anymore; what are all those non-tax paying middle class people doing at Tea Parties protesting high taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> Wanting "no federal income tax" has nothing to do with the Tea Party, so I have no idea what you are wanting to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have missed the interview by Neil Cavuto at the Tea Bagger party in Atlanta yesterday, I guess.  The person he interviewed wanted EXACTLY that.....
Click to expand...

Neil Cavuto didn't interview you yesterday shiteater, stop lying.


----------



## VaYank5150

California Girl said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, sweetie, I meant what I said - moron. Why would I credit anyone. I gave a link to the contract. I speak on behalf of no one but me. I made no statement on behalf of the TEA Party. I am not surprised that you're not intelligent enough to know that. Hence my comment that you are, in fact, a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stand corrected.  My apologies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ouch! That had to hurt.
> 
> Apology accepted. Back to our corners. Ready for round 2?
Click to expand...


Of course.  I just had to crawl back under my rock to get a second cup of coffee first.  Thanks for your understanding!


----------



## Si modo

VaYank5150 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 'vast majority of Americans' pay no federal income tax;  if taxation rates are just too tough for rich people to take anymore; what are all those non-tax paying middle class people doing at Tea Parties protesting high taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> Wanting "no federal income tax" has nothing to do with the Tea Party, so I have no idea what you are wanting to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have missed the interview by Neil Cavuto at the Tea Bagger party in Atlanta yesterday, I guess.  The person he interviewed wanted EXACTLY that.....
Click to expand...

Do you have an aversion to linking to your sources?  Link, please.


----------



## VaYank5150

Si modo said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanting "no federal income tax" has nothing to do with the Tea Party, so I have no idea what you are wanting to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must have missed the interview by Neil Cavuto at the Tea Bagger party in Atlanta yesterday, I guess.  The person he interviewed wanted EXACTLY that.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have an aversion to linking to your sources?  Link, please.
Click to expand...


Sorry....I was listening to him on Satellite radio on the way home yesterday.  I have no link.


----------



## Ravi

California Girl said:


> 9 Stop the Port


 Fuck that shit...I will never join the teepees.


----------



## Joe Steel

Si modo said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.  It's more than a third, actually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's Rasmussen.  I don't believe it.  Even a CBS News poll is more reliable than Rasmussen.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical partisan.  Putting his head in the sand.
Click to expand...


How ironic.  Rasmussen has proven himself to a partisan yet you accuse me.


----------



## California Girl

Ravi said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 9 Stop the Port
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck that shit...I will never join the teepees.
Click to expand...


Smart ass.   Oops! My dab. Oops! My abd. Dammit.


----------



## VaYank5150

Joe Steel said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's Rasmussen.  I don't believe it.  Even a CBS News poll is more reliable than Rasmussen.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Typical partisan.  Putting his head in the sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How ironic.  Rasmussen has proven himself to a partisan yet you accuse me.
Click to expand...


It's called hypocrisy.  He is good at it.


----------



## Joe Steel

Xenophon said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> You have no understanding of economic or tax policy.
> 
> I've got it.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't and you just proved it again.
> 
> Tell us genius, why is the US economy in such dire trouble?
> 
> Because its reached the point where it cannot pay the principle on loans and can barely keep up with the interest.
> 
> 'Raising taxes' doesn't fix that, what fixes it is to cut spending.
> 
> But that would mean your hoped for socialist utopia joins the edsel as bad ideas gone and forgotten.
> 
> Get used to that btw, because its coming.
Click to expand...


OK.  I'll tell you why the American economy is in trouble.

Two-thirds of the economy depends on consumer spending.  Unfortunately, almost thirty years of conservative economic policy has driven-down real middle class income to the point it can's support consumption levels necessary to keep the economy booming.  

The problem started a few years ago but during the housing bubble, middle-class consumers were able to borrow against the equity in their houses to maintain their spending.  When the bubble burst, borrowing and spending stopped. 

We need a way to get money to consumers.  One very effective and very easy way to do that is taxing the rich and subsidizing the middle class.  Keep the unemployment benefits flowing.  Make cash payments.  Do whatever it takes to move money from those who have too much to those who have too little.


----------



## California Girl

VaYank5150 said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical partisan.  Putting his head in the sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How ironic.  Rasmussen has proven himself to a partisan yet you accuse me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called hypocrisy.  He is good at it.
Click to expand...


*Sniggers*

He? 

Just how many times a day are you going to make an ass of yourself?


*Sniggers again* 

Hey, Si, mo chara.... You're a guy!!!


----------



## VaYank5150

California Girl said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> How ironic.  Rasmussen has proven himself to a partisan yet you accuse me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called hypocrisy.  He is good at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sniggers*
> 
> He?
> 
> Just how many times a day are you going to make an ass of yourself?
> 
> 
> *Sniggers again*
> 
> Hey, Si, mo chara.... You're a guy!!!
Click to expand...


That was a joke, Cali....Si Modo has called me a she in the past and I have called her a he....I wouldn't expect you to get it.


----------



## Joe Steel

Si modo said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> You have no understanding of economic or tax policy.
> 
> I've got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if your economics education allows you to come up with only one solution to balancing a federal budget, that says all about your education.
Click to expand...


Why bother with many solutions when the best solution is clear?


----------



## California Girl

VaYank5150 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's called hypocrisy.  He is good at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sniggers*
> 
> He?
> 
> Just how many times a day are you going to make an ass of yourself?
> 
> 
> *Sniggers again*
> 
> Hey, Si, mo chara.... You're a guy!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That was a joke, Cali....Si Modo has called me a she in the past and I have called her a he....I wouldn't expect you to get it.
Click to expand...


Right. Whatever you say.


----------



## Si modo

Joe Steel said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> You have no understanding of economic or tax policy.
> 
> I've got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if your economics education allows you to come up with only one solution to balancing a federal budget, that says all about your education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bother with many solutions when the best solution is clear?
Click to expand...

  Well, that's an idiotic methodology for problem solving.  But, you are a good partisan tool.


----------



## Si modo

California Girl said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sniggers*
> 
> He?
> 
> Just how many times a day are you going to make an ass of yourself?
> 
> 
> *Sniggers again*
> 
> Hey, Si, mo chara.... You're a guy!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was a joke, Cali....Si Modo has called me a she in the past and I have called her a he....I wouldn't expect you to get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. Whatever you say.
Click to expand...

VAYank hasn't figured it out yet, even though I've corrected him once already.  And, for the record and as I have a brain capable of storage of simple facts, I have never called VAYank a she.  Hard to say why he lies...maybe it hallucinogenic drugs and not really lies.


----------



## VaYank5150

California Girl said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sniggers*
> 
> He?
> 
> Just how many times a day are you going to make an ass of yourself?
> 
> 
> *Sniggers again*
> 
> Hey, Si, mo chara.... You're a guy!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was a joke, Cali....Si Modo has called me a she in the past and I have called her a he....I wouldn't expect you to get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right. *Whatever you say*.
Click to expand...


Took you long enough!


----------



## VaYank5150

Si modo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a joke, Cali....Si Modo has called me a she in the past and I have called her a he....I wouldn't expect you to get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Whatever you say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> VAYank hasn't figured it out yet, even though I've corrected him once already.  And, for the record and as I have a brain capable of storage of simple facts, I have never called VAYank a she.  Hard to say why he lies...maybe it hallucinogenic drugs and not really lies.
Click to expand...


It's called Gingko Biloba.  Try it sometime.


----------



## Si modo

Joe Steel said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's Rasmussen.  I don't believe it.  Even a CBS News poll is more reliable than Rasmussen.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Typical partisan.  Putting his head in the sand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How ironic.  Rasmussen has proven himself to a partisan yet you accuse me.
Click to expand...

Actually, Rasmussen is not. And, your comment is a logical fallacy - the ever-popular but no less useless _ad hominem_.  So, for the dense, that ultimately means you have no point at all.


----------



## Ravi

Joe Steel said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Balanced Budget?
> 
> No problem.
> 
> Raise taxes.
> 
> What's next?
> 
> 
> 
> Some common sense for you.
> 
> Raise taxes=increased unemployment=lower tax revenues=larger defciet
> 
> getting it yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> You have no understanding of economic or tax policy.
> 
> I've got it.
Click to expand...

You're correct, he doesn't. He thinks it is possible to make money on your tax return by donating to charity. I have concluded, sadly, that Xeno just repeats rightwing talking points and has no understanding of much of anything to do with money.


----------



## Si modo

VaYank5150 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. Whatever you say.
> 
> 
> 
> VAYank hasn't figured it out yet, even though I've corrected him once already.  And, for the record and as I have a brain capable of storage of simple facts, I have never called VAYank a she.  Hard to say why he lies...maybe it hallucinogenic drugs and not really lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's called Gingko Biloba.  Try it sometime.
Click to expand...

Wow.  You ARE an idiot.  I have never called you a she, shitstain (use no insults and you won't get any).  Until you provide a post of mine calling you a female, you have nothing.

And, to be honest, you have less than nothing as you have established your own reputation as one who is dishonest and not really all that bright.


----------



## Xenophon

Ravi said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some common sense for you.
> 
> Raise taxes=increased unemployment=lower tax revenues=larger defciet
> 
> getting it yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> You have no understanding of economic or tax policy.
> 
> I've got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're correct, he doesn't. He thinks it is possible to make money on your tax return by donating to charity. I have concluded, sadly, that Xeno just repeats rightwing talking points and has no understanding of much of anything to do with money.
Click to expand...

Here we see a classic example of Ravi making a fool of herself accross several different threads on two different forums.

It seems she doesn't understand you can deduct money you give to charity for your income and that if you don't you can actually end up with less money due to our ever so rediculous tax laws.

Way to go Rav!

The rich love it when you do their dirty work for them, you go girl!


----------



## Ravi

Embarrassing yourself still.


----------



## California Girl

VaYank5150 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was a joke, Cali....Si Modo has called me a she in the past and I have called her a he....I wouldn't expect you to get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. *Whatever you say*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Took you long enough!
Click to expand...


So, who would you like me to credit with my OP?  Oh, wait.... I speak on behalf of the TEA party.... 

Tell you what, I'll agree with you when you actually get something right. It's bound to happen eventually. Law of Averages and all that.


----------



## Xenophon

Ravi said:


> Embarrassing yourself still.


You shouldn't talk about yourself that way my dear.


----------



## Si modo

Ravi said:


> Embarrassing yourself still.


Ravi, discuss it in the other thread.  Geeze, you must love chaos.


----------



## Xenophon

California Girl said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right. *Whatever you say*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Took you long enough!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, who would you like me to credit with my OP?  Oh, wait.... I speak on behalf of the TEA party....
> 
> Tell you what, I'll agree with you when you actually get something right. It's bound to happen eventually. Law of Averages and all that.
Click to expand...

Hey, wait a second, he once poured water from a boot after he was told the intructions were on the heel, and it only took him 11 tries!


----------



## rightwinger

California Girl said:


> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Pork
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes



Not too bad.  However....

1. EVERYONE wants to protect the Constitution and the TP has not proven anything is un-constitutional

2. I see nothing about Social Security, Medicare or the Bush Prescription Drug plan....all of which represent a significant portion of our national debt. Is this just a case of "cut other peoples entitlements and don't touch mine"??

3. If you scream about a balanced budget why object to repealing the Bush tax cuts that added $2.5 trillion to national debt. Isn't a balanced budget balancing what you take in and what you spend?

4. The TP needs to be specific about what runaway government spending they want ended. Social Security, Defense, Medicare, Veterans benefits....are they on the table?  or only programs that help poor people?


----------



## California Girl

rightwinger said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Pork
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not too bad.  However....
> 
> 1. EVERYONE wants to protect the Constitution and the TP has not proven anything is un-constitutional
> 
> 2. I see nothing about Social Security, Medicare or the Bush Prescription Drug plan....all of which represent a significant portion of our national debt. Is this just a case of "cut other peoples entitlements and don't touch mine"??
> 
> 3. If you scream about a balanced budget why object to repealing the Bush tax cuts that added $2.5 trillion to national debt. Isn't a balanced budget balancing what you take in and what you spend?
> 
> 4. The TP needs to be specific about what runaway government spending they want ended. Social Security, Defense, Medicare, Veterans benefits....are they on the table?  or only programs that help poor people?
Click to expand...


Did you bother to click the link?


----------



## Joe Steel

Si modo said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if your economics education allows you to come up with only one solution to balancing a federal budget, that says all about your education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother with many solutions when the best solution is clear?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, that's an idiotic methodology for problem solving.
Click to expand...


It's not problem solving.  It's problem solved.


----------



## Si modo

Joe Steel said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother with many solutions when the best solution is clear?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's an idiotic methodology for problem solving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not problem solving.  It's problem solved.
Click to expand...

Who told you that?


----------



## VaYank5150

rightwinger said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Pork
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not too bad.  However....
> 
> 1. EVERYONE wants to protect the Constitution and the TP has not proven anything is un-constitutional
> 
> 2. I see nothing about Social Security, Medicare or the Bush Prescription Drug plan....all of which represent a significant portion of our national debt. Is this just a case of "cut other peoples entitlements and don't touch mine"??
> 
> 3. If you scream about a balanced budget why object to repealing the Bush tax cuts that added $2.5 trillion to national debt. Isn't a balanced budget balancing what you take in and what you spend?
> 
> 4. The TP needs to be specific about what runaway government spending they want ended. Social Security, Defense, Medicare, Veterans benefits....are they on the table?  or only programs that help poor people?
Click to expand...


THIS is the problem with the "movement".  There are no specifics because they are so fractured, you cannot pin them down on the "how" part.  They all agree they want less government spending.  However, get 10 of them in a room together and ask "how" and you would probably end up with 10 different answers.


----------



## Si modo

VaYank5150 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Pork
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not too bad.  However....
> 
> 1. EVERYONE wants to protect the Constitution and the TP has not proven anything is un-constitutional
> 
> 2. I see nothing about Social Security, Medicare or the Bush Prescription Drug plan....all of which represent a significant portion of our national debt. Is this just a case of "cut other peoples entitlements and don't touch mine"??
> 
> 3. If you scream about a balanced budget why object to repealing the Bush tax cuts that added $2.5 trillion to national debt. Isn't a balanced budget balancing what you take in and what you spend?
> 
> 4. The TP needs to be specific about what runaway government spending they want ended. Social Security, Defense, Medicare, Veterans benefits....are they on the table?  or only programs that help poor people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THIS is the problem with the "movement".  There are no specifics because they are so fractured, you cannot pin them down on the "how" part.  They all agree they want less government spending.  However, get 10 of them in a room together and ask "how" and you would probably end up with 10 different answers.
Click to expand...

Obviously, neither of you bothered to read the specifics through the link.


----------



## Samson

California Girl said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Pork
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not too bad.  However....
> 
> 1. EVERYONE wants to protect the Constitution and the TP has not proven anything is un-constitutional
> 
> 2. I see nothing about Social Security, Medicare or the Bush Prescription Drug plan....all of which represent a significant portion of our national debt. Is this just a case of "cut other peoples entitlements and don't touch mine"??
> 
> 3. If you scream about a balanced budget why object to repealing the Bush tax cuts that added $2.5 trillion to national debt. Isn't a balanced budget balancing what you take in and what you spend?
> 
> 4. The TP needs to be specific about what runaway government spending they want ended. Social Security, Defense, Medicare, Veterans benefits....are they on the table?  or only programs that help poor people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you bother to click the link?
Click to expand...


You're making it to complicated.

Simplify.

Here is what the T-party wants: 

1. A balanced Budget Amendment that limits the Federal Budget to US population X The Median US Income X 10%.

I'm not sure what "screaming about Bush Tax Cuts...blah, blah, blah" has to do with anything, other than to hang out another strawman. I thought we were gonna "MOVE ON?" Let's try to simply argue the point: 

What is wrong with having a balanced budget that is tied to the US income?


----------



## NYcarbineer

rightwinger said:


> [4. The TP needs to be specific about what runaway government spending they want ended. Social Security, Defense, Medicare, Veterans benefits....are they on the table?  or only programs that help poor people?



None of those things are on the table for most tea partiers.  And when you add interest on the debt to that, which you can't take off the table, that's pretty much the budget.

The tea partiers are just an overexcited bunch of Republicans or Republican sympathizers who can't get over the fact that they lost a couple elections.  They can dress it up in any costume they want but  that's what they really are.


----------



## California Girl

Si modo said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not too bad.  However....
> 
> 1. EVERYONE wants to protect the Constitution and the TP has not proven anything is un-constitutional
> 
> 2. I see nothing about Social Security, Medicare or the Bush Prescription Drug plan....all of which represent a significant portion of our national debt. Is this just a case of "cut other peoples entitlements and don't touch mine"??
> 
> 3. If you scream about a balanced budget why object to repealing the Bush tax cuts that added $2.5 trillion to national debt. Isn't a balanced budget balancing what you take in and what you spend?
> 
> 4. The TP needs to be specific about what runaway government spending they want ended. Social Security, Defense, Medicare, Veterans benefits....are they on the table?  or only programs that help poor people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is the problem with the "movement".  There are no specifics because they are so fractured, you cannot pin them down on the "how" part.  They all agree they want less government spending.  However, get 10 of them in a room together and ask "how" and you would probably end up with 10 different answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously, neither of you bothered to read the specifics through the link.
Click to expand...


It took VaYank a while just to work out that there WAS a link. You don't honestly expect them to read it, do you? Damn, they might actually agree with some of it! Too great a risk involved in being educated. 

Clearly, certain posters struggle with the whole concept of a 'movement'.... clearly they need to spoon fed by others. Idiots.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Samson said:


> [What is wrong with having a balanced budget that is tied to the US income?



Nothing, other than the political impossibility of it.  Every component of balancing the budget has a powerful constituency protecting it from being used as part of a budget balancing process.


----------



## Samson

NYcarbineer said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> [4. The TP needs to be specific about what runaway government spending they want ended. Social Security, Defense, Medicare, Veterans benefits....are they on the table?  or only programs that help poor people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of those things are on the table for most tea partiers.  And when you add interest on the debt to that, which you can't take off the table, that's pretty much the budget.
> 
> The tea partiers are just an overexcited bunch of Republicans or Republican sympathizers who can't get over the fact that they lost a couple elections.  They can dress it up in any costume they want but  that's what they really are.
Click to expand...


I'm sure you're correct to some extent, but I don't see many Republicans rushing to do anything the Tea Party is demanding. In fact, I see (and hear) Republican Talking Heads like Limbaugh denegrating anything that smacks of third party politics. Hannity seems to have drastically altered course, from sneering contempt of a third party to leg humping Palin during Tea Party Rallys.

Rather than waiting to see if the Tea Party will join Republicans, Republicans should join the Tea Party. Their own platform is so watered down with bullshit, half-assed typical beltway back scratching it needs more than reform, it needs burning.


----------



## California Girl

NYcarbineer said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [What is wrong with having a balanced budget that is tied to the US income?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing, other than the political impossibility of it.  Every component of balancing the budget has a powerful constituency protecting it from being used as part of a budget balancing process.
Click to expand...


It would be hard. Not impossible. We used to be able to do hard. "We go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard". John Fitzgerald Kennedy. 

When did we become a nation of whiners who want everything to be handed to them? We have to make hard decisions. We have to stop spending money we don't have. We really must not be mortgaging our country, and future generations, to other countries.


----------



## VaYank5150

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is the problem with the "movement".  There are no specifics because they are so fractured, you cannot pin them down on the "how" part.  They all agree they want less government spending.  However, get 10 of them in a room together and ask "how" and you would probably end up with 10 different answers.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, neither of you bothered to read the specifics through the link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It took VaYank a while just to work out that there WAS a link. You don't honestly expect them to read it, do you? Damn, they might actually agree with some of it! Too great a risk involved in being educated.
> 
> Clearly, certain posters struggle with the whole concept of a 'movement'.... clearly they need to spoon fed by others. Idiots.
Click to expand...


Fair enough, Cali....can one of you "movement" people explain HOW you want these things accomplished.


----------



## NYcarbineer

California Girl said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [What is wrong with having a balanced budget that is tied to the US income?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing, other than the political impossibility of it.  Every component of balancing the budget has a powerful constituency protecting it from being used as part of a budget balancing process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be hard. Not impossible. We used to be able to do hard. "We go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard". John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
> 
> When did we become a nation of whiners who want everything to be handed to them? We have to make hard decisions. We have to stop spending money we don't have. We really must not be mortgaging our country, and future generations, to other countries.
Click to expand...


Ok, I'm putting a 5% per year cut in defense spending, for 10 years, on the table.  You accept that, and then you can put something on the table.

Go!


----------



## Si modo

NYcarbineer said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [What is wrong with having a balanced budget that is tied to the US income?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing, other than the political impossibility of it.  Every component of balancing the budget has a powerful constituency protecting it from being used as part of a budget balancing process.
Click to expand...

Not impossible at all to balance the budget.  It's been done.


----------



## Samson

NYcarbineer said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [What is wrong with having a balanced budget that is tied to the US income?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing, other than the political impossibility of it.  Every component of balancing the budget has a powerful constituency protecting it from being used as part of a budget balancing process.
Click to expand...


Thus the need for a large groundswell of popular support for it.



Can we dance around in circles a little more? I need the exercise.


----------



## California Girl

Samson said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [What is wrong with having a balanced budget that is tied to the US income?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing, other than the political impossibility of it.  Every component of balancing the budget has a powerful constituency protecting it from being used as part of a budget balancing process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thus the need for a large groundswell of popular support for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Can we dance around in circles a little more: I need the exercise?
Click to expand...


May I dance with you Samson?


----------



## rightwinger

Si modo said:


> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not too bad.  However....
> 
> 1. EVERYONE wants to protect the Constitution and the TP has not proven anything is un-constitutional
> 
> 2. I see nothing about Social Security, Medicare or the Bush Prescription Drug plan....all of which represent a significant portion of our national debt. Is this just a case of "cut other peoples entitlements and don't touch mine"??
> 
> 3. If you scream about a balanced budget why object to repealing the Bush tax cuts that added $2.5 trillion to national debt. Isn't a balanced budget balancing what you take in and what you spend?
> 
> 4. The TP needs to be specific about what runaway government spending they want ended. Social Security, Defense, Medicare, Veterans benefits....are they on the table?  or only programs that help poor people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is the problem with the "movement".  There are no specifics because they are so fractured, you cannot pin them down on the "how" part.  They all agree they want less government spending.  However, get 10 of them in a room together and ask "how" and you would probably end up with 10 different answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously, neither of you bothered to read the specifics through the link.
Click to expand...


Yes, I did and it still does not address my concerns. I would never sign up to that. Primarily because it is too simplistic and does not address critical events like wars, economic collapse, national emergency
TP still avoids going after Social Security, Defense and Medicare which are the major budget items


----------



## Samson

California Girl said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing, other than the political impossibility of it.  Every component of balancing the budget has a powerful constituency protecting it from being used as part of a budget balancing process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the need for a large groundswell of popular support for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Can we dance around in circles a little more: I need the exercise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May I dance with you Samson?
Click to expand...


----------



## California Girl

NYcarbineer said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing, other than the political impossibility of it.  Every component of balancing the budget has a powerful constituency protecting it from being used as part of a budget balancing process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be hard. Not impossible. We used to be able to do hard. "We go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard". John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
> 
> When did we become a nation of whiners who want everything to be handed to them? We have to make hard decisions. We have to stop spending money we don't have. We really must not be mortgaging our country, and future generations, to other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, I'm putting a 5% per year cut in defense spending, for 10 years, on the table.  You accept that, and then you can put something on the table.
> 
> Go!
Click to expand...


I haven't looked at the defense budget but I would say 5% would be a conservative estimate on waste within it. We can cut crap out of that without doing impacting on the effectiveness or safety of our service personnel just by controlling the out of control spiraling costs etc. 

The private sector see defense contracts as a cash cow. Control that, you got more than the 5%.


----------



## Samson

California Girl said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be hard. Not impossible. We used to be able to do hard. "We go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard". John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
> 
> When did we become a nation of whiners who want everything to be handed to them? We have to make hard decisions. We have to stop spending money we don't have. We really must not be mortgaging our country, and future generations, to other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I'm putting a 5% per year cut in defense spending, for 10 years, on the table.  You accept that, and then you can put something on the table.
> 
> Go!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't looked at the defense budget but I would say 5% would be a conservative estimate on waste within it. We can cut crap out of that without doing impacting on the effectiveness or safety of our service personnel just by controlling the out of control spiraling costs etc.
> 
> The private sector see defense contracts as a cash cow. Control that, you got more than the 5%.
Click to expand...


----------



## NYcarbineer

Samson said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> [What is wrong with having a balanced budget that is tied to the US income?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing, other than the political impossibility of it.  Every component of balancing the budget has a powerful constituency protecting it from being used as part of a budget balancing process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thus the need for a large groundswell of popular support for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Can we dance around in circles a little more? I need the exercise.
Click to expand...


The groundswell is not real.  There is no groundswell for cutting defense, SS, Medicare.  There is no groundswell, obviously, for raising taxes as the alternative.


----------



## Si modo

rightwinger said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> VaYank5150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> THIS is the problem with the "movement".  There are no specifics because they are so fractured, you cannot pin them down on the "how" part.  They all agree they want less government spending.  However, get 10 of them in a room together and ask "how" and you would probably end up with 10 different answers.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, neither of you bothered to read the specifics through the link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I did and it still does not address my concerns. I would never sign up to that. Primarily because it is too simplistic and does not address critical events like wars, economic collapse, national emergency
> TP still avoids going after Social Security, Defense and Medicare which are the major budget items
Click to expand...

Yes, they are major budget concerns and the Tea Party does not exclude them as areas for solution.  That is the beauty of simple and concise principles.  It leaves room for many possible solutions as long as the first principle is adhered to.  Balance the budget, just for example.  This way, the principle is actually accomplished.


----------



## Si modo

NYcarbineer said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing, other than the political impossibility of it.  Every component of balancing the budget has a powerful constituency protecting it from being used as part of a budget balancing process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the need for a large groundswell of popular support for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Can we dance around in circles a little more? I need the exercise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The groundswell is not real.  There is no groundswell for cutting defense, SS, Medicare.  There is no groundswell, obviously, for raising taxes as the alternative.
Click to expand...

Cutting funding is not the only solution to balancing the budget.

I have no idea what 'the groudswell is not real' means and it appears that you are just typing nonsense for diversion.


----------



## NYcarbineer

California Girl said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be hard. Not impossible. We used to be able to do hard. "We go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard". John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
> 
> When did we become a nation of whiners who want everything to be handed to them? We have to make hard decisions. We have to stop spending money we don't have. We really must not be mortgaging our country, and future generations, to other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I'm putting a 5% per year cut in defense spending, for 10 years, on the table.  You accept that, and then you can put something on the table.
> 
> Go!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't looked at the defense budget but I would say 5% would be a conservative estimate on waste within it. We can cut crap out of that without doing impacting on the effectiveness or safety of our service personnel just by controlling the out of control spiraling costs etc.
> 
> The private sector see defense contracts as a cash cow. Control that, you got more than the 5%.
Click to expand...


Politicians in Florida are throwing a fit that the NASA budget might get cut a little.  Multiply that by a zillion and you get a picture of the defense industry.  Almost every politician, right, center, or left, with defense related industries or bases in his district will fight against defense cuts that affect his district.


----------



## Si modo

NYcarbineer said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I'm putting a 5% per year cut in defense spending, for 10 years, on the table.  You accept that, and then you can put something on the table.
> 
> Go!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't looked at the defense budget but I would say 5% would be a conservative estimate on waste within it. We can cut crap out of that without doing impacting on the effectiveness or safety of our service personnel just by controlling the out of control spiraling costs etc.
> 
> The private sector see defense contracts as a cash cow. Control that, you got more than the 5%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Politicians in Florida are throwing a fit that the NASA budget might get cut a little.  Multiply that by a zillion and you get a picture of the defense industry.  Almost every politician, right, center, or left, with defense related industries or bases in his district will fight against defense cuts that affect his district.
Click to expand...


Of course they will.  But, the bigger picture is who supports balancing the budget.  You get hung up on details where the bigger picture is the point.

The budget has already been balanced, so any claims that it can't be done are nonsense.


----------



## Samson

NYcarbineer said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing, other than the political impossibility of it.  Every component of balancing the budget has a powerful constituency protecting it from being used as part of a budget balancing process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the need for a large groundswell of popular support for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Can we dance around in circles a little more? I need the exercise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The groundswell is not real.  There is no groundswell for cutting defense, SS, Medicare.  There is no groundswell, obviously, for raising taxes as the alternative.
Click to expand...


Ah, I see, you are the arbitrator of What is REAL.

Well, I choose to not believe the Wizard of Oz.

Eventually, the curtain will be pulled away, one way or another, and the Bloated Deformity that the US Federal Government has become, will be exposed either before or after they are forced to balance a budget.


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Si modo said:


> Of course they will.  But, the bigger picture is who supports balancing the budget.  You get hung up on details where the bigger picture is the point.



That's always the issue.  Its also why nothing gets done.  Talking higher principles is fine, but at some point you have to move on to specific details.


----------



## Samson

Dr.Traveler said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they will.  But, the bigger picture is who supports balancing the budget.  You get hung up on details where the bigger picture is the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's always the issue.  Its also why nothing gets done.  Talking higher principles is fine, but at some point you have to move on to specific details.
Click to expand...


Interesting.

I wonder how my employer would react, if I told him that, well, I understand you need to balance your budget, and that this year I won't get a bonus, but I have my OWN budget, and, well, I need to talk to you about the details regarding the braces that my kid needs before you decide not to give out bonuses this year.

I suppose he would react: "OH MY GOD, SAMSON, we hadn't even considered those specific details!!! Well, There's clearly no way in hell you can cut your budget!!! We'll just need to make sure you get your bonus this year!!!"


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Samson said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they will.  But, the bigger picture is who supports balancing the budget.  You get hung up on details where the bigger picture is the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's always the issue.  Its also why nothing gets done.  Talking higher principles is fine, but at some point you have to move on to specific details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> I wonder how my employer would react, if I told him that, well, I understand you need to balance your budget, and that this year I won't get a bonus, but I have my OWN budget, and, well, I need to talk to you about the details regarding the braces that my kid needs before you decide not to give out bonuses this year.
> 
> I suppose he would react: "OH MY GOD, SAMSON, we hadn't even considered those specific details!!! Well, There's clearly no way in hell you can cut your budget!!! We'll just need to make sure you get your bonus this year!!!"
Click to expand...


Your analogy fails because your employer's budget is made by him, without the need to consult with you.

The Federal budget is made up by, and voted on by, the very folks that would have to accept a cut in Federal Monies.  Federal Monies that fund jobs, hospitals, and other popular projects back home that get them elected.


----------



## Samson

Dr.Traveler said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's always the issue.  Its also why nothing gets done.  Talking higher principles is fine, but at some point you have to move on to specific details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> I wonder how my employer would react, if I told him that, well, I understand you need to balance your budget, and that this year I won't get a bonus, but I have my OWN budget, and, well, I need to talk to you about the details regarding the braces that my kid needs before you decide not to give out bonuses this year.
> 
> I suppose he would react: "OH MY GOD, SAMSON, we hadn't even considered those specific details!!! Well, There's clearly no way in hell you can cut your budget!!! We'll just need to make sure you get your bonus this year!!!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your analogy fails because your employer's budget is made by him, without the need to consult with you.
> 
> The Federal budget is made up by, and voted on by, the very folks that would have to accept a cut in Federal Monies.  Federal Monies that fund jobs, hospitals, and other popular projects back home that get them elected.
Click to expand...


So, who do you think employs the Federal Government?

US Citizens.

Why is it that we cannot "make a budget" within which our public employees must live?

Why should I even need to explain such a simple concept?


----------



## Si modo

Dr.Traveler said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they will.  But, the bigger picture is who supports balancing the budget.  You get hung up on details where the bigger picture is the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's always the issue.  Its also why nothing gets done.  Talking higher principles is fine, but at some point you have to move on to specific details.
Click to expand...

And, still taking the balanced budget as an example, the Tea Party provides one solution in thse principles.  Now, no other solution is part of the principles.  Set the actual goal and agree on that and allow for numerous avenues in achieving it.

Hell, this country isn't even united on the goal.  It is silly to get specific when there isn't even unity on the goal.  Kennedy said, 'get to the moon', and we did.


----------



## Samson

Si modo said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they will.  But, the bigger picture is who supports balancing the budget.  You get hung up on details where the bigger picture is the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's always the issue.  Its also why nothing gets done.  Talking higher principles is fine, but at some point you have to move on to specific details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, still taking the balanced budget as an example, the Tea Party provides one solution in thse principles.  Now, no other solution is part of the principles.  Set the actual goal and agree on that and allow for numerous avenues in achieving it.
> 
> Hell, this country isn't even united on the goal.  It is silly to get specific when there isn't even unity on the goal.  Kennedy said, 'get to the moon', and we did.
Click to expand...


I think it is absolutely astonishing that asking our Government to provide services within a limited budget of the US population X US median income X 10% would even be debateable!

WTF????

300,000,000 X $40,000 X 10% isn't ENOUGH????? FOR CHRISTSAKES????


----------



## rightwinger

California Girl said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be hard. Not impossible. We used to be able to do hard. "We go to the moon, not because it is easy, but because it is hard". John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
> 
> When did we become a nation of whiners who want everything to be handed to them? We have to make hard decisions. We have to stop spending money we don't have. We really must not be mortgaging our country, and future generations, to other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I'm putting a 5% per year cut in defense spending, for 10 years, on the table.  You accept that, and then you can put something on the table.
> 
> Go!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't looked at the defense budget but I would say 5% would be a conservative estimate on waste within it. We can cut crap out of that without doing impacting on the effectiveness or safety of our service personnel just by controlling the out of control spiraling costs etc.
> 
> The private sector see defense contracts as a cash cow. Control that, you got more than the 5%.
Click to expand...



The TP Manifesto completely ignores the impact Defense spending has on the budget

Why don't they attack Social Security (other than the fact that the TP is comprised mainly of those 50+) Why don't they advocate raising the retirement age to 70??

Once again...the Manifesto is high on generalities and low on specific recommendations


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Samson said:


> So, who do you think employs the Federal Government?
> 
> US Citizens.
> 
> Why is it that we cannot "make a budget" within which our public employees must live?
> 
> Why should I even need to explain such a simple concept?



Because voters like Pork.  Especially when its in their district.

We rail and rant and cry about how wasteful the Federal government is, but guess who gets relected time and time and time and time and time and time again.  Its the guy that brings the most Federal Money to his district.

That's why the budget doesn't get balanced, and that is the primary point that you have to educate the voters on.  Do you want a balanced budget and managable public debt?  Then you'll have to stop taking Federal Money for your roads, defense related jobs, education, healthcare, and parks.

Run on that at the ballot box and see what happens.  I legitimately hope you win, but I know the voters well enough to assure you that you won't.


----------



## rightwinger

Samson said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's always the issue.  Its also why nothing gets done.  Talking higher principles is fine, but at some point you have to move on to specific details.
> 
> 
> 
> And, still taking the balanced budget as an example, the Tea Party provides one solution in thse principles.  Now, no other solution is part of the principles.  Set the actual goal and agree on that and allow for numerous avenues in achieving it.
> 
> Hell, this country isn't even united on the goal.  It is silly to get specific when there isn't even unity on the goal.  Kennedy said, 'get to the moon', and we did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is absolutely astonishing that asking our Government to provide services within a limited budget of the US population X US median income X 10% would even be debateable!
> 
> WTF????
> 
> 300,000,000 X $40,000 X 10% isn't ENOUGH????? FOR CHRISTSAKES????
Click to expand...


It is completely arbitrary and ignores an analysis of what services need to be provided by the Government


----------



## Si modo

rightwinger said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, still taking the balanced budget as an example, the Tea Party provides one solution in thse principles.  Now, no other solution is part of the principles.  Set the actual goal and agree on that and allow for numerous avenues in achieving it.
> 
> Hell, this country isn't even united on the goal.  It is silly to get specific when there isn't even unity on the goal.  Kennedy said, 'get to the moon', and we did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is absolutely astonishing that asking our Government to provide services within a limited budget of the US population X US median income X 10% would even be debateable!
> 
> WTF????
> 
> 300,000,000 X $40,000 X 10% isn't ENOUGH????? FOR CHRISTSAKES????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is completely arbitrary and ignores an analysis of what services need to be provided by the Government
Click to expand...


Already covered with the priciple of adhering to the Constitution.


----------



## Samson

rightwinger said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, still taking the balanced budget as an example, the Tea Party provides one solution in thse principles.  Now, no other solution is part of the principles.  Set the actual goal and agree on that and allow for numerous avenues in achieving it.
> 
> Hell, this country isn't even united on the goal.  It is silly to get specific when there isn't even unity on the goal.  Kennedy said, 'get to the moon', and we did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is absolutely astonishing that asking our Government to provide services within a limited budget of the US population X US median income X 10% would even be debateable!
> 
> WTF????
> 
> 300,000,000 X $40,000 X 10% isn't ENOUGH????? FOR CHRISTSAKES????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is completely arbitrary and ignores an analysis of what services need to be provided by the Government
Click to expand...


LMAO

Yes, its much better to have a bottomless pit.


----------



## Si modo

rightwinger said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I'm putting a 5% per year cut in defense spending, for 10 years, on the table.  You accept that, and then you can put something on the table.
> 
> Go!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't looked at the defense budget but I would say 5% would be a conservative estimate on waste within it. We can cut crap out of that without doing impacting on the effectiveness or safety of our service personnel just by controlling the out of control spiraling costs etc.
> 
> The private sector see defense contracts as a cash cow. Control that, you got more than the 5%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The TP Manifesto completely ignores the impact Defense spending has on the budget
> 
> Why don't they attack Social Security (other than the fact that the TP is comprised mainly of those 50+) Why don't they advocate raising the retirement age to 70??
> 
> Once again...the Manifesto is high on generalities and low on specific recommendations
Click to expand...


As it should be.  We get specific and your particular solution, a viable one, may be excluded.  Or an even better one may be.

'Get the the moon' was a goal.  If the specifics were included in that goal when it was made, we would not have achieved the goal.

You're already hung up on specifics when we can't even agree on the goal.  Something about horses and carts comes to mind right now.


----------



## Samson

Si modo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't looked at the defense budget but I would say 5% would be a conservative estimate on waste within it. We can cut crap out of that without doing impacting on the effectiveness or safety of our service personnel just by controlling the out of control spiraling costs etc.
> 
> The private sector see defense contracts as a cash cow. Control that, you got more than the 5%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TP Manifesto completely ignores the impact Defense spending has on the budget
> 
> Why don't they attack Social Security (other than the fact that the TP is comprised mainly of those 50+) Why don't they advocate raising the retirement age to 70??
> 
> Once again...the Manifesto is high on generalities and low on specific recommendations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As it should be.  We get specific and your particular solution, a viable one, may be excluded.  Or an even better one may be.
> 
> 'Get the the moon' was a goal.  If the specifics were included in that goal when it was made, we would not have achieved the goal.
> 
> Your already hung up on specifics when we can't even agree on the goal.  Something about horses and carts comes to mind right now.
Click to expand...


[youtube]GWr_eSfTtIw&feature=player_embedded#![/youtube]


----------



## rightwinger

Si modo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't looked at the defense budget but I would say 5% would be a conservative estimate on waste within it. We can cut crap out of that without doing impacting on the effectiveness or safety of our service personnel just by controlling the out of control spiraling costs etc.
> 
> The private sector see defense contracts as a cash cow. Control that, you got more than the 5%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TP Manifesto completely ignores the impact Defense spending has on the budget
> 
> Why don't they attack Social Security (other than the fact that the TP is comprised mainly of those 50+) Why don't they advocate raising the retirement age to 70??
> 
> Once again...the Manifesto is high on generalities and low on specific recommendations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As it should be.  We get specific and your particular solution, a viable one, may be excluded.  Or an even better one may be.
> 
> 'Get the the moon' was a goal.  If the specifics were included in that goal when it was made, we would not have achieved the goal.
> 
> You're already hung up on specifics when we can't even agree on the goal.  Something about horses and carts comes to mind right now.
Click to expand...


Another way of saying "We like the sound of our own voice"


----------



## Samson

rightwinger said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The TP Manifesto completely ignores the impact Defense spending has on the budget
> 
> Why don't they attack Social Security (other than the fact that the TP is comprised mainly of those 50+) Why don't they advocate raising the retirement age to 70??
> 
> Once again...the Manifesto is high on generalities and low on specific recommendations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As it should be.  We get specific and your particular solution, a viable one, may be excluded.  Or an even better one may be.
> 
> 'Get the the moon' was a goal.  If the specifics were included in that goal when it was made, we would not have achieved the goal.
> 
> You're already hung up on specifics when we can't even agree on the goal.  Something about horses and carts comes to mind right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another way of saying "We like the sound of our own voice"
Click to expand...


Well, you're obviously listening....


----------



## Si modo

rightwinger said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The TP Manifesto completely ignores the impact Defense spending has on the budget
> 
> Why don't they attack Social Security (other than the fact that the TP is comprised mainly of those 50+) Why don't they advocate raising the retirement age to 70??
> 
> Once again...the Manifesto is high on generalities and low on specific recommendations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As it should be.  We get specific and your particular solution, a viable one, may be excluded.  Or an even better one may be.
> 
> 'Get the the moon' was a goal.  If the specifics were included in that goal when it was made, we would not have achieved the goal.
> 
> You're already hung up on specifics when we can't even agree on the goal.  Something about horses and carts comes to mind right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another way of saying "We like the sound of our own voice"
Click to expand...


Typing phrases irrelevant to anything does not make any point.  I suspect you have no point at this juncture.


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Si modo said:


> 'Get the the moon' was a goal.  If the specifics were included in that goal when it was made, we would not have achieved the goal.



Agreed, but "Balance the Budget" has been a goal for going on 16 years now.  At some point, we have to start talking details.  Getting to the Moon required revitalizing Education (New Math!), revitalizing research, building infrastructure, etc.


----------



## Si modo

Dr.Traveler said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Get the the moon' was a goal.  If the specifics were included in that goal when it was made, we would not have achieved the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but "Balance the Budget" has been a goal for going on 16 years now.  At some point, we have to start talking details.  Getting to the Moon required revitalizing Education (New Math!), revitalizing research, building infrastructure, etc.
Click to expand...

Again, why would anyone start talking details when we are not agreed on the goal?  I'm really wondering that.


----------



## Samson

Dr.Traveler said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Get the the moon' was a goal.  If the specifics were included in that goal when it was made, we would not have achieved the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but "Balance the Budget" has been a goal for going on 16 years now.  At some point, we have to start talking details.  Getting to the Moon required revitalizing Education (New Math!), revitalizing research, building infrastructure, etc.
Click to expand...


WOO HOO!

Someone else that wants to dance!



Samson said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the need for a large groundswell of popular support for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Can we dance around in circles a little more: I need the exercise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May I dance with you Samson?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## rightwinger

Dr.Traveler said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Get the the moon' was a goal.  If the specifics were included in that goal when it was made, we would not have achieved the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but "Balance the Budget" has been a goal for going on 16 years now.  At some point, we have to start talking details.  Getting to the Moon required revitalizing Education (New Math!), revitalizing research, building infrastructure, etc.
Click to expand...


"Get to the Moon" also included details on what needed to be done, when it needed to be accomplished and how much it was going to cost.

The TP goals of "Balance the Budget' without any details is just rhetoric that looks good on a protest sign


----------



## Samson

Si modo said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Get the the moon' was a goal.  If the specifics were included in that goal when it was made, we would not have achieved the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but "Balance the Budget" has been a goal for going on 16 years now.  At some point, we have to start talking details.  Getting to the Moon required revitalizing Education (New Math!), revitalizing research, building infrastructure, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, why would anyone start talking details when we are not agreed on the goal?  I'm really wondering that.
Click to expand...


Wondering?

Its because there isn't any arguement: The Budget should be balanced, and it should be based on a simple-to-understand equation using the US population and Average Income as the only variables.

How the budget is DIVIDED is a strawman designed to continue to justify the bottomless pit budget status quo.


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Si modo said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Get the the moon' was a goal.  If the specifics were included in that goal when it was made, we would not have achieved the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but "Balance the Budget" has been a goal for going on 16 years now.  At some point, we have to start talking details.  Getting to the Moon required revitalizing Education (New Math!), revitalizing research, building infrastructure, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, why would anyone start talking details when we are not agreed on the goal?  I'm really wondering that.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure who's disagreeing on the goal here.  I'd put down money that if you polled the public 85% of Americans, if not more, are in favor of the goal "Balance the Budget."  They've been in favor of that for years.

Its time to talk details.  Well past time in fact.


----------



## Samson

Dr.Traveler said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but "Balance the Budget" has been a goal for going on 16 years now.  At some point, we have to start talking details.  Getting to the Moon required revitalizing Education (New Math!), revitalizing research, building infrastructure, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, why would anyone start talking details when we are not agreed on the goal?  I'm really wondering that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure who's disagreeing on the goal here.  I'd put down money that if you polled the public 85% of Americans, if not more, are in favor of the goal "Balance the Budget."  They've been in favor of that for years.
> 
> Its time to talk details.  Well past time in fact.
Click to expand...


Like What?


----------



## Si modo

rightwinger said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Get the the moon' was a goal.  If the specifics were included in that goal when it was made, we would not have achieved the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but "Balance the Budget" has been a goal for going on 16 years now.  At some point, we have to start talking details.  Getting to the Moon required revitalizing Education (New Math!), revitalizing research, building infrastructure, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Get to the Moon" also included details on what needed to be done, when it needed to be accomplished and how much it was going to cost.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

No, it didn't when it was proposed.



> ....  The TP goals of "Balance the Budget' without any details is just rhetoric that looks good on a protest sign


Acrtually, it's a goal and one that is opposed by many, some even in this thread.

Carts before horses will get you nowhere real fast.  And, that is not even an apt analogy here.  The crew and passengers are sitting around arguing how to fix a hole in a ship when they can't even agree that their ship is sinking.


----------



## Nosmo King

Si modo said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the 'vast majority of Americans' pay no federal income tax;  if taxation rates are just too tough for rich people to take anymore; what are all those non-tax paying middle class people doing at Tea Parties protesting high taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> Wanting "no federal income tax" has nothing to do with the Tea Party, so I have no idea what you are wanting to say.
Click to expand...

Taxes are the foundation of the Tea Party!  

I'm saying if the Conservatives can 'justify' cutting taxes only for the rich because the middle class has no federal tax burden, why are middle class people part of the Tea Party movement?  They aren't taxed to death.  The Conservative pundits tell us so.

It's one argument or the other!  If we can't get real middle class tax relief because the middle class doesn't pay taxes, why then is the middle class protesting their rate of taxation?

It doesn't make sense.  But, the rationale comes from the heroes of the Conservatives (Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity et al) so making sense is not a prerequisite.


----------



## boedicca

Earth to NK:  The Middle Class is being taxed to death.

The median family in the U.S. pays 38% of its income in taxes.


----------



## rightwinger

boedicca said:


> Earth to NK:  The Middle Class is being taxed to death.
> 
> The median family in the U.S. pays 38% of its income in taxes.



What did they pay two years ago?
What did they pay twenty years ago?

What has changed?


----------



## Samson

boedicca said:


> Earth to NK:  The Middle Class is being taxed to death.
> 
> The median family in the U.S. pays 38% of its income in taxes.



Frankly, the tax isn't necessarily the worst the Feds are doing.

The on going policy of simply printing more money to pay for overbudget spending is making Earnings After Taxes worth less every year.....

....and its only just begun.


----------



## Dr.Traveler

Samson said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, why would anyone start talking details when we are not agreed on the goal?  I'm really wondering that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure who's disagreeing on the goal here.  I'd put down money that if you polled the public 85% of Americans, if not more, are in favor of the goal "Balance the Budget."  They've been in favor of that for years.
> 
> Its time to talk details.  Well past time in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like What?
Click to expand...


What and how.  For example, is defense spending on the table when we talk tax cuts?


----------



## boedicca

rightwinger said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earth to NK:  The Middle Class is being taxed to death.
> 
> The median family in the U.S. pays 38% of its income in taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did they pay two years ago?
> What did they pay twenty years ago?
> 
> What has changed?
Click to expand...




In the 1950s, it was less than half that level.

What has changed?  Government has gotten bigger.


----------



## Samson

rightwinger said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earth to NK:  The Middle Class is being taxed to death.
> 
> The median family in the U.S. pays 38% of its income in taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did they pay two years ago?
> What did they pay twenty years ago?
> 
> What has changed?
Click to expand...


Now I see what mentality we're dealing with, and why the Fed's can tax and spend whatever they wish.


----------



## boedicca

Samson said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earth to NK:  The Middle Class is being taxed to death.
> 
> The median family in the U.S. pays 38% of its income in taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, the tax isn't necessarily the worst the Feds are doing.
> 
> The on going policy of simply printing more money to pay for overbudget spending is making Earnings After Taxes worth less every year.....
> 
> ....and its only just begun.
Click to expand...



You got that right.   The spending and debt binge currently underway is going to result in huge devaluation at some point.  It's going to be ugly.


----------



## rightwinger

boedicca said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earth to NK:  The Middle Class is being taxed to death.
> 
> The median family in the U.S. pays 38% of its income in taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did they pay two years ago?
> What did they pay twenty years ago?
> 
> What has changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the 1950s, it was less than half that level.
> 
> What has changed?  Government has gotten bigger.
Click to expand...


Do you want to return to the Government of the 50's??

I don't


----------



## Joe Steel

Si modo said:


> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's an idiotic methodology for problem solving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not problem solving.  It's problem solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who told you that?
Click to expand...


Mr. Reality.


----------



## rightwinger

Samson said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earth to NK:  The Middle Class is being taxed to death.
> 
> The median family in the U.S. pays 38% of its income in taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did they pay two years ago?
> What did they pay twenty years ago?
> 
> What has changed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I see what mentality we're dealing with, and why the Fed's can tax and spend whatever they wish.
Click to expand...


Everything needs to be placed into context

What did we pay then....what do we pay now?
What did we receive then....what do we receive now?


----------



## manu1959

Joe Steel said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Port
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did these misfits, malcontents and miscreants get the idea they represent America?
> 
> At best they're a notable minority with naive and unsophisticated views based on misunderstanding of American culture.  More likely, they're just dupes, sad, lost dimwits who just aren't smart enough to realize they're not smart enough to think for themselves.
Click to expand...



could one then assume that you are diametrically opposed to all 10 of the tea party posistions.....


----------



## Si modo

Dr.Traveler said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure who's disagreeing on the goal here.  I'd put down money that if you polled the public 85% of Americans, if not more, are in favor of the goal "Balance the Budget."  They've been in favor of that for years.
> 
> Its time to talk details.  Well past time in fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What and how.  For example, is defense spending on the table when we talk tax cuts?
Click to expand...

ANYTHING is on the table that will get us to OUR goal.  That's the beauty of not listing any single solution; it leaves more solutions as avenues.

Damn, I feel like a broken record.


----------



## Samson

boedicca said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earth to NK:  The Middle Class is being taxed to death.
> 
> The median family in the U.S. pays 38% of its income in taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, the tax isn't necessarily the worst the Feds are doing.
> 
> The on going policy of simply printing more money to pay for overbudget spending is making Earnings After Taxes worth less every year.....
> 
> ....and its only just begun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You got that right.   The spending and debt binge currently underway is going to result in huge devaluation at some point.  It's going to be ugly.
Click to expand...


You were supposed to say, "It is All Bush's Fault."

I'm calling the Black Helicopters to have you flown to the nearest Brainwash Station so you can be reprogramed to spout irrelevant non sequiturs until the dollar is worth three Canadian cents.


----------



## Si modo

Joe Steel said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not problem solving.  It's problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Reality.
Click to expand...

Your imaginary friend, I see.  Make sure you buy him a drink, too.


----------



## Si modo

rightwinger said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did they pay two years ago?
> What did they pay twenty years ago?
> 
> What has changed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I see what mentality we're dealing with, and why the Fed's can tax and spend whatever they wish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything needs to be placed into context
> 
> What did we pay then....what do we pay now?
> What did we receive then....what do we receive now?
Click to expand...

Here, let's get sequential for you:  Do you agree that we need to balance the budget?

Baby steps.


----------



## Samson

Si modo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I see what mentality we're dealing with, and why the Fed's can tax and spend whatever they wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything needs to be placed into context
> 
> What did we pay then....what do we pay now?
> What did we receive then....what do we receive now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here, let's get sequential for you:  Do you agree that we need to balance the budget?
> 
> Baby steps.
Click to expand...


Define "let's."


----------



## Si modo

Samson said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything needs to be placed into context
> 
> What did we pay then....what do we pay now?
> What did we receive then....what do we receive now?
> 
> 
> 
> Here, let's get sequential for you:  Do you agree that we need to balance the budget?
> 
> Baby steps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define "let's."
Click to expand...


----------



## rightwinger

Si modo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I see what mentality we're dealing with, and why the Fed's can tax and spend whatever they wish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything needs to be placed into context
> 
> What did we pay then....what do we pay now?
> What did we receive then....what do we receive now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here, let's get sequential for you:  Do you agree that we need to balance the budget?
> 
> Baby steps.
Click to expand...


Bill Clinton balanced the budget.......No other administration in 75 years has managed the feat.

Did the country collapse each time we didn't have a balanced budget? No we continued with periods of economic boom and bust

Balancing the budget is a noble goal. However, there are many reasons you don't want a balanced budget. War comes to mind. Stemming an impending economic collapse also seems like a valid reason


----------



## Si modo

rightwinger said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything needs to be placed into context
> 
> What did we pay then....what do we pay now?
> What did we receive then....what do we receive now?
> 
> 
> 
> Here, let's get sequential for you:  Do you agree that we need to balance the budget?
> 
> Baby steps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton balanced the budget.......No other administration in 75 years has managed the feat.
> 
> Did the country collapse each time we didn't have a balanced budget? No we continued with periods of economic boom and bust
> 
> Balancing the budget is a noble goal. However, there are many reasons you don't want a balanced budget. War comes to mind. Stemming an impending economic collapse also seems like a valid reason
Click to expand...


Do you agree that we need to balance the budget?


----------



## Samson

rightwinger said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything needs to be placed into context
> 
> What did we pay then....what do we pay now?
> What did we receive then....what do we receive now?
> 
> 
> 
> Here, let's get sequential for you:  Do you agree that we need to balance the budget?
> 
> Baby steps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton balanced the budget.......No other administration in 75 years has managed the feat.
> 
> Did the country collapse each time we didn't have a balanced budget? No we continued with periods of economic boom and bust
> 
> Balancing the budget is a noble goal. However, there are many reasons you don't want a balanced budget. War comes to mind. Stemming an impending economic collapse also seems like a valid reason
Click to expand...


War and Stemming Economic Collapse could.....and hold onto your socks, 'cause this might hurt:

_*Justify Saving a Budget Surplus*_


----------



## Modbert

Odd. How can these people speak for the tea party when Xeno has been bitching at me for months that there are no tea party leaders?


----------



## rightwinger

Si modo said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, let's get sequential for you:  Do you agree that we need to balance the budget?
> 
> Baby steps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton balanced the budget.......No other administration in 75 years has managed the feat.
> 
> Did the country collapse each time we didn't have a balanced budget? No we continued with periods of economic boom and bust
> 
> Balancing the budget is a noble goal. However, there are many reasons you don't want a balanced budget. War comes to mind. Stemming an impending economic collapse also seems like a valid reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you agree that we need to balance the budget?
Click to expand...


Nice if we could do it....but like I showed, the world as we know it will not collapse if we don't.

Maybe if we elected another Clinton


----------



## rightwinger

Samson said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, let's get sequential for you:  Do you agree that we need to balance the budget?
> 
> Baby steps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton balanced the budget.......No other administration in 75 years has managed the feat.
> 
> Did the country collapse each time we didn't have a balanced budget? No we continued with periods of economic boom and bust
> 
> Balancing the budget is a noble goal. However, there are many reasons you don't want a balanced budget. War comes to mind. Stemming an impending economic collapse also seems like a valid reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> War and Stemming Economic Collapse could.....and hold onto your socks, 'cause this might hurt:
> 
> _*Justify Saving a Budget Surplus*_
Click to expand...


How about we raise taxes to pay for your surplus??  

Does it make sense to you to conduct two wars and pay for them with a $2.5trillion Tax Cut?

It does to the Conservatives


----------



## Samson

rightwinger said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton balanced the budget.......No other administration in 75 years has managed the feat.
> 
> Did the country collapse each time we didn't have a balanced budget? No we continued with periods of economic boom and bust
> 
> Balancing the budget is a noble goal. However, there are many reasons you don't want a balanced budget. War comes to mind. Stemming an impending economic collapse also seems like a valid reason
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that we need to balance the budget?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice if we could do it....but like I showed, the world as we know it will not collapse if we don't.
> 
> Maybe if we elected another Clinton
Click to expand...


So, Obama's not up to it huh?

Is it because he's black?


----------



## Samson

rightwinger said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton balanced the budget.......No other administration in 75 years has managed the feat.
> 
> Did the country collapse each time we didn't have a balanced budget? No we continued with periods of economic boom and bust
> 
> Balancing the budget is a noble goal. However, there are many reasons you don't want a balanced budget. War comes to mind. Stemming an impending economic collapse also seems like a valid reason
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War and Stemming Economic Collapse could.....and hold onto your socks, 'cause this might hurt:
> 
> _*Justify Saving a Budget Surplus*_
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about we raise taxes to pay for your surplus??
> 
> Does it make sense to you to conduct two wars and pay for them with a $2.5trillion Tax Cut?
> 
> It does to the Conservatives
Click to expand...


How about we reduce spending?

I'll tell you what, let's not even touch taxes. 

The Feds can keep the very same tax code hey have now.


----------



## Samson

rightwinger said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton balanced the budget.......No other administration in 75 years has managed the feat.
> 
> Did the country collapse each time we didn't have a balanced budget? No we continued with periods of economic boom and bust
> 
> Balancing the budget is a noble goal. However, there are many reasons you don't want a balanced budget. War comes to mind. Stemming an impending economic collapse also seems like a valid reason
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War and Stemming Economic Collapse could.....and hold onto your socks, 'cause this might hurt:
> 
> _*Justify Saving a Budget Surplus*_
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about we raise taxes to pay for your surplus??
> 
> Does it make sense to you to conduct two wars and pay for them with a $2.5trillion Tax Cut?
> 
> It does to the Conservatives
Click to expand...


How about we reduce spending?

I'll tell you what, let's not even touch taxes. 

The Feds can keep the very same tax code they have now.


----------



## Si modo

rightwinger said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton balanced the budget.......No other administration in 75 years has managed the feat.
> 
> Did the country collapse each time we didn't have a balanced budget? No we continued with periods of economic boom and bust
> 
> Balancing the budget is a noble goal. However, there are many reasons you don't want a balanced budget. War comes to mind. Stemming an impending economic collapse also seems like a valid reason
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that we need to balance the budget?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice if we could do it....but like I showed, the world as we know it will not collapse if we don't.
> 
> Maybe if we elected another Clinton
Click to expand...


Thank you.  And this is why we do not need those specifics.  I think balancing the budget is a priority.  You don't.  The specifics of the goal don't matter.  We are divided on simply the goal.  That's fine, as few can expect all to agree.  But, the Tea Party makes this  a goal that is a priority.


----------



## nraforlife

California Girl said:


> [................... Huge savings, .................




Like what, eh? Lets be specific- proram/service branch/ $ you expect to save. The wasteage you imagine just ain't there. Ya wanna cut military costs its going to be pretty much proportional to headcount reductions and war count reductions.


----------



## California Girl

Joe Steel said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Steel said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not problem solving.  It's problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> Who told you that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mr. Reality.
Click to expand...


He's lyin'.


----------



## Immanuel

California Girl said:


> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Pork
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes



This is the only post I have read in this thread so far (I'll be reading more after I ask this question) but can you tell me, if this is true, then why does it seem that Tea Partiers seem to be advocating we vote for Republicans?  I don't see any of these items as being Republican Party ideals.  They may pay lip service to these items, but none of them work towards those ideals.

Immie


----------



## California Girl

nraforlife said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> [................... Huge savings, .................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like what, eh? Lets be specific- proram/service branch/ $ you expect to save. The wasteage you imagine just ain't there. Ya wanna cut military costs its going to be pretty much proportional to headcount reductions and war count reductions.
Click to expand...


Look, little man.... I am not here to go through the defense budge item by item with you to decide where we should cut. Suffice to say, if you clamp down on the spiraling costs that the private sector incur in development, cut fraud and waste.... you'll find more than 5%. Treat it like any business would treat its budget. If we ran government like a business - with accountability for expenditure, we would soon get control over it. The major problem with government and public sector is that they view taxpayers as a bottomless pit of cash. Because they don't need to 'make a profit' they don't care what they spend or whether the money actually achieves anything.... They spend it because they can. 

Well, the TEA Parties say 'enough is enough'. I agree. Enough is enough. Obama has taken the mess that Bush left and made it 100% worse. I don't blame Obama, I don't blame Bush. I blame us - 'we, the People' sat back and let them pillage our nation. Shame on us.


----------



## Immanuel

VaYank5150 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Pork
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not too bad.  However....
> 
> 1. EVERYONE wants to protect the Constitution and the TP has not proven anything is un-constitutional
> 
> 2. I see nothing about Social Security, Medicare or the Bush Prescription Drug plan....all of which represent a significant portion of our national debt. Is this just a case of "cut other peoples entitlements and don't touch mine"??
> 
> 3. If you scream about a balanced budget why object to repealing the Bush tax cuts that added $2.5 trillion to national debt. Isn't a balanced budget balancing what you take in and what you spend?
> 
> 4. The TP needs to be specific about what runaway government spending they want ended. Social Security, Defense, Medicare, Veterans benefits....are they on the table?  or only programs that help poor people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THIS is the problem with the "movement".  There are no specifics because they are so fractured, you cannot pin them down on the "how" part.  They all agree they want less government spending.  However, get 10 of them in a room together and ask "how" and you would probably end up with 10 different answers.
Click to expand...


Only 10 (answers)? 

Immie


----------



## California Girl

Dogbert said:


> Odd. How can these people speak for the tea party when Xeno has been bitching at me for months that there are no tea party leaders?



Oh, bless your little dumb ass. The TEA Party members voted for the priorities. The original priorities list was from members and the members voted on the priority of the top 10. Do try to find out facts before asking stupid questions.


----------



## Samson

nraforlife said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> [................... Huge savings, .................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like what, eh? Lets be specific- proram/service branch/ $ you expect to save. The wasteage you imagine just ain't there. Ya wanna cut military costs its going to be pretty much proportional to headcount reductions and war count reductions.
Click to expand...


Are we still dancing around the need to cut the Federal budget by complaining that we just don't know where to begin?

For christssakes, I imagine you'd starve to death inside a grocery store because you couldn't figure out what to eat first.


----------



## sweetie

...for christ sakes, caliphony girl, admit it:..most of these stooooopid tea-baggers are republican cheerleaders who will soon be suckling for stinking big government phonies like willard milton romney and farah palin..

..quit pretending this is some spontaneous independent movement...these are half-retarded republican cheerleaders who moan about 'big government obomba' as they/you suck for truly big government republiclown icons like stinking ronald reagan..

...stfu, you dimwitted republican cheerleaders..

...the rest of you, have a nice night..


----------



## Zona

California Girl said:


> Since people keep asking what the hell the TEA Parties want, I figure this should clear that question once and for all.
> 
> Like it? Sign the contract.



I would have more respect for the baggers if they made there presence during Bush's horrible 8 years.


----------



## Zona

sweetie said:


> ...for christ sakes, caliphony girl, admit it:..most of these stooooopid tea-baggers are republican cheerleaders who will soon be suckling for stinking big government phonies like willard milton romney and farah palin..
> 
> ..quit pretending this is some spontaneous independent movement...these are half-retarded republican cheerleaders who moan about 'big government obomba' as they/you suck for truly big government republiclown icons like stinking ronald reagan..
> 
> ...stfu, you dimwitted republican cheerleaders..
> 
> ...the rest of you, have a nice night..



There really is nothing that could possible added to this.  NIcely done.


----------



## Samson

Zona said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since people keep asking what the hell the TEA Parties want, I figure this should clear that question once and for all.
> 
> Like it? Sign the contract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would have more respect for the baggers if they made there presence during Bush's horrible 8 years.
Click to expand...




You are correct.


----------



## Zona

California Girl said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> [................... Huge savings, .................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like what, eh? Lets be specific- proram/service branch/ $ you expect to save. The wasteage you imagine just ain't there. Ya wanna cut military costs its going to be pretty much proportional to headcount reductions and war count reductions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, little man.... I am not here to go through the defense budge item by item with you to decide where we should cut. Suffice to say, if you clamp down on the spiraling costs that the private sector incur in development, cut fraud and waste.... you'll find more than 5%. Treat it like any business would treat its budget. If we ran government like a business - with accountability for expenditure, we would soon get control over it. The major problem with government and public sector is that they view taxpayers as a bottomless pit of cash. Because they don't need to 'make a profit' they don't care what they spend or whether the money actually achieves anything.... They spend it because they can.
> 
> Well, the TEA Parties say 'enough is enough'. I agree. Enough is enough. Obama has taken the mess that Bush left and made it 100% worse. I don't blame Obama, I don't blame Bush. I blame us - 'we, the People' sat back and let them pillage our nation. Shame on us.
Click to expand...


You say this now, but here is what makes you a hack, YOU DIDNT SAY A WORD DURING BUSH'S HELL ON EARTH FOR 8 YEARS.  Not a fucking word.

All of a sudden, you guys have "had enough".  ALL OF A SUDDEN.


----------



## Samson

Zona said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like what, eh? Lets be specific- proram/service branch/ $ you expect to save. The wasteage you imagine just ain't there. Ya wanna cut military costs its going to be pretty much proportional to headcount reductions and war count reductions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, little man.... I am not here to go through the defense budge item by item with you to decide where we should cut. Suffice to say, if you clamp down on the spiraling costs that the private sector incur in development, cut fraud and waste.... you'll find more than 5%. Treat it like any business would treat its budget. If we ran government like a business - with accountability for expenditure, we would soon get control over it. The major problem with government and public sector is that they view taxpayers as a bottomless pit of cash. Because they don't need to 'make a profit' they don't care what they spend or whether the money actually achieves anything.... They spend it because they can.
> 
> Well, the TEA Parties say 'enough is enough'. I agree. Enough is enough. Obama has taken the mess that Bush left and made it 100% worse. I don't blame Obama, I don't blame Bush. I blame us - 'we, the People' sat back and let them pillage our nation. Shame on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say this now, but here is what makes you a hack, YOU DIDNT SAY A WORD DURING BUSH'S HELL ON EARTH FOR 8 YEARS.  Not a fucking word.
> 
> All of a sudden, you guys have "had enough".  ALL OF A SUDDEN.
Click to expand...


All of the sudden, the Fed's are giving away $Trillion$ and implementing huge new social programs.

I agree that it would have been just as appropriate BEFORE November 2008, but there's been major government involvement in the economy since then.


----------



## VaYank5150

Samson said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, little man.... I am not here to go through the defense budge item by item with you to decide where we should cut. Suffice to say, if you clamp down on the spiraling costs that the private sector incur in development, cut fraud and waste.... you'll find more than 5%. Treat it like any business would treat its budget. If we ran government like a business - with accountability for expenditure, we would soon get control over it. The major problem with government and public sector is that they view taxpayers as a bottomless pit of cash. Because they don't need to 'make a profit' they don't care what they spend or whether the money actually achieves anything.... They spend it because they can.
> 
> Well, the TEA Parties say 'enough is enough'. I agree. Enough is enough. Obama has taken the mess that Bush left and made it 100% worse. I don't blame Obama, I don't blame Bush. I blame us - 'we, the People' sat back and let them pillage our nation. Shame on us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say this now, but here is what makes you a hack, YOU DIDNT SAY A WORD DURING BUSH'S HELL ON EARTH FOR 8 YEARS.  Not a fucking word.
> 
> All of a sudden, you guys have "had enough".  ALL OF A SUDDEN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of the sudden, the Fed's are giving away $Trillion$ and implementing huge new social programs.
> 
> I agree that it would have been just as appropriate BEFORE November 2008, but there's been major government involvement in the economy since then.
Click to expand...


And Bush's two invasions which will end up costing us TRILLIONS doesn't qualify for a SINGLE Tea Party?


----------



## sweetie

...most of the stooooooopid fuck tea-baggers i know supported 'both' (actually there were more than two) stinking bush wars..the stoooooopid fucks can't make a connection between world-wide interventionism and 'big government/high taxes/etc..'


----------



## Si modo

VaYank5150 said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say this now, but here is what makes you a hack, YOU DIDNT SAY A WORD DURING BUSH'S HELL ON EARTH FOR 8 YEARS.  Not a fucking word.
> 
> All of a sudden, you guys have "had enough".  ALL OF A SUDDEN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the sudden, the Fed's are giving away $Trillion$ and implementing huge new social programs.
> 
> I agree that it would have been just as appropriate BEFORE November 2008, but there's been major government involvement in the economy since then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Bush's two invasions which will end up costing us TRILLIONS doesn't qualify for a SINGLE Tea Party?
Click to expand...


I hate to tell you this, Yank.  Bush isn't president.


----------



## Tom Clancy

While all those Points seem reasonable to me.. 

I still don't think Electing Palin or any of those Tea Party folks are actually going to help, first of all, many of them are playing the Role of a True Conservative.. But really, they're just another Neo-Con looking for votes.. 

That's the way I see it.. 

If we can actually find a True Conservative who can actually follow through with Conservative Principles, we'll be in good hands..


----------



## Si modo

Tom Clancy said:


> While all those Points seem reasonable to me..
> 
> I still don't think Electing Palin or any of those Tea Party folks are actually going to help, first of all, many of them are playing the Role of a True Conservative.. But really, they're just another Neo-Con looking for votes..
> 
> That's the way I see it..
> 
> If we can actually find a True Conservative who can actually follow through with Conservative Principles, we'll be in good hands..


Electing Palin?????  No, please.


----------



## Tom Clancy

Si modo said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> While all those Points seem reasonable to me..
> 
> I still don't think Electing Palin or any of those Tea Party folks are actually going to help, first of all, many of them are playing the Role of a True Conservative.. But really, they're just another Neo-Con looking for votes..
> 
> That's the way I see it..
> 
> If we can actually find a True Conservative who can actually follow through with Conservative Principles, we'll be in good hands..
> 
> 
> 
> Electing Palin?????  No, please.
Click to expand...


That's exactly my point. 

Electing Palin = Obama 2 term President.


----------



## Modbert

Tom Clancy said:


> That's exactly my point.
> 
> Electing Palin = Obama 2 term President.



Or Newt, Or Romney, or Perry, or Brown, or pretty much any GOP frontrunner at the moment.


----------



## Tom Clancy

Dogbert said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly my point.
> 
> Electing Palin = Obama 2 term President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or Newt, Or Romney, or Perry, or Brown, or pretty much any GOP frontrunner at the moment.
Click to expand...


Romney in my opinion, would have the highest chance to Win out of all the GOP Front-runners atm.


----------



## Si modo

Tom Clancy said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> While all those Points seem reasonable to me..
> 
> I still don't think Electing Palin or any of those Tea Party folks are actually going to help, first of all, many of them are playing the Role of a True Conservative.. But really, they're just another Neo-Con looking for votes..
> 
> That's the way I see it..
> 
> If we can actually find a True Conservative who can actually follow through with Conservative Principles, we'll be in good hands..
> 
> 
> 
> Electing Palin?????  No, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly my point.
> 
> Electing Palin = Obama 2 term President.
Click to expand...


She won't run.  Level heads will not have that.


----------



## Foxfyre

I honestly am hoping there is a fresh voice out there that doesn't drag a lot of unnecessary baggage into the mix.

And here is one I' haven't made up my mind about, but I'm starting to pay attention:  He admits he is praying about it and wants all of us who pray to also pray with him.



> *HERMAN CAIN* (from Wiki)
> 
> Cain was born and raised in Georgia. He earned a bachelor's degree in Mathematics at Morehouse College in 1967, and a master's degree in computer science from Purdue University.
> 
> Cain worked as a mathematician for the Department of the Navy, a business analyst for the Coca-Cola Company, and for the Pillsbury Company, where he became Vice-President of Corporate Systems and Services within three years. Cain hoped to reach a corporate presidency, and to pursue this goal he decided to resign his senior position and move into the restaurant industry. Cain entered Pillsbury's Burger King division, where he worked his way up from making hamburgers to managing 400 restaurants in the Philadelphia region. Under Cain's leadership, the region went from being the chain's worst-performing in the country to its best.[citation needed] In 1986, Cain was appointed head of Pillsbury's struggling Godfather's Pizza chain, which he restored to profitability in 14 months, and organized a buyout of the company from Pillsbury in 1988. Cain went on to serve on the board of the National Restaurant Association, chairing the board from 1994 to 1995 and becoming President and CEO in 1996. In 1999 Cain became President of RetailDNA.[



Here's a couple of clips giving a flavor of what he is about.  The second is very short and bears hearing:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hya-UpeZANc]YouTube - Herman Cain at the Atlanta FairTax Rally[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxXg1gbxJYs]YouTube - Herman Cain at SRLC hints at dark horse[/ame]


----------



## Dante

California Girl said:


> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Pork
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes



*There is always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong.* -HLM


----------



## nraforlife

California Girl said:


> ................Suffice to say, if you clamp down on the spiraling costs that the private sector incur in development, cut fraud and waste.... you'll find more than 5%. ............




In other words YOU have not a clue beyond your meaningless vomited talking point. Combined I have worked 30 years in the Armed Services  and in providing those Services the Tools of their Trade. What basis do you have for YOUR opinion other than the pure joy of hearing yourself babble, eh?


I will tell you the Reality one more time. There are TWO and ONLY two ways to make significant reductions in Military spending:

1) End the Wars in the M.E. Actually USING a military is incredibly expensive. 5X or more the cost of the same size force in being in garrison.

2) Disband divisions, mothball ships, ground planes- a smaller military


----------



## Rinata

The Tea Party Patriots are nothing new. Check out this article from the Boston Herald:

Barack Obama navigated his way into the White House on a mantra of Change You Can Believe In. Today on the Common, Sarah Palin will preach the gospel of Change We Dont Want. The Tea Party patriots will cheer for a return to that monochromatic world, where Ricky, Wally and The Beav had supper served up to them every night by a mother who stayed home to cook and clean in pearls and high heels.

The patriots are throwbacks to the bad old days - BostonHerald.com


----------



## Cuyo

The tea partiers don't know what they want.  What they believe they want, they do not understand.  Effectively they're just rah-rah-USA governmental malcontents; They have no real platform.

They will march off into the dustbin of history and in a year or so the whole "Movement" will look silly.  Really silly, like a rainbow afro-wig.  "Remember when all those idiots used to gather and have "Tea Parties?""


----------



## geauxtohell

California Girl said:


> 1 Protect the Constitution



Let's start here.

What the hell does this mean?

Ready?

Go!


----------



## Samson

geauxtohell said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start here.
> 
> What the hell does this mean?
> 
> Ready?
> 
> Go!
Click to expand...


Duh.

It means we need to place the Consitution in a condom.


----------



## Cuyo

Samson said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start here.
> 
> What the hell does this mean?
> 
> Ready?
> 
> Go!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh.
> 
> It means we need to place the Consitution in a condom.
Click to expand...


----------



## boedicca

geauxtohell said:


> Let's start here.
> 
> What the hell does this mean?
> 
> Ready?
> 
> Go!




Here's a few for starters:

- Not mangling the Commerce Clause to force individuals to purchase something against their wills.

- Not destroying the 2nd Amendment with inane gun control laws based upon cosmetics.

- Not allowing the Feds to put unfunded mandates upon the States.


----------



## geauxtohell

Samson said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start here.
> 
> What the hell does this mean?
> 
> Ready?
> 
> Go!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duh.
> 
> It means we need to place the Consitution in a condom.
Click to expand...


LMAO!

I mean, seriously, though. 

Teabaggers to America:  



> "Okay, here are our demands.  We are going to start off with some vague, feel-good language that no two Americans will ever fully agree on.  Now you can't say we aren't offering up solutions!"


----------



## geauxtohell

boedicca said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start here.
> 
> What the hell does this mean?
> 
> Ready?
> 
> Go!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a few for starters:
> 
> - Not mangling the Commerce Clause to force individuals to purchase something against their wills.
> 
> - Not destroying the 2nd Amendment with inane gun control laws based upon cosmetics.
> 
> - Not allowing the Feds to put unfunded mandates upon the States.
Click to expand...


According to whom?  This is the problem with the whole "I claim fiat on what the Constitution really means!" line of thought.

If there was a 100% consensus on what the constitution truly said, we wouldn't need the Supreme Court, now would we?

It's completely fucking lame, and so is anyone that buys into it.

They might as well started off with this:

1.  Chocolate ice cream for all. 

I mean, at least that is somewhat quantifiable for crying out loud.


----------



## boedicca

It's written in English.

Try reading it some time.


----------



## Rick

Ok, that's what you want. HOW do you get it?


----------



## geauxtohell

boedicca said:


> It's written in English.
> 
> Try reading it some time.



I'll take that lame retort to mean that, deep down inside, you know I am right.

Teabagger demand #2:

2.)  Bubble-gum for everyone!


----------



## Samson

geauxtohell said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start here.
> 
> What the hell does this mean?
> 
> Ready?
> 
> Go!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a few for starters:
> 
> - Not mangling the Commerce Clause to force individuals to purchase something against their wills.
> 
> - Not destroying the 2nd Amendment with inane gun control laws based upon cosmetics.
> 
> - Not allowing the Feds to put unfunded mandates upon the States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to whom?  This is the problem with the whole "I claim fiat on what the Constitution really means!" line of thought.
> 
> If there was a 100% consensus on what the constitution truly said, we wouldn't need the Supreme Court, now would we?
Click to expand...


I interpret "protect the constitution" it to mean the textualist and strict constructionist approach to judicial (Supreme Court) application.


----------



## geauxtohell

Samson said:


> I interpret "protect the constitution" it to mean the textualist and strict constructionist approach to judicial (Supreme Court) application.



Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of their role as is laid out in the constitution.

And so it goes.


----------



## Foxfyre

geauxtohell said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I interpret "protect the constitution" it to mean the textualist and strict constructionist approach to judicial (Supreme Court) application.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of their role as is laid out in the constitution.
> 
> And so it goes.
Click to expand...


Is it your opinion that everyone on the Supreme Court disagrees with his interpretation?


----------



## Samson

geauxtohell said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I interpret "protect the constitution" it to mean the textualist and strict constructionist approach to judicial (Supreme Court) application.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of their role as is laid out in the constitution.
> 
> And so it goes.
Click to expand...


They do?

Are you saying no textualist and strict constructionist are on, or could be appointed to, the Supreme Court?


How do you know?


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I interpret "protect the constitution" it to mean the textualist and strict constructionist approach to judicial (Supreme Court) application.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of their role as is laid out in the constitution.
> 
> And so it goes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it your opinion that everyone on the Supreme Court disagrees with his interpretation?
Click to expand...


No, it would be John Marshall's opinion.

You know, the whole judicial review thing?


----------



## Samson

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of their role as is laid out in the constitution.
> 
> And so it goes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your opinion that everyone on the Supreme Court disagrees with his interpretation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it would be John Marshall's opinion.
> 
> You know, the whole judicial review thing?
Click to expand...


John Marshall is One Judge

You know, the eight other judges thing?


----------



## geauxtohell

Samson said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I interpret "protect the constitution" it to mean the textualist and strict constructionist approach to judicial (Supreme Court) application.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of their role as is laid out in the constitution.
> 
> And so it goes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do?
> 
> Are you saying no textualist and strict constructionist are on, or could be appointed to, the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> How do you know?
Click to expand...


What does it mean to be a textualist and strict constructionist?  

As I pointed out, the power of judicial review isn't explicitly stated in the constitution.  The Supreme Court granted it to itself in a legal case.

I have no problem with it, as I see the need for a final say of the laws of the land, but it isn't the exact role the founders had for the court when they wrote the document.

Another good example:  the second amendment.  What defines the right to "bare arms"?  What is an arm?  What was the intent?  To allow the citizenry to be adequately weaponized to stand up to the federal government?

If that was the intent, we are far from it.


----------



## boedicca

geauxtohell said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's written in English.
> 
> Try reading it some time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take that lame retort to mean that, deep down inside, you know I am right.
> 
> Teabagger demand #2:
> 
> 2.)  Bubble-gum for everyone!
Click to expand...




It's quite apparent that you have neither read The Constitution nor developed any comprehension and appreciation for it.

The Tea Party Movement is explicitly against the pork and entitlements about which you and your Progressive Thugs whinge.

If you think the Founders drafted The Constitution so that people could vote for the government to provide them goods, then you need to quit your OCD fixation with male genitalia and get an education.


----------



## geauxtohell

Samson said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your opinion that everyone on the Supreme Court disagrees with his interpretation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it would be John Marshall's opinion.
> 
> You know, the whole judicial review thing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> John Marshall is One Judge
> 
> You know, the eight other judges thing?
Click to expand...


Yeah, I know.  Marshall wrote the opinion.  

Are you not familiar with Marbury v. Madison?  

It's one of the most significant legal decisions (if not the most) in the history of this country.

Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## geauxtohell

boedicca said:


> It's quite apparent that you have neither read The Constitution nor any comprehension and appreciation for it.
> 
> The Tea Party Movement is explicitly against the pork and entitlements about which you and your Progressive Thugs whinge.



It's quite apparent that you teabaggers are completely full of shit and have no actual, workable, proposals for this country.

So instead, you've made a bunch of vague, feel-good statements that really mean nothing.



> If you think the Founders drafted The Constitution so that people could vote for the government to provide them goods, then you need to quit your OCD fixation with male genitalia and get an education.



What in the hell are you talking about?


----------



## boedicca

geauxtohell said:


> It's quite apparent that you teabaggers




You have a sick obsession - you're like a Tourette's patient with OCD.

Get help.

Or go to a website where you can find a guy willing to shove his sweaty scrotum in your mouth.


----------



## Samson

geauxtohell said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation of their role as is laid out in the constitution.
> 
> And so it goes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They do?
> 
> Are you saying no textualist and strict constructionist are on, or could be appointed to, the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> How do you know?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does it mean to be a textualist and strict constructionist?
Click to expand...


They are theories that explain how the judiciary should interpret the law, particularly constitutional documents and legislation. 

For example Antonin Scalia is a textualist, who applies literal interpretations of the Constitution (within context).


----------



## Samson

boedicca said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite apparent that you teabaggers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a sick obsession - you're like a Tourette's patient with OCD.
> 
> Get help.
> 
> Or go to a website where you can find a guy willing to shove his sweaty scrotum in your mouth.
Click to expand...




They have websites like that?

How do you know?


----------



## boedicca

A person can find pretty much anything on the internet these days, Sammy.  After all, where do you find Octo pr0n?


----------



## geauxtohell

boedicca said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite apparent that you teabaggers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a sick obsession - you're like a Tourette's patient with OCD.
> 
> Get help.
> 
> Or go to a website where you can find a guy willing to shove his sweaty scrotum in your mouth.
Click to expand...


Oh, I see.  You are another teabagger that can't stand the term "teabagger".

Hey, don't hate.  You guys came up with it first.

Have fun teabagging congress!


----------



## boedicca

geauxtohell said:


> ....teabagger ... "teabagger".
> 
> teabagging ...




Get help.


----------



## geauxtohell

Samson said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> They do?
> 
> Are you saying no textualist and strict constructionist are on, or could be appointed to, the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> How do you know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does it mean to be a textualist and strict constructionist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are theories that explain how the judiciary should interpret the law, particularly constitutional documents and legislation.
> 
> For example Antonin Scalia is a textualist, who applies literal interpretations of the Constitution (within context).
Click to expand...


The wife is a law student (about to graduate) and is an uber liberal and begrudgingly admits that she enjoys reading Scalia's opinions (until he does something that really aggravates her).  

All that being said:  the power of judicial review is not explicitly laid out for the court in the constitution.

There are people on this board that will argue that judicial review is unconstitutional and that states have the right to secede and that the reconstruction amendments are unconstitutional. 

My point is this:  if there was a complete consensus on the constitution, we wouldn't all be here bickering today.  

That's why superfluous language from the teabaggers is just idiotic.


----------



## geauxtohell

By the way....

I thought the teabagger recognized no official leader and was completely autonomous?

Who drafted these planks?


----------



## Samson

boedicca said:


> A person can find pretty much anything on the internet these days, Sammy.  After all, where do you find Octo pr0n?



I found "Octo pr0n?

What is Octo pr0n?

Ménage à oct?


----------



## Samson

geauxtohell said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does it mean to be a textualist and strict constructionist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are theories that explain how the judiciary should interpret the law, particularly constitutional documents and legislation.
> 
> For example Antonin Scalia is a textualist, who applies literal interpretations of the Constitution (within context).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wife is a law student (about to graduate) and is an uber liberal and begrudgingly admits that she enjoys reading Scalia's opinions (until he does something that really aggravates her).
> 
> All that being said:  the power of judicial review is not explicitly laid out for the court in the constitution.
> 
> There are people on this board that will argue that judicial review is unconstitutional and that states have the right to secede and that the reconstruction amendments are unconstitutional.
> 
> My point is this:  if there was a complete consensus on the constitution, we wouldn't all be here bickering today.
> 
> That's why superfluous language from the teabaggers is just idiotic.
Click to expand...


Everyone should read dissenting opinions: They can really be entertaining, although I cannot recall reading Scalia's.

At any rate, I'm not arguing for complete consensus on the constitution, I'm only trying to interpret what the Tea Party means by "protecting the constitution."

This isn't really all that original, or superfluous, its simply another judicial theory.


----------



## geauxtohell

boedicca said:


> Get help.



Get bent.


----------



## geauxtohell

Samson said:


> Everyone should read dissenting opinions: They can really be entertaining, although I cannot recall reading Scalia's.
> 
> At any rate, I'm not arguing for complete consensus on the constitution, I'm only trying to interpret what the Tea Party means by "protecting the constitution."
> 
> This isn't really all that original, or superfluous, its simply another judicial theory.



I realize that.  I am just pointing out that it is vague, feel-good language that really says nothing.

Even the "strict constitutionalist" talking point usually means "opinions that personally I agree with" in most instance.


----------



## Samson

geauxtohell said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should read dissenting opinions: They can really be entertaining, although I cannot recall reading Scalia's.
> 
> At any rate, I'm not arguing for complete consensus on the constitution, I'm only trying to interpret what the Tea Party means by "protecting the constitution."
> 
> This isn't really all that original, or superfluous, its simply another judicial theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that.  I am just pointing out that it is vague, feel-good language that really says nothing.
> 
> Even the "strict constitutionalist" talking point usually means "opinions that personally I agree with" in most instance.
Click to expand...


No, actually a strict constitutionalist is the opposite of opinions (or interpretations) with which the judiciary agrees. What you are descrbing is the developmentalist approach.

Meh....you should read the Democratic Party's 2008 Platform's position on Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants for "feel-good language that really says nothing." And, before you think this is some partisan rant, I'll assume there are equally Bullshit Filled portions of the RNC's 2008 platform.


----------



## geauxtohell

Samson said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone should read dissenting opinions: They can really be entertaining, although I cannot recall reading Scalia's.
> 
> At any rate, I'm not arguing for complete consensus on the constitution, I'm only trying to interpret what the Tea Party means by "protecting the constitution."
> 
> This isn't really all that original, or superfluous, its simply another judicial theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that.  I am just pointing out that it is vague, feel-good language that really says nothing.
> 
> Even the "strict constitutionalist" talking point usually means "opinions that personally I agree with" in most instance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, actually a strict constitutionalist is the opposite of opinions (or interpretations) with which the judiciary agrees. What you are descrbing is the developmentalist approach.
> 
> Meh....you should read the Democratic Party's 2008 Platform's position on Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants for "feel-good language that really says nothing." And, before you think this is some partisan rant, I'll assume there are equally Bullshit Filled portions of the RNC's 2008 platform.
Click to expand...


I agree that both parties have a bunch of fluff.  They probably also have more than 20 or so sentences that are substantive in there somewhere.


----------



## Samson

geauxtohell said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that.  I am just pointing out that it is vague, feel-good language that really says nothing.
> 
> Even the "strict constitutionalist" talking point usually means "opinions that personally I agree with" in most instance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually a strict constitutionalist is the opposite of opinions (or interpretations) with which the judiciary agrees. What you are descrbing is the developmentalist approach.
> 
> Meh....you should read the Democratic Party's 2008 Platform's position on Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants for "feel-good language that really says nothing." And, before you think this is some partisan rant, I'll assume there are equally Bullshit Filled portions of the RNC's 2008 platform.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that both parties have a bunch of fluff.  They probably also have more than 20 or so sentences that are substantive in there somewhere.
Click to expand...


LMAO.....for what they're worth.....e.g.

The Republican Platform stated, "WE OPPOSE AMNESTY."


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually a strict constitutionalist is the opposite of opinions (or interpretations) with which the judiciary agrees. What you are descrbing is the developmentalist approach.
> 
> Meh....you should read the Democratic Party's 2008 Platform's position on Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants for "feel-good language that really says nothing." And, before you think this is some partisan rant, I'll assume there are equally Bullshit Filled portions of the RNC's 2008 platform.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that both parties have a bunch of fluff.  They probably also have more than 20 or so sentences that are substantive in there somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO.....for what they're worth.....e.g.
> 
> The Republican Platform stated, "WE OPPOSE AMNESTY."
Click to expand...


Yes, they do.  And I wish the Contract From America had dealt with illegal immigration, and in time it may if Congress tries to ram something else they don't want down the throats of the people prior to the 2010 election.

The murmurings are now that the GOP is putting together its own statement of commitment much like the Contract With America they used in 1994.   They still have a long way to go though to convince the people that they aren't just talking the talk but won't walk the walk.

I know the 10 Key Points of the Contract From America has already been posted, but it seems appropriate to keep it right on top of the discussion in this thread:

*And the top ten are*
1. Protect the Constitution
2. Reject Cap & Trade
3. Demand a Balanced Budget
4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
6. End Runaway Government Spending
7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
8. Pass an All-of-the-Above Energy Policy
9. Stop the Pork
10. Stop the Tax Hikes

The 10 points are expanded at the website:
Contract FROM America


----------



## nraforlife

Rinata said:


> The Tea Party Patriots are nothing new. Check out this article from the Boston Herald:
> 
> Barack Obama navigated his way into the White House on a mantra of Change You Can Believe In. Today on the Common, Sarah Palin will preach the gospel of Change We Dont Want. The Tea Party patriots will cheer for a return to that monochromatic world, where Ricky, Wally and The Beav had supper served up to them every night by a mother who stayed home to cook and clean in pearls and high heels.
> 
> The patriots are throwbacks to the bad old days - BostonHerald.com



Sooooo, tell us just why you find the feral world of urban decay (which makes 'Lord of the Flies' and 'Escape from New York' look kinda warm & fuzzy by comparison) in which far too many of the young must exist today superior.


----------



## geauxtohell

Samson said:


> LMAO.....for what they're worth.....e.g.
> 
> The Republican Platform stated, "WE OPPOSE AMNESTY."



That at least has more teeth in it than "uphold the constitution".


----------



## nraforlife

geauxtohell said:


> .......................If there was a 100% consensus on what the constitution truly said, we wouldn't need the Supreme Court, now would we?
> 
> ............................................




The vast majority of those who see a 'need' for the corrupt version of a supreme court be are saddled with today are people who simply do not wish to be constrained by what the Constitution actually says.

The document is sufficiently straighforward that even a caveman (an honest one) can understand.


----------



## geauxtohell

nraforlife said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......................If there was a 100% consensus on what the constitution truly said, we wouldn't need the Supreme Court, now would we?
> 
> ............................................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of those who see a 'need' for the corrupt version of a supreme court be are saddled with today are people who simply do not wish to be constrained by what the Constitution actually says.
> 
> The document is sufficiently straighforward that even a caveman (an honest one) can understand.
Click to expand...


Considering that judicial review has been the law of the land for 210 years, you are a little late to lodge your complaint.


----------



## Samson

geauxtohell said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> .......................If there was a 100% consensus on what the constitution truly said, we wouldn't need the Supreme Court, now would we?
> 
> ............................................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of those who see a 'need' for the corrupt version of a supreme court be are saddled with today are people who simply do not wish to be constrained by what the Constitution actually says.
> 
> The document is sufficiently straighforward that even a caveman (an honest one) can understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Considering that judicial review has been the law of the land for 210 years, you are a little late to lodge your complaint.
Click to expand...


You're confusing Judicial Review with Judicial Interpretation. No one is arguing that the supreme court should use the US Constitution to compare with legislation and executive order (Judicial Review). The question is HOW to interpret the constitution: Literally? Figureatively?

The Tea Party favors a more literal interpretation.



geauxtohell said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMAO.....for what they're worth.....e.g.
> 
> The Republican Platform stated, "WE OPPOSE AMNESTY."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That at least has more teeth in it than "uphold the constitution".
Click to expand...



Meh...toothless rhetoric isn't toothless rhetoric until the speaker has a chance to back their words with action and fails: So far, Republicans have consistantly failed


----------



## geauxtohell

Samson said:


> You're confusing Judicial Review with Judicial Interpretation. No one is arguing that the supreme court should use the US Constitution to compare with legislation and executive order (Judicial Review). The question is HOW to interpret the constitution: Literally? Figureatively?



That's not true.  There are people that very much believe that judicial review was an unconstitutional power grab.  It might not be inherent to the tea party, but my larger point is that if you split enough hairs, eventually no two Americans are going to agree on what the constitution actually says. 



> The Tea Party favors a more literal interpretation.



Then why didn't they word their platform to say that?



> Meh...toothless rhetoric isn't toothless rhetoric until the speaker has a chance to back their words with action and fails: So far, Republicans have consistantly failed



I agree with that, but at least the GOP is opposing a specific policy initiative.  Like I said, we don't have to wonder what they mean by that phrase.


----------



## California Girl

Zona said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like what, eh? Lets be specific- proram/service branch/ $ you expect to save. The wasteage you imagine just ain't there. Ya wanna cut military costs its going to be pretty much proportional to headcount reductions and war count reductions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, little man.... I am not here to go through the defense budge item by item with you to decide where we should cut. Suffice to say, if you clamp down on the spiraling costs that the private sector incur in development, cut fraud and waste.... you'll find more than 5%. Treat it like any business would treat its budget. If we ran government like a business - with accountability for expenditure, we would soon get control over it. The major problem with government and public sector is that they view taxpayers as a bottomless pit of cash. Because they don't need to 'make a profit' they don't care what they spend or whether the money actually achieves anything.... They spend it because they can.
> 
> Well, the TEA Parties say 'enough is enough'. I agree. Enough is enough. Obama has taken the mess that Bush left and made it 100% worse. I don't blame Obama, I don't blame Bush. I blame us - 'we, the People' sat back and let them pillage our nation. Shame on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say this now, but here is what makes you a hack, YOU DIDNT SAY A WORD DURING BUSH'S HELL ON EARTH FOR 8 YEARS.  Not a fucking word.
> 
> All of a sudden, you guys have "had enough".  ALL OF A SUDDEN.
Click to expand...



Just for fun, exactly how do YOU know what I did or did not say about Bush? Fucking idiot. Grasp one single solitary concept, zona.... I am an individual.... just because the left practice 'group think' does not mean that everyone does. 

I am not 'you guys', I am me. At the risk of repeating myself.... Fucking Idiot.


----------



## Samson

geauxtohell said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing Judicial Review with Judicial Interpretation. No one is arguing that the supreme court should use the US Constitution to compare with legislation and executive order (Judicial Review). The question is HOW to interpret the constitution: Literally? Figureatively?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true.  There are people that very much believe that judicial review was an unconstitutional power grab.  It might not be inherent to the tea party, but my larger point is that if you split enough hairs, eventually no two Americans are going to agree on what the constitution actually says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party favors a more literal interpretation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why didn't they word their platform to say that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meh...toothless rhetoric isn't toothless rhetoric until the speaker has a chance to back their words with action and fails: So far, Republicans have consistantly failed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with that, but at least the GOP is opposing a specific policy initiative.  Like I said, we don't have to wonder what they mean by that phrase.
Click to expand...


Phttttt....ok, so you prefer you lies to be easy to understand. Grrreat.

At any rate, I'd suggest you brase yourself fo disappointment. The Tea Party, is not a political party, but simply groups of individuals. Expecting much clarity from the mob is a little naive.

I'm certain there are people that believe Judicial review is unconstitutional. There are also people who believe in little green men. There's all sorts of ridiculous conspiracy theorists:

You asked what "Protect the Constitution" meant in the context of the Tea Party. I gave you an answer: Literal Interpretation during Judicial Review.


----------



## Rinata

nraforlife said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party Patriots are nothing new. Check out this article from the Boston Herald:
> 
> Barack Obama navigated his way into the White House on a mantra of Change You Can Believe In. Today on the Common, Sarah Palin will preach the gospel of Change We Dont Want. The Tea Party patriots will cheer for a return to that monochromatic world, where Ricky, Wally and The Beav had supper served up to them every night by a mother who stayed home to cook and clean in pearls and high heels.
> 
> The patriots are throwbacks to the bad old days - BostonHerald.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo, tell us just why you find the feral world of urban decay (which makes 'Lord of the Flies' and 'Escape from New York' look kinda warm & fuzzy by comparison) in which far too many of the young must exist today superior.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry but you sure don't know how to structure a sentence. What in the hell are you trying to ask???


----------



## Si modo

Rinata said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party Patriots are nothing new. Check out this article from the Boston Herald:
> 
> Barack Obama navigated his way into the White House on a mantra of &#8220;Change You Can Believe In.&#8221; Today on the Common, Sarah Palin will preach the gospel of Change We Don&#8217;t Want. The Tea Party patriots will cheer for a return to that monochromatic world, where Ricky, Wally and The Beav had supper served up to them every night by a mother who stayed home to cook and clean in pearls and high heels.
> 
> The patriots are throwbacks to the bad old days - BostonHerald.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo, tell us just why you find the feral world of urban decay (which makes 'Lord of the Flies' and 'Escape from New York' look kinda warm & fuzzy by comparison) in which far too many of the young must exist today superior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but you sure don't know how to structure a sentence. What in the hell are you trying to ask???
Click to expand...


I know that the complex confuses the simple, so we'll go simple.  The poster wants to know why you find urban decay superior.  


Damn, I have to log off.  The stupid is thick this afternoon with rinata and truthmatters posting at the same time.  [edit]  And rdean is posting now.  Aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrgh! [/edit]


----------



## California Girl

Si modo said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo, tell us just why you find the feral world of urban decay (which makes 'Lord of the Flies' and 'Escape from New York' look kinda warm & fuzzy by comparison) in which far too many of the young must exist today superior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but you sure don't know how to structure a sentence. What in the hell are you trying to ask???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that the complex confuses the simple, so we'll go simple.  The poster wants to know why you find urban decay superior.
> 
> 
> Damn, I have to log off.  The stupid is thick this afternoon with rinata and truthmatters posting at the same time.  [edit]  And rdean is posting now.  Aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrgh! [/edit]
Click to expand...


I am particularly entertained by Rinata's "The TEA parties are not 'new'... then links to a media article.   Look!! A journalist says so, so it's true. 

Rinata is stupid. That's a sad but true fact.


----------



## Rinata

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but you sure don't know how to structure a sentence. What in the hell are you trying to ask???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that the complex confuses the simple, so we'll go simple.  The poster wants to know why you find urban decay superior.
> 
> 
> Damn, I have to log off.  The stupid is thick this afternoon with rinata and truthmatters posting at the same time.  [edit]  And rdean is posting now.  Aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrgh! [/edit]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am particularly entertained by Rinata's "The TEA parties are not 'new'... then links to a media article.   Look!! A journalist says so, so it's true.
> 
> Rinata is stupid. That's a sad but true fact.
Click to expand...


This from the stupid bitch that does not get her news from the MSM. Yet refuses to say where she does get it. Out of the air??? I don't think you know anything about anything. Your only goal is to be an insulting, mean, obnoxious loser. You can't even do that without backup from the other loser.

Now I want to see you both go and whine to the mods about me. I have totally ignored you two. But that's your pattern, isn't it?? Start shit, and then go whining to the mods. Stupid bitches.


----------



## Rinata

Si modo said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooo, tell us just why you find the feral world of urban decay (which makes 'Lord of the Flies' and 'Escape from New York' look kinda warm & fuzzy by comparison) in which far too many of the young must exist today superior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but you sure don't know how to structure a sentence. What in the hell are you trying to ask???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that the complex confuses the simple, so we'll go simple.  The poster wants to know why you find urban decay superior.
> 
> 
> Damn, I have to log off.  The stupid is thick this afternoon with rinata and truthmatters posting at the same time.  [edit]  And rdean is posting now.  Aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrgh! [/edit]
Click to expand...


The other stupid bitch that cannot post by herself without backup from stupid bitch number 1. This time try not to whine to the mods and send me threatening messages. You started it, you cow. Geez, you two are so worthless.


----------



## Rinata

You two are so jealous of me, it isn't even funny!!!


----------



## Rinata

California Girl said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, little man.... I am not here to go through the defense budge item by item with you to decide where we should cut. Suffice to say, if you clamp down on the spiraling costs that the private sector incur in development, cut fraud and waste.... you'll find more than 5%. Treat it like any business would treat its budget. If we ran government like a business - with accountability for expenditure, we would soon get control over it. The major problem with government and public sector is that they view taxpayers as a bottomless pit of cash. Because they don't need to 'make a profit' they don't care what they spend or whether the money actually achieves anything.... They spend it because they can.
> 
> Well, the TEA Parties say 'enough is enough'. I agree. Enough is enough. Obama has taken the mess that Bush left and made it 100% worse. I don't blame Obama, I don't blame Bush. I blame us - 'we, the People' sat back and let them pillage our nation. Shame on us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say this now, but here is what makes you a hack, YOU DIDNT SAY A WORD DURING BUSH'S HELL ON EARTH FOR 8 YEARS.  Not a fucking word.
> 
> All of a sudden, you guys have "had enough".  ALL OF A SUDDEN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just for fun, exactly how do YOU know what I did or did not say about Bush? Fucking idiot. Grasp one single solitary concept, zona.... I am an individual.... just because the left practice 'group think' does not mean that everyone does.
> 
> I am not 'you guys', I am me. At the risk of repeating myself.... Fucking Idiot.
Click to expand...


Oh, please!!! You are exactly like every other right wing idiot. There is nothing different or special about you. So stop fooling yourself and stop TRYING to fool others. You're just one of the bunch, dearie.


----------



## NYcarbineer

California Girl said:


> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Pork
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes



That's the same agenda the Republican party professes to support.

Case closed.


----------



## California Girl

Rinata said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say this now, but here is what makes you a hack, YOU DIDNT SAY A WORD DURING BUSH'S HELL ON EARTH FOR 8 YEARS.  Not a fucking word.
> 
> All of a sudden, you guys have "had enough".  ALL OF A SUDDEN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just for fun, exactly how do YOU know what I did or did not say about Bush? Fucking idiot. Grasp one single solitary concept, zona.... I am an individual.... just because the left practice 'group think' does not mean that everyone does.
> 
> I am not 'you guys', I am me. At the risk of repeating myself.... Fucking Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please!!! You are exactly like every other right wing idiot. There is nothing different or special about you. So stop fooling yourself and stop TRYING to fool others. You're just one of the bunch, dearie.
Click to expand...


Now, here is something that no one will see me say very often. 

Fuck off and die in a ditch, bitch. I haven't forgotten.


----------



## Truthmatters

Cali can you tell us how you differ from the republican party and the tea party in your views?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Does the Tea Party support repealing Medicare Part D?

1.  It was massive expansion of government healthcare

2.  It was not funded and represents a multi-trillion dollar unfunded, ongoing, and future liability.

Repeal?  Don't repeal?  and if not, why not?


----------



## The T

Truthmatters said:


> Cali can you tell us how you differ from the republican party and the tea party in your views?


 
It's only been stated by CG _ad infinitum _since she's been here_._


----------



## NYcarbineer

California Girl said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, little man.... I am not here to go through the defense budge item by item with you to decide where we should cut. Suffice to say, if you clamp down on the spiraling costs that the private sector incur in development, cut fraud and waste.... you'll find more than 5%. Treat it like any business would treat its budget. If we ran government like a business - with accountability for expenditure, we would soon get control over it. The major problem with government and public sector is that they view taxpayers as a bottomless pit of cash. Because they don't need to 'make a profit' they don't care what they spend or whether the money actually achieves anything.... They spend it because they can.
> 
> Well, the TEA Parties say 'enough is enough'. I agree. Enough is enough. Obama has taken the mess that Bush left and made it 100% worse. I don't blame Obama, I don't blame Bush. I blame us - 'we, the People' sat back and let them pillage our nation. Shame on us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say this now, but here is what makes you a hack, YOU DIDNT SAY A WORD DURING BUSH'S HELL ON EARTH FOR 8 YEARS.  Not a fucking word.
> 
> All of a sudden, you guys have "had enough".  ALL OF A SUDDEN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just for fun, exactly how do YOU know what I did or did not say about Bush? Fucking idiot. Grasp one single solitary concept, zona.... I am an individual.... just because the left practice 'group think' does not mean that everyone does.
> 
> I am not 'you guys', I am me. At the risk of repeating myself.... Fucking Idiot.
Click to expand...


You start a thread about what the Tea Party thinks, as a group, and then you ridicule the left with a charge of 'groupthink'?

Very funny.  And yes we know you supported Bush.  We know who are and who you were in the past.


----------



## NYcarbineer

The T said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cali can you tell us how you differ from the republican party and the tea party in your views?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's only been stated by CG _ad infinitum _since she's been here_._
Click to expand...


No let's hear you do it.

List 3, just 3, significant position differences between a consensus in the GOP and a consensus among Tea Partiers.  In other words 3 positions that most GOP'ers support that most Tea Partiers do not.

Just 3, shouldn't take you a minute.  Then you can link to that post whenever someone repeats the question.

Just 3.


----------



## Toro

California Girl said:


> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Pork
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes



Its very vague.  

On limiting government, tell us how much of social security, medicare, veterans affairs and defense you want to cut since those account for 70% of the federal government.  Throw in interest on the debt - can't cut that - and that's 75%.  Social programs and welfare are 15% and everything else is 10%.  Total revenues are currently about 60% of spending, meaning you would have to cut 40% of the total budget.  So, since you are for balancing the budget, what do you suggest we eliminate?


----------



## The T

NYcarbineer said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cali can you tell us how you differ from the republican party and the tea party in your views?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's only been stated by CG _ad infinitum _since she's been here_._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No let's hear you do it.
> 
> List 3, just 3, significant position differences between a consensus in the GOP and a consensus among Tea Partiers. In other words 3 positions that most GOP'ers support that most Tea Partiers do not.
> 
> Just 3, shouldn't take you a minute. Then you can link to that post whenever someone repeats the question.
> 
> Just 3.
Click to expand...

 
It won't take 3 _dipshit._ These are people whom are Conservatives in thier thinking. And One doesn't NEED to be associated with a 'Party' since these are CORE beliefs that go back to the Founders before the advent of any popular 'Party'.

Ball's in your court dumbass.


----------



## Samson

Toro said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Pork
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its very vague.
> 
> On limiting government, tell us how much of social security, medicare, veterans affairs and defense you want to cut since those account for 70% of the federal government.  Throw in interest on the debt - can't cut that - and that's 75%.  Social programs and welfare are 15% and everything else is 10%.  Total revenues are currently about 60% of spending, meaning you would have to cut 40% of the total budget.  So, since you are for balancing the budget, what do you suggest we eliminate?
Click to expand...


Eliminiate???? Federal Government Programs????

OMG Every Single One is Vital to Preserving the Home of The Brave!!

To balance the Federal budget, I'd suggest simply spending less than the Feds bring in.

I know, pretty wild and crazy.


----------



## Annie

NYcarbineer said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cali can you tell us how you differ from the republican party and the tea party in your views?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's only been stated by CG _ad infinitum _since she's been here_._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No let's hear you do it.
> 
> List 3, just 3, significant position differences between a consensus in the GOP and a consensus among Tea Partiers.  In other words 3 positions that most GOP'ers support that most Tea Partiers do not.
> 
> Just 3, shouldn't take you a minute.  Then you can link to that post whenever someone repeats the question.
> 
> Just 3.
Click to expand...

Contrary to what some 'tea parties' put out, there is no central 'core' beliefs. What many at tea parties do feel is that:

1. government is too big, grown to an unsustainable and oppressive size by the representatives of both parties. The difference is in degrees, meaning the speed of growth.

2. government needs to be shrunk back to its stated responsibilities in the constitution. Neither major party have shown any propensity towards such.

3. government should work for the people, not the other way around. Meaning the laws should protect life, liberties, and property. That is not what has been happening for nearly a decade, indeed more of our property rights are being confiscated without available redress.


----------



## Truthmatters

How does that differ from the republican stance?


----------



## Truthmatters

The T said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cali can you tell us how you differ from the republican party and the tea party in your views?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's only been stated by CG _ad infinitum _since she's been here_._
Click to expand...


I have never seen it can you link me to the post?


----------



## The T

Annie said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's only been stated by CG _ad infinitum _since she's been here_._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No let's hear you do it.
> 
> List 3, just 3, significant position differences between a consensus in the GOP and a consensus among Tea Partiers. In other words 3 positions that most GOP'ers support that most Tea Partiers do not.
> 
> Just 3, shouldn't take you a minute. Then you can link to that post whenever someone repeats the question.
> 
> Just 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Contrary to what some 'tea parties' put out, there is no central 'core' beliefs. What many at tea parties do feel is that:
> 
> 1. government is too big, grown to an unsustainable and oppressive size by the representatives of both parties. The difference is in degrees, meaning the speed of growth.
> 
> 2. government needs to be shrunk back to its stated responsibilities in the constitution. Neither major party have shown any propensity towards such.
> 
> 3. government should work for the people, not the other way around. Meaning the laws should protect life, liberties, and property. That is not what has been happening for nearly a decade, indeed more of our property rights are being confiscated without available redress.
Click to expand...

 
This among other things would be it.


----------



## Foxfyre

Annie said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's only been stated by CG _ad infinitum _since she's been here_._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No let's hear you do it.
> 
> List 3, just 3, significant position differences between a consensus in the GOP and a consensus among Tea Partiers.  In other words 3 positions that most GOP'ers support that most Tea Partiers do not.
> 
> Just 3, shouldn't take you a minute.  Then you can link to that post whenever someone repeats the question.
> 
> Just 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Contrary to what some 'tea parties' put out, there is no central 'core' beliefs. What many at tea parties do feel is that:
> 
> 1. government is too big, grown to an unsustainable and oppressive size by the representatives of both parties. The difference is in degrees, meaning the speed of growth.
> 
> 2. government needs to be shrunk back to its stated responsibilities in the constitution. Neither major party have shown any propensity towards such.
> 
> 3. government should work for the people, not the other way around. Meaning the laws should protect life, liberties, and property. That is not what has been happening for nearly a decade, indeed more of our property rights are being confiscated without available redress.
Click to expand...


All good points.

If you boil down the core theme from the Tea Parties you get a simple consensus that the people want the federal government to carry out its Constitutional duties, secure the rights of the people, and then get out of the way and allow them to live their lives.


----------



## Rinata

California Girl said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just for fun, exactly how do YOU know what I did or did not say about Bush? Fucking idiot. Grasp one single solitary concept, zona.... I am an individual.... just because the left practice 'group think' does not mean that everyone does.
> 
> I am not 'you guys', I am me. At the risk of repeating myself.... Fucking Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please!!! You are exactly like every other right wing idiot. There is nothing different or special about you. So stop fooling yourself and stop TRYING to fool others. You're just one of the bunch, dearie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, here is something that no one will see me say very often.
> 
> Fuck off and die in a ditch, bitch. I haven't forgotten.
Click to expand...


Don't be so modest. I've heard you say a lot worse. And what is it you haven't forgotten?? How to act like a decent human being???


----------



## Toro

Samson said:


> Eliminiate???? Federal Government Programs????
> 
> OMG Every Single One is Vital to Preserving the Home of The Brave!!
> 
> To balance the Federal budget, I'd suggest simply spending less than the Feds bring in.
> 
> I know, pretty wild and crazy.



We're talking about more than one program.  They are talking about nearly half the government.  What 40% of the government should they eliminate?  

Actually, if you follow the Tea Party people, they want to cut taxes too, which means cutting even more than 40% to balance the budget.

So what should they cut?  Its a huge amount.  And why don't they articulate what they want to cut?  Its easy to say "cut spending." 

Here is a passage from a poll Willow posted in a thread she started.



> Their responses are like the general public&#8217;s in many ways. Most describe the amount they paid in taxes this year as &#8220;fair.&#8221; Most send their children to public schools. A plurality do not think Sarah Palin  is qualified to be president, and, despite their push for smaller government, they think that Social Security and Medicare are worth the cost to taxpayers. They actually are just as likely as Americans as a whole to have returned their census forms, though some conservative leaders have urged a boycott.



http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...arty-backers-wealthier-and-more-educated.html
Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated - NYTimes.com

So, since most think that social security and medicare are worth their tax dollars, that means they would have to cut two-thirds of the remaining 60% of the government.  I imagine most don't want to cut defense, so that means if they believe in always balancing the budget, they would have to cut every single other item of government, _and they still wouldn't balance the budget._

See, reality intrudes into ideals.  Ask people specifically what they want to eliminate, and most don't want to eliminate programs they either believe in or benefit from.

Its quite disheartening, actually, because the road we are on is untenable.


----------



## Foxfyre

Toro said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Pork
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its very vague.
> 
> On limiting government, tell us how much of social security, medicare, veterans affairs and defense you want to cut since those account for 70% of the federal government.  Throw in interest on the debt - can't cut that - and that's 75%.  Social programs and welfare are 15% and everything else is 10%.  Total revenues are currently about 60% of spending, meaning you would have to cut 40% of the total budget.  So, since you are for balancing the budget, what do you suggest we eliminate?
Click to expand...


This wasn't directed to me, but if I may. . . .

The national defense is constitutionally mandated, but it could be pared back to its constitutional intent by eliminating the graft and corruption inherent in contracts and other favors that Congress directs to favored constituents.   A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would begin the process to do that.

Social programs should not be the prerogative of the Federal government as there is no Constitutional authority for them.   A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would recognize that you can't just dump the programs without creating unconscionable hardship on people those programs have made dependent.  But we could start the slow process of phasing out those we don't have to have and transferring the rest to the states where they properly belong.  We don't have to just allow them to continue to grow and fester in their current unsustainable state.

Once you remove the Federal government's ability to buy votes by dispensing favored status or gifts to anybody, you would be surprised how much less money it would require to run the Federal government at all levels.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Annie said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's only been stated by CG _ad infinitum _since she's been here_._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No let's hear you do it.
> 
> List 3, just 3, significant position differences between a consensus in the GOP and a consensus among Tea Partiers.  In other words 3 positions that most GOP'ers support that most Tea Partiers do not.
> 
> Just 3, shouldn't take you a minute.  Then you can link to that post whenever someone repeats the question.
> 
> Just 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Contrary to what some 'tea parties' put out, there is no central 'core' beliefs. What many at tea parties do feel is that:
> 
> 1. government is too big, grown to an unsustainable and oppressive size by the representatives of both parties. The difference is in degrees, meaning the speed of growth.
> 
> 2. government needs to be shrunk back to its stated responsibilities in the constitution. Neither major party have shown any propensity towards such.
> 
> 3. government should work for the people, not the other way around. Meaning the laws should protect life, liberties, and property. That is not what has been happening for nearly a decade, indeed more of our property rights are being confiscated without available redress.
Click to expand...


Now show us where the Republican party does not support those principles.

btw, why do Tea Partiers by 2 to 1 support Medicare and Social Security?  Is there any semblance of a consensus among Tea Partiers to cut defense spending?

...given that, where will this smaller government come from?


----------



## Truthmatters

Foxfire, You are not the final arbitor of what the constitutiomn says.

That is the job of the SCOTUS.

They have already decided that one and the law ofd the land is the gerneral wealfare allows it.

You are speaking with an authority you dont own.


----------



## momonkey

Dogbert said:


> Odd. How can these people speak for the tea party when Xeno has been bitching at me for months that there are no tea party leaders?





_The Contract from America initiative was developed within the decentralized tea party and 912 movements. Ryan Hecker, a Houston Tea Party Society activist, developed the concept of creating a grassroots-generated call for reform prior to the April 15, 2009 Tax Day Tea Party rallies. _


About Us


----------



## Annie

NYcarbineer said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> No let's hear you do it.
> 
> List 3, just 3, significant position differences between a consensus in the GOP and a consensus among Tea Partiers.  In other words 3 positions that most GOP'ers support that most Tea Partiers do not.
> 
> Just 3, shouldn't take you a minute.  Then you can link to that post whenever someone repeats the question.
> 
> Just 3.
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to what some 'tea parties' put out, there is no central 'core' beliefs. What many at tea parties do feel is that:
> 
> 1. government is too big, grown to an unsustainable and oppressive size by the representatives of both parties. The difference is in degrees, meaning the speed of growth.
> 
> 2. government needs to be shrunk back to its stated responsibilities in the constitution. Neither major party have shown any propensity towards such.
> 
> 3. government should work for the people, not the other way around. Meaning the laws should protect life, liberties, and property. That is not what has been happening for nearly a decade, indeed more of our property rights are being confiscated without available redress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now show us where the Republican party does not support those principles.
> 
> btw, why do Tea Partiers by 2 to 1 support Medicare and Social Security?  Is there any semblance of a consensus among Tea Partiers to cut defense spending?
> 
> ...given that, where will this smaller government come from?
Click to expand...

Now YOU take a flying leap. I'm not your monkey. You asked for something, I gave it to you. Didn't your momma ever tell you that actions speak louder than words? GOP should have learned that lesson, they didn't.


----------



## Foxfyre

Truthmatters said:


> Foxfire, You are not the final arbitor of what the constitutiomn says.
> 
> That is the job of the SCOTUS.
> 
> They have already decided that one and the law ofd the land is the gerneral wealfare allows it.
> 
> You are speaking with an authority you dont own.



Have I claimed to be the final arbitor of anything that involves anybody but me?

And what authority do I claim that I do not own?

And why am I the villain here and not the member to whom I addressed my post?  Because you agree with her opinion and not mine?

By what authority do you determine who should express their opinions and who should not?

The SCOTUS has decided many things over the years that should not have been decided and it subsequently overturned itself.

To assume that those nine individuals on the Supreme Court are all infallable saints incapable of error would be quite illogical don't you think?


----------



## Truthmatters

People have been asking folks to tell us how the tweo partys differ from each other all day.

So far no one can do it.


----------



## Annie

momonkey said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odd. How can these people speak for the tea party when Xeno has been bitching at me for months that there are no tea party leaders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Contract from America initiative was developed within the decentralized tea party and 912 movements. Ryan Hecker, a Houston Tea Party Society activist, developed the concept of creating a grassroots-generated call for reform prior to the April 15, 2009 Tax Day Tea Party rallies. _
> 
> 
> About Us
Click to expand...


Not everyone involved in the tea parties agree with what is in that contract. Moreso, many want nothing to do with 912 project.


----------



## Truthmatters

Foxfyre said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Pork
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its very vague.
> 
> On limiting government, tell us how much of social security, medicare, veterans affairs and defense you want to cut since those account for 70% of the federal government.  Throw in interest on the debt - can't cut that - and that's 75%.  Social programs and welfare are 15% and everything else is 10%.  Total revenues are currently about 60% of spending, meaning you would have to cut 40% of the total budget.  So, since you are for balancing the budget, what do you suggest we eliminate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This wasn't directed to me, but if I may. . . .
> 
> The national defense is constitutionally mandated, but it could be pared back to its constitutional intent by eliminating the graft and corruption inherent in contracts and other favors that Congress directs to favored constituents.   A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would begin the process to do that.
> 
> .Social programs should not be the prerogative of the Federal government as there is no Constitutional authority for them Its decided law  A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would recognize that you can't just dump the programs without creating unconscionable hardship on people those programs have made dependent.  But we could start the slow process of phasing out those we don't have to have and transferring the rest to the states where they properly belong.  We don't have to just allow them to continue to grow and fester in their current unsustainable state.
> 
> Once you remove the Federal government's ability to buy votes by dispensing favored status or gifts to anybody, you would be surprised how much less money it would require to run the Federal government at all levels.
Click to expand...




Please realise you lost this debate long ago


----------



## California Girl

NYcarbineer said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zona said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say this now, but here is what makes you a hack, YOU DIDNT SAY A WORD DURING BUSH'S HELL ON EARTH FOR 8 YEARS.  Not a fucking word.
> 
> All of a sudden, you guys have "had enough".  ALL OF A SUDDEN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just for fun, exactly how do YOU know what I did or did not say about Bush? Fucking idiot. Grasp one single solitary concept, zona.... I am an individual.... just because the left practice 'group think' does not mean that everyone does.
> 
> I am not 'you guys', I am me. At the risk of repeating myself.... Fucking Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You start a thread about what the Tea Party thinks, as a group, and then you ridicule the left with a charge of 'groupthink'?
> 
> Very funny.  And yes we know you supported Bush.  We know who are and who you were in the past.
Click to expand...


You really are stupid, aren't you? I started a thread - with a fucking link to the 'contract from America' with a list provided by the TEA Parties. I didn't write the fucking list, you stupid cretin. VaYank made the same stupid mistake. I don't do 'group think'. 

And, please do tell.... exactly who do you think I was in the past?  This will be very entertaining.


----------



## Foxfyre

Truthmatters said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its very vague.
> 
> On limiting government, tell us how much of social security, medicare, veterans affairs and defense you want to cut since those account for 70% of the federal government.  Throw in interest on the debt - can't cut that - and that's 75%.  Social programs and welfare are 15% and everything else is 10%.  Total revenues are currently about 60% of spending, meaning you would have to cut 40% of the total budget.  So, since you are for balancing the budget, what do you suggest we eliminate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This wasn't directed to me, but if I may. . . .
> 
> The national defense is constitutionally mandated, but it could be pared back to its constitutional intent by eliminating the graft and corruption inherent in contracts and other favors that Congress directs to favored constituents.   A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would begin the process to do that.
> 
> .Social programs should not be the prerogative of the Federal government as there is no Constitutional authority for them Its decided law  A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would recognize that you can't just dump the programs without creating unconscionable hardship on people those programs have made dependent.  But we could start the slow process of phasing out those we don't have to have and transferring the rest to the states where they properly belong.  We don't have to just allow them to continue to grow and fester in their current unsustainable state.
> 
> Once you remove the Federal government's ability to buy votes by dispensing favored status or gifts to anybody, you would be surprised how much less money it would require to run the Federal government at all levels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please realise you lost this debate long ago
Click to expand...


*Please do not insert statements into my posts that I did not make.*   It is dishonest and unethical to do that.

Decided law is in the opinion of whomever sits in the Oval Office, the present Congress, and in the Supreme Court if such is disputed.   You again seem to think the High Court infallable and/or incapable of reversing itself.   It isn't in either case as has been demonstrated over the decades that it has been in existence.

If every law was as 'decided' or 'settled' as you seem to want to selectively believe, then there wouldn't be so much controversy about who sits on the High Court would there.

Let's just agree that you despise my point of view and let it go at that.  But no way in hell have I lost this debate until you can articulate a credible argument to rebut my opinion.  Saying that the Supreme Court disagrees or that I have no right to say what I say is not a rebuttal.


----------



## Truthmatters

NO decided law means that it has been desided by our countrys highest court and you lost.

I ONLY put in its decided law and did it in a different color for all to see.


----------



## California Girl

Rinata said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please!!! You are exactly like every other right wing idiot. There is nothing different or special about you. So stop fooling yourself and stop TRYING to fool others. You're just one of the bunch, dearie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, here is something that no one will see me say very often.
> 
> Fuck off and die in a ditch, bitch. I haven't forgotten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be so modest. I've heard you say a lot worse. And what is it you haven't forgotten?? How to act like a decent human being???
Click to expand...


Fuck off, you fat assed bitch.


----------



## Foxfyre

Truthmatters said:


> NO decided law means that it has been desided by our countrys highest court and you lost.
> 
> I ONLY put in its decided law and did it in a different color for all to see.



You did not identify my changed post as a change that you did.  You did it in a dishonest and unethical way.

I know what 'decided law' means and it can apply in the lowest to the highest court.  And there is no such thing as 'decided' law that is final as any law can be changed even if it requires a Constitutional amendment to do it.

Now then, if you have no argument smarter than pretending the Supreme Court is God and/or I am not allowed to have opinions, please find something else to do.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Anyone can have opinions, foxfyre, but opinions don't mean a blessed thing at all, period.  TM corrected you morally and ethically.  Get over yourself.


----------



## Truthmatters

Foxfyre said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO decided law means that it has been desided by our countrys highest court and you lost.
> 
> I ONLY put in its decided law and did it in a different color for all to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did not identify my changed post as a change that you did.  You did it in a dishonest and unethical way.Nope people on here do it all the time, No one thought you wrote that and you know it
> 
> I know what 'decided law' means and it can apply in the lowest to the highest court.  And there is no such thing as 'decided' law that is final as any law can be changed even if it requires a Constitutional amendment to do it.It is what the SCOTUS is for
> 
> Now then, if you have no argument smarter than pretending the Supreme Court is God and/or I am not allowed to have opinions, please find something else to do.
Click to expand...


They are the final arbitors of the laws of this land being in line with the constitution.

Its decided law.

You can pretend you can overturn these decisions but you are just fooling yourself.


----------



## Foxfyre

Truthmatters said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO decided law means that it has been desided by our countrys highest court and you lost.
> 
> I ONLY put in its decided law and did it in a different color for all to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did not identify my changed post as a change that you did.  You did it in a dishonest and unethical way.Nope people on here do it all the time, No one thought you wrote that and you know it
> 
> I know what 'decided law' means and it can apply in the lowest to the highest court.  And there is no such thing as 'decided' law that is final as any law can be changed even if it requires a Constitutional amendment to do it.It is what the SCOTUS is for
> 
> Now then, if you have no argument smarter than pretending the Supreme Court is God and/or I am not allowed to have opinions, please find something else to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are the final arbitors of the laws of this land being in line with the constitution.
> 
> Its decided law.
> 
> You can pretend you can overturn these decisions but you are just fooling yourself.
Click to expand...


How about I pretend that I know what I'm talking about, you are misrepresenting what I have said as well as being unethical in the process, and you apparently don't have a clue?

Do have a good day.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, foxfyre, you are misrepresenting what you said now: that is a deliberate fabrication (a lie).  TM has corrected you.  Now please admit you were caught in your deception, and let's all move on.


----------



## Annie

JakeStarkey said:


> No, foxfyre, you are misrepresenting what you said now: that is a deliberate fabrication (a lie).  TM has corrected you.  Now please admit you were caught in your deception, and let's all move on.



So states the 2nd most dominant liar on the board, standing up for the 1st place liar on the board, TM.


----------



## DiamondDave

Foxfyre said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not identify my changed post as a change that you did.  You did it in a dishonest and unethical way.Nope people on here do it all the time, No one thought you wrote that and you know it
> 
> I know what 'decided law' means and it can apply in the lowest to the highest court.  And there is no such thing as 'decided' law that is final as any law can be changed even if it requires a Constitutional amendment to do it.It is what the SCOTUS is for
> 
> Now then, if you have no argument smarter than pretending the Supreme Court is God and/or I am not allowed to have opinions, please find something else to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are the final arbitors of the laws of this land being in line with the constitution.
> 
> Its decided law.
> 
> You can pretend you can overturn these decisions but you are just fooling yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about I pretend that I know what I'm talking about, you are misrepresenting what I have said as well as being unethical in the process, and you apparently don't have a clue?
> 
> Do have a good day.
Click to expand...



No.. the SC indeed is not empowered to reinterpret the constitution... nor are they the final arbitrators for laws in this land being in line with the constitution... perhaps TM should read and understand the constitution...

_Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

...

Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State._

I did not put in the sections about treason or speedy trial, etc as it does not really pertain to the argument about the powers vested to the court by the constitution


----------



## Toro

Foxfyre said:


> This wasn't directed to me, but if I may. . . .
> 
> The national defense is constitutionally mandated, but it could be pared back to its constitutional intent by eliminating the graft and corruption inherent in contracts and other favors that Congress directs to favored constituents.   A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would begin the process to do that.
> 
> Social programs should not be the prerogative of the Federal government as there is no Constitutional authority for them.   A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would recognize that you can't just dump the programs without creating unconscionable hardship on people those programs have made dependent.  But we could start the slow process of phasing out those we don't have to have and transferring the rest to the states where they properly belong.  We don't have to just allow them to continue to grow and fester in their current unsustainable state.
> 
> Once you remove the Federal government's ability to buy votes by dispensing favored status or gifts to anybody, you would be surprised how much less money it would require to run the Federal government at all levels.



I think that is a very fair answer.

However, I do not believe it is politically possible.  As the NY Times poll Willow posted, Tea Party people tend to support social security and medicare.  That seems at odds with getting the government out of people's lives, given that both are nearly half of all federal government spending.

When I see Tea Party people protesting with signs that say "Cut MY social security" and "Cut MY medicare" and "Cut MY son's VA benefits" and "Cut MY children's school budget" and so on, then I will believe it is a serious movement.


----------



## DiamondDave

Toro said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This wasn't directed to me, but if I may. . . .
> 
> The national defense is constitutionally mandated, but it could be pared back to its constitutional intent by eliminating the graft and corruption inherent in contracts and other favors that Congress directs to favored constituents.   A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would begin the process to do that.
> 
> Social programs should not be the prerogative of the Federal government as there is no Constitutional authority for them.   A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would recognize that you can't just dump the programs without creating unconscionable hardship on people those programs have made dependent.  But we could start the slow process of phasing out those we don't have to have and transferring the rest to the states where they properly belong.  We don't have to just allow them to continue to grow and fester in their current unsustainable state.
> 
> Once you remove the Federal government's ability to buy votes by dispensing favored status or gifts to anybody, you would be surprised how much less money it would require to run the Federal government at all levels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is a very fair answer.
> 
> However, I do not believe it is politically possible.  As the NY Times poll Willow posted, Tea Party people tend to support social security and medicare.  That seems at odds with getting the government out of people's lives, given that both are nearly half of all federal government spending.
> 
> When I see Tea Party people protesting with signs that say "Cut MY social security" and "Cut MY medicare" and "Cut MY son's VA benefits" and "Cut MY children's school budget" and so on, then I will believe it is a serious movement.
Click to expand...


How's this

Cut out medicare and medicaid
Let persons already participating opt out of SS to retirement invest on their own
Allow no new persons into SS
Cut out the federal department of education and anything else on the federal level for education

But on VA benefits and other such employment benefits to soldiers who are indeed federal employees, I would not support that

I am not a member of the Tea Party... but I agree with a good amount of the ideas supported by them... though I find to many mixed messages coming from many of the supporters/members


----------



## elvis

DiamondDave said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This wasn't directed to me, but if I may. . . .
> 
> The national defense is constitutionally mandated, but it could be pared back to its constitutional intent by eliminating the graft and corruption inherent in contracts and other favors that Congress directs to favored constituents.   A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would begin the process to do that.
> 
> Social programs should not be the prerogative of the Federal government as there is no Constitutional authority for them.   A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would recognize that you can't just dump the programs without creating unconscionable hardship on people those programs have made dependent.  But we could start the slow process of phasing out those we don't have to have and transferring the rest to the states where they properly belong.  We don't have to just allow them to continue to grow and fester in their current unsustainable state.
> 
> Once you remove the Federal government's ability to buy votes by dispensing favored status or gifts to anybody, you would be surprised how much less money it would require to run the Federal government at all levels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is a very fair answer.
> 
> However, I do not believe it is politically possible.  As the NY Times poll Willow posted, Tea Party people tend to support social security and medicare.  That seems at odds with getting the government out of people's lives, given that both are nearly half of all federal government spending.
> 
> When I see Tea Party people protesting with signs that say "Cut MY social security" and "Cut MY medicare" and "Cut MY son's VA benefits" and "Cut MY children's school budget" and so on, then I will believe it is a serious movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's this
> 
> Cut out medicare and medicaid
> Let persons already participating opt out of SS to retirement invest on their own
> Allow no new persons into SS
> Cut out the federal department of education and anything else on the federal level for education
> 
> But on VA benefits and other such employment benefits to soldiers who are indeed federal employees, I would not support that
> 
> I am not a member of the Tea Party... but I agree with a good amount of the ideas supported by them...* though I find to many mixed messages coming from many of the supporters/member*s
Click to expand...


That's because they don't have a leader.


----------



## Annie

Toro said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This wasn't directed to me, but if I may. . . .
> 
> The national defense is constitutionally mandated, but it could be pared back to its constitutional intent by eliminating the graft and corruption inherent in contracts and other favors that Congress directs to favored constituents.   A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would begin the process to do that.
> 
> Social programs should not be the prerogative of the Federal government as there is no Constitutional authority for them.   A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would recognize that you can't just dump the programs without creating unconscionable hardship on people those programs have made dependent.  But we could start the slow process of phasing out those we don't have to have and transferring the rest to the states where they properly belong.  We don't have to just allow them to continue to grow and fester in their current unsustainable state.
> 
> Once you remove the Federal government's ability to buy votes by dispensing favored status or gifts to anybody, you would be surprised how much less money it would require to run the Federal government at all levels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is a very fair answer.
> 
> However, I do not believe it is politically possible.  As the NY Times poll Willow posted, Tea Party people tend to support social security and medicare.  That seems at odds with getting the government out of people's lives, given that both are nearly half of all federal government spending.
> 
> When I see Tea Party people protesting with signs that say "Cut MY social security" and "Cut MY medicare" and "Cut MY son's VA benefits" and "Cut MY children's school budget" and so on, then I will believe it is a serious movement.
Click to expand...


Toro, it would be interesting to see a poll on opinions regarding SSI, something along the lines of, 'do you agree that people over the age of 55 should receive back the money they've put into SSI over time, but once that level is reached, means testing will be applied.' I think many would be surprised, especially if it included phased in reductions of SSI for the young-even if it meant not receiving back what was confiscated.


----------



## Toro

Annie said:


> Toro, it would be interesting to see a poll on opinions regarding SSI, something along the lines of, 'do you agree that people over the age of 55 should receive back the money they've put into SSI over time, but once that level is reached, means testing will be applied.' I think many would be surprised, especially if it included phased in reductions of SSI for the young-even if it meant not receiving back what was confiscated.



Social security has to be reformed.  Benefits have to be cut back.  Most likely, the age for when one receives full social security will be raised.  Something has to happen because the math simply doesn't work.

I believe that all people should be in some sort of social security but giving the people the option to invest themselves is a good idea.  Also, transforming social security into a real pension fund that could invest in all asset classes, like stocks, real estate, corporate bonds, etc., would also dramatically lower future problems.


----------



## Truthmatters

Those are changes that would work Toro and maybe someday we iwll have an honest enough congress to effect the changes.

As of yet all we get is posturing for politial gain when it comes on the plate.


----------



## JakeStarkey

DiamondDave said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are the final arbitors of the laws of this land being in line with the constitution.
> 
> Its decided law.
> 
> You can pretend you can overturn these decisions but you are just fooling yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about I pretend that I know what I'm talking about, you are misrepresenting what I have said as well as being unethical in the process, and you apparently don't have a clue?
> 
> Do have a good day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No.. the SC indeed is not empowered to reinterpret the constitution... nor are they the final arbitrators for laws in this land being in line with the constitution... perhaps TM should read and understand the constitution...
> 
> _Article III - The Judicial Branch Note
> 
> Section 1 - Judicial powers
> 
> The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
> 
> Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
> 
> (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
> 
> In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
> 
> The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
> 
> ...
> 
> Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History
> 
> The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State._
> 
> I did not put in the sections about treason or speedy trial, etc as it does not really pertain to the argument about the powers vested to the court by the constitution
Click to expand...


No, DD, you are not empowered to reinterpret the Constitution.  Only SCOTUS can interpret it legally, not the President not the Congress.  That is what had Jefferson to Bush and many congresses so hot over the years.

But you notice both Congress and Bush obeyed SCOTUS on its rulings concerning tribunals.

Once again, DD, you don't reinterpret the Constitution.  But that's only my opinion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Truthmatters said:


> Those are changes that would work Toro and maybe someday we iwll have an honest enough congress to effect the changes.
> 
> As of yet all we get is posturing for politial gain when it comes on the plate.



Both parties are very good at doing that.


----------



## Rozman

California Girl said:


> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Pork
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes



And because of this they are made fun of by the likes of......

Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC  when they call the people in the Tea Party as.....

Tea Baggers.....

Ed Shultz of MSNBC.....when he calls them...

Psychos

Or the best, Chris Matthews also of MSNBC...

The Tea Party is filled with White People and going on to suggest that they are racists.


Nice going MSNBC.... really going out of your way to bring people together.How about trying to report the facts and not go out of your way to protect the man you helped get elected.


----------



## DiamondDave

JakeStarkey said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about I pretend that I know what I'm talking about, you are misrepresenting what I have said as well as being unethical in the process, and you apparently don't have a clue?
> 
> Do have a good day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.. the SC indeed is not empowered to reinterpret the constitution... nor are they the final arbitrators for laws in this land being in line with the constitution... perhaps TM should read and understand the constitution...
> 
> _Article III - The Judicial Branch Note
> 
> Section 1 - Judicial powers
> 
> The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
> 
> Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
> 
> (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
> 
> In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
> 
> The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
> 
> ...
> 
> Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History
> 
> The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State._
> 
> I did not put in the sections about treason or speedy trial, etc as it does not really pertain to the argument about the powers vested to the court by the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, DD, you are not empowered to reinterpret the Constitution.  Only SCOTUS can interpret it legally, not the President not the Congress.  That is what had Jefferson to Bush and many congresses so hot over the years.
> 
> But you notice both Congress and Bush obeyed SCOTUS on its rulings concerning tribunals.
> 
> Once again, DD, you don't reinterpret the Constitution.  But that's only my opinion.
Click to expand...


Show in the constitution, which is pretty easy to understand, where the SC is granted that power... we'll be waiting


----------



## geauxtohell

Truthmatters said:


> People have been asking folks to tell us how the tweo partys differ from each other all day.
> 
> So far no one can do it.



But you have to admire the smoke screens.


----------



## geauxtohell

momonkey said:


> Dogbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odd. How can these people speak for the tea party when Xeno has been bitching at me for months that there are no tea party leaders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Contract from America initiative was developed within the decentralized tea party and 912 movements. Ryan Hecker, a Houston Tea Party Society activist, developed the concept of creating a grassroots-generated call for reform prior to the April 15, 2009 Tax Day Tea Party rallies. _
> 
> 
> About Us
Click to expand...


Ah hah!  Glen Beck is the movement's leader.  It all makes sense now......


----------



## JakeStarkey

DiamondDave said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.. the SC indeed is not empowered to reinterpret the constitution... nor are they the final arbitrators for laws in this land being in line with the constitution... perhaps TM should read and understand the constitution...
> 
> _Article III - The Judicial Branch Note
> 
> Section 1 - Judicial powers
> 
> The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
> 
> Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
> 
> (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
> 
> In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
> 
> The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
> 
> ...
> 
> Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History
> 
> The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State._
> 
> I did not put in the sections about treason or speedy trial, etc as it does not really pertain to the argument about the powers vested to the court by the constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, DD, you are not empowered to reinterpret the Constitution.  Only SCOTUS can interpret it legally, not the President not the Congress.  That is what had Jefferson to Bush and many congresses so hot over the years.
> 
> But you notice both Congress and Bush obeyed SCOTUS on its rulings concerning tribunals.
> 
> Once again, DD, you don't reinterpret the Constitution.  But that's only my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show in the constitution, which is pretty easy to understand, where the SC is granted that power... we'll be waiting
Click to expand...


You don't get to intepret, once again.  You can have your wrong opinion all you want.


----------



## Rinata

California Girl said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, here is something that no one will see me say very often.
> 
> Fuck off and die in a ditch, bitch. I haven't forgotten.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be so modest. I've heard you say a lot worse. And what is it you haven't forgotten?? How to act like a decent human being???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck off, you fat assed bitch.
Click to expand...


That's it. Silly question.


----------



## Truthmatters

DiamondDave said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.. the SC indeed is not empowered to reinterpret the constitution... nor are they the final arbitrators for laws in this land being in line with the constitution... perhaps TM should read and understand the constitution...
> 
> _Article III - The Judicial Branch Note
> 
> Section 1 - Judicial powers
> 
> The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
> 
> Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials
> 
> (The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
> 
> In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
> 
> The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
> 
> ...
> 
> Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History
> 
> The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State._
> 
> I did not put in the sections about treason or speedy trial, etc as it does not really pertain to the argument about the powers vested to the court by the constitution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, DD, you are not empowered to reinterpret the Constitution.  Only SCOTUS can interpret it legally, not the President not the Congress.  That is what had Jefferson to Bush and many congresses so hot over the years.
> 
> But you notice both Congress and Bush obeyed SCOTUS on its rulings concerning tribunals.
> 
> Once again, DD, you don't reinterpret the Constitution.  But that's only my opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show in the constitution, which is pretty easy to understand, where the SC is granted that power... we'll be waiting
Click to expand...


Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## NYcarbineer

California Girl said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just for fun, exactly how do YOU know what I did or did not say about Bush? Fucking idiot. Grasp one single solitary concept, zona.... I am an individual.... just because the left practice 'group think' does not mean that everyone does.
> 
> I am not 'you guys', I am me. At the risk of repeating myself.... Fucking Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You start a thread about what the Tea Party thinks, as a group, and then you ridicule the left with a charge of 'groupthink'?
> 
> Very funny.  And yes we know you supported Bush.  We know who are and who you were in the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are stupid, aren't you? I started a thread - with a fucking link to the 'contract from America' with a list provided by the TEA Parties. I didn't write the fucking list, you stupid cretin. VaYank made the same stupid mistake. I don't do 'group think'.
> 
> And, please do tell.... exactly who do you think I was in the past?  This will be very entertaining.
Click to expand...


You should try having an original thought once in a while then.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Truthmatters said:


> People have been asking folks to tell us how the tweo partys differ from each other all day.
> 
> So far no one can do it.



They are disgruntled Republicans and Republican sympathizers who can't get over losing a couple elections, and have to go all Chicken Little on us.

The Republicans they have an issue with are Republicans who they think aren't acting like real Republicans, i.e.,

it's the same old anti-RINO shit that the right has been tossing around since who knows when.  It's Limbaugh stuff warmed over and repackaged.


----------



## Samson

Toro said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eliminiate???? Federal Government Programs????
> 
> OMG Every Single One is Vital to Preserving the Home of The Brave!!
> 
> To balance the Federal budget, I'd suggest simply spending less than the Feds bring in.
> 
> I know, pretty wild and crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about more than one program.  They are talking about nearly half the government.  What 40% of the government should they eliminate?
> 
> Actually, if you follow the Tea Party people, they want to cut taxes too, which means cutting even more than 40% to balance the budget.
> 
> 
> See, reality intrudes into ideals.  Ask people specifically what they want to eliminate, and most don't want to eliminate programs they either believe in or benefit from.
> 
> Its quite disheartening, actually, because the road we are on is untenable.
Click to expand...


Untenable is as Untenable does.

Obviously there's More Than One program that is not Vital to the Operation of the Federal Government.

I'm not going to defend their feelings of being overburdened with taxation. Frankly, I don't see this as the primary issue. However, I do agree with shrinking the size of the Federal Government. I'm guessing that with a 40% goal, then 10% would be "Tenable."

Now, of course, everyone wants to know: Where will the government shrink? And, or course, we know why the answer to this question is so important: So Major Defensive Efforts can be prepared around these selected points of attack, and not be wasted on defending everything else.

Do we not elect congressional representatives to wisely spend public monies?

Lets just trust them AFTER they've been given some sort of guideline (where currently none exists): 

The Annual Federal Budget = US population X Average US Income X 10%


----------



## Dante

Rozman said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Pork
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And because of this they are made fun of by the likes of......
> 
> Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC  when they call the people in the Tea Party as.....
> 
> Tea Baggers.....
> 
> Ed Shultz of MSNBC.....when he calls them...
> 
> Psychos
> 
> Or the best, Chris Matthews also of MSNBC...
> 
> The Tea Party is filled with White People and going on to suggest that they are racists.
> 
> 
> Nice going MSNBC.... really going out of your way to bring people together.How about trying to report the facts and not go out of your way to protect the man you helped get elected.
Click to expand...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/113881-the-gop-and-racism-a-one-way-street.html


Substitute Conservative for GOP.


----------



## NYcarbineer

DiamondDave said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> This wasn't directed to me, but if I may. . . .
> 
> The national defense is constitutionally mandated, but it could be pared back to its constitutional intent by eliminating the graft and corruption inherent in contracts and other favors that Congress directs to favored constituents.   A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would begin the process to do that.
> 
> Social programs should not be the prerogative of the Federal government as there is no Constitutional authority for them.   A Congress interested in returning to constitutional roots would recognize that you can't just dump the programs without creating unconscionable hardship on people those programs have made dependent.  But we could start the slow process of phasing out those we don't have to have and transferring the rest to the states where they properly belong.  We don't have to just allow them to continue to grow and fester in their current unsustainable state.
> 
> Once you remove the Federal government's ability to buy votes by dispensing favored status or gifts to anybody, you would be surprised how much less money it would require to run the Federal government at all levels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is a very fair answer.
> 
> However, I do not believe it is politically possible.  As the NY Times poll Willow posted, Tea Party people tend to support social security and medicare.  That seems at odds with getting the government out of people's lives, given that both are nearly half of all federal government spending.
> 
> When I see Tea Party people protesting with signs that say "Cut MY social security" and "Cut MY medicare" and "Cut MY son's VA benefits" and "Cut MY children's school budget" and so on, then I will believe it is a serious movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's this
> 
> Cut out medicare and medicaid
> Let persons already participating opt out of SS to retirement invest on their own
> Allow no new persons into SS
> Cut out the federal department of education and anything else on the federal level for education
> 
> But on VA benefits and other such employment benefits to soldiers who are indeed federal employees, I would not support that
> 
> I am not a member of the Tea Party... but I agree with a good amount of the ideas supported by them... though I find to many mixed messages coming from many of the supporters/members
Click to expand...


Or how about we keep medicare and medicaid, bring all our troops home from around the world, and cut the military budget in half?


----------



## Oscar Wao

I agree with the closing our bases around the world thing, carb...I've been saying that for the past 3-4 years or so.  Finally some people are starting to see my point haha.

You say it long enough and people will catch on!


----------



## Samson

NYcarbineer said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is a very fair answer.
> 
> However, I do not believe it is politically possible.  As the NY Times poll Willow posted, Tea Party people tend to support social security and medicare.  That seems at odds with getting the government out of people's lives, given that both are nearly half of all federal government spending.
> 
> When I see Tea Party people protesting with signs that say "Cut MY social security" and "Cut MY medicare" and "Cut MY son's VA benefits" and "Cut MY children's school budget" and so on, then I will believe it is a serious movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How's this
> 
> Cut out medicare and medicaid
> Let persons already participating opt out of SS to retirement invest on their own
> Allow no new persons into SS
> Cut out the federal department of education and anything else on the federal level for education
> 
> But on VA benefits and other such employment benefits to soldiers who are indeed federal employees, I would not support that
> 
> I am not a member of the Tea Party... but I agree with a good amount of the ideas supported by them... though I find to many mixed messages coming from many of the supporters/members
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or how about we keep medicare and medicaid, bring all our troops home from around the world, and cut the military budget in half?
Click to expand...


I don't care HOW it is accomplished, just fucking accomplish _SOMETHING_.


----------



## DiamondDave

JakeStarkey said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, DD, you are not empowered to reinterpret the Constitution.  Only SCOTUS can interpret it legally, not the President not the Congress.  That is what had Jefferson to Bush and many congresses so hot over the years.
> 
> But you notice both Congress and Bush obeyed SCOTUS on its rulings concerning tribunals.
> 
> Once again, DD, you don't reinterpret the Constitution.  But that's only my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show in the constitution, which is pretty easy to understand, where the SC is granted that power... we'll be waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to intepret, once again.  You can have your wrong opinion all you want.
Click to expand...


Again... pretty easy to show where in the constitution that the power is granted.... it would have words that would be synonyms of interpret or reinterpret.... the constitution is very specific in what powers it gives to the government


----------



## DiamondDave

Truthmatters said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, DD, you are not empowered to reinterpret the Constitution.  Only SCOTUS can interpret it legally, not the President not the Congress.  That is what had Jefferson to Bush and many congresses so hot over the years.
> 
> But you notice both Congress and Bush obeyed SCOTUS on its rulings concerning tribunals.
> 
> Once again, DD, you don't reinterpret the Constitution.  But that's only my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show in the constitution, which is pretty easy to understand, where the SC is granted that power... we'll be waiting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


And I quoted specifically to the constitution and the powers granted within.... not what wiki writes.... I can post the portions of the constitution, again, that pertain to the judiciary, if you had a problem reading that last time


----------



## JakeStarkey

But since you are not a legal scholar, or a judge district, state, or federal, then you are merely expressing your opinion.  I respect that.


----------



## DiamondDave

NYcarbineer said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is a very fair answer.
> 
> However, I do not believe it is politically possible.  As the NY Times poll Willow posted, Tea Party people tend to support social security and medicare.  That seems at odds with getting the government out of people's lives, given that both are nearly half of all federal government spending.
> 
> When I see Tea Party people protesting with signs that say "Cut MY social security" and "Cut MY medicare" and "Cut MY son's VA benefits" and "Cut MY children's school budget" and so on, then I will believe it is a serious movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How's this
> 
> Cut out medicare and medicaid
> Let persons already participating opt out of SS to retirement invest on their own
> Allow no new persons into SS
> Cut out the federal department of education and anything else on the federal level for education
> 
> But on VA benefits and other such employment benefits to soldiers who are indeed federal employees, I would not support that
> 
> I am not a member of the Tea Party... but I agree with a good amount of the ideas supported by them... though I find to many mixed messages coming from many of the supporters/members
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or how about we keep medicare and medicaid, bring all our troops home from around the world, and cut the military budget in half?
Click to expand...




How about we eliminate entitlement welfare, which the government is not charged to do by the very constitution that gives the government its powers... stop foreign aid... including foreign military aid/gifts,,, and stop paying military contractors who do not deliver what they promised or on time??


----------



## DiamondDave

JakeStarkey said:


> But since you are not a legal scholar, or a judge district, state, or federal, then you are merely expressing your opinion.  I respect that.



It is not an opinion... it should be very easy to show where in the constitution it mentions anything even remotely CLOSE to that power

The government does not have the power to simply create those powers without constitutional amendment... and that, you winger motherfucker, is absolute fact... no matter how many times the government has grabbed more power, it never had the authority to do so via our constitution


----------



## Truthmatters

DiamondDave said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show in the constitution, which is pretty easy to understand, where the SC is granted that power... we'll be waiting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I quoted specifically to the constitution and the powers granted within.... not what wiki writes.... I can post the portions of the constitution, again, that pertain to the judiciary, if you had a problem reading that last time
Click to expand...


The founders were alive when this all went down fella


----------



## DiamondDave

Truthmatters said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I quoted specifically to the constitution and the powers granted within.... not what wiki writes.... I can post the portions of the constitution, again, that pertain to the judiciary, if you had a problem reading that last time
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The founders were alive when this all went down fella
Click to expand...


Ummm again... simple request lies matter,,, show where the power is granted in the constitution.. which is what gives the federal government it's powers


----------



## DiamondDave

Just as I thought


----------



## mudwhistle

California Girl said:


> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Pork
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes



Now all that stuff is racist and homophobic.

Better knock it off!!!


----------



## California Girl

mudwhistle said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Pork
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now all that stuff is racist and homophobic.
> 
> Better knock it off!!!
Click to expand...


Yep, I know. And... I wrote it myself (despite the fact that I provided a link). Therefore, I speak on behalf of the TEA Parties (only I don't).   And the left wonder why we don't take them seriously. I don't take them seriously because they are dumb.


----------



## mudwhistle

California Girl said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> All seem perfectly reasonable to me.
> 
> Contract FROM America
> 
> 
> 1 Protect the Constitution
> 
> 2 Reject Cap & Trade
> 
> 3 Demand a Balanced Budget
> 
> 4 Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> 
> 5 Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington
> 
> 6 End Runaway Government Spending
> 
> 7 Defund, Repeal & Replace Government-run Health Care
> 
> 8 Pass an 'All of the Above' Energy Policy
> 
> 9 Stop the Pork
> 
> 10 Stop the Tax Hikes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now all that stuff is racist and homophobic.
> 
> Better knock it off!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, I know. And... I wrote it myself (despite the fact that I provided a link). Therefore, I speak on behalf of the TEA Parties (only I don't).   And the left wonder why we don't take them seriously. I don't take them seriously because they are dumb.
Click to expand...


No...we're dumb, and racist, and homophobic, just because we don't like Obama's screwed up abusive policies.


----------



## JakeStarkey

DiamondDave said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But since you are not a legal scholar, or a judge district, state, or federal, then you are merely expressing your opinion.  I respect that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not an opinion... it should be very easy to show where in the constitution it mentions anything even remotely CLOSE to that power
> 
> The government does not have the power to simply create those powers without constitutional amendment... and that, you winger motherfucker, is absolute fact... no matter how many times the government has grabbed more power, it never had the authority to do so via our constitution
Click to expand...


Getting angry, son, changes not that it is only your opinion, Dave.


----------



## DiamondDave

JakeStarkey said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> But since you are not a legal scholar, or a judge district, state, or federal, then you are merely expressing your opinion.  I respect that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not an opinion... it should be very easy to show where in the constitution it mentions anything even remotely CLOSE to that power
> 
> The government does not have the power to simply create those powers without constitutional amendment... and that, you winger motherfucker, is absolute fact... no matter how many times the government has grabbed more power, it never had the authority to do so via our constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting angry, son, changes not that it is only your opinion, Dave.
Click to expand...


again, moron.. if there is anything even remotely resembling those powers you say the SC has, it should be easy for you to point it out in the Constitution... it is not written in Sanskrit.... it is pretty easy to understand English... All I am asking is for you to simply point it out....

That is unless you are willing to admit that the SC, like most of our federal government, has overreached it's constitutional powers granted specifically in the constitution

What I have stated is absolute fact... the powers of the government are listed SPECIFICALLY in the constitution... any additional powers must indeed be had thru the constitutional amendment process (as laid out within the constitution itlsef)

Put up or shut up, jokey


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, Dave, you have pointed out nothing.  You are not a constitutional scholar, only a crank with an opinion.  Move along, son.


----------



## DiamondDave

JakeStarkey said:


> No, Dave, you have pointed out nothing.  You are not a constitutional scholar, only a crank with an opinion.  Move along, son.



You want me to post the actual text empowering the judicial branch within the constitution again???

Again, jokey... simply point out the part where there is anything even CLOSE to what you claim is empowered to the SC for reinterpretation or constitutionality in law or court cases??

It's plain English, you ignorant motherfucker.... just simply show where it is stated ANYWHERE in the constitution... or do you have the assertion that the constitution is now what legally gives the government its powers


----------



## DiamondDave

Here... to help you out

_Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795. Note History

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State._

c'mon jokey.... not a lot of text for you to go thru.. even with your limited cranial capacity... just simply point out where it is stated in the constitution where your assertion is even remotely supported

And since you guys tried to use Wiki... from wiki itself

_The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States.* It is the foundation and source of the legal authority underlying the existence of the United States of America and the federal government of the United States.*_


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dave, I will let you in on a secret: American constitutional and judicial history did not end in 1787.


----------



## DiamondDave

JakeStarkey said:


> Dave, I will let you in on a secret: American constitutional and judicial history did not end in 1787.



Nope... hence why we have the amendment process which is used to add or subtract from federal government powers...

Now... quit your beckpedaling... and simply point out where your assertion is even remotely supported in the constitution, which is indeed the supreme law of the land and is where the federal government receives it's mandates for powers (which, are strictly stated and enumerated)


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dave, once again your sophomoric inability to frame an argument continues.  Now put your postings into a context for argument.  Remember that judicial/constitutional history does not end in 1787.


----------



## DiamondDave

JakeStarkey said:


> Dave, once again your sophomoric inability to frame an argument continues.  Now put your postings into a context for argument.  Remember that judicial/constitutional history does not end in 1787.



Again... did not say that they did... hence why powers can be granted or taken away from the federal government (including the judicial branch) by constitutional amendment....

I have repeatedly shown and explained to you that the powers of the federal government are laid out and granted by the constitution itself...

You seem to be completely unable to show even one smidgen of support from the constitution to back up your assertion of granted powers held by the SC... now please, either shut the fuck up, admit your stance is completely unsupported, or simply point out where in the constitution that your assertion is even remotely supported

Should not be too hard, jokey... it's a pretty short document that is written in pretty plain english


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dave, you are a fail then.  Let's move on.


----------



## DiamondDave

JakeStarkey said:


> Dave, you are a fail then.  Let's move on.




No jokey... I have shown you the actual text of the constitution in support my my stance... you have yet to show one single smidgen of supporting information within the constitution that backs up any of your claims... all I am doing is asking you to either shut the fuck up and stop making your claim, admit your stance is completely unsupported, or simply point out where in the constitution that your assertion is even remotely supported.... your choice... just tell us which one it is

It looks as though you may have chosen to shut the fuck up... but we're trying to clarify that


----------



## JakeStarkey

Then tell us what Article III really means.  Give us your interp.


----------



## DiamondDave

JakeStarkey said:


> Then tell us what Article III really means.  Give us your interp.



Right after you try and show us, as requested, what part of the constitution even remotely stated support or empowerment of the SC or federal courts to reinterpret the constitution.... I know you're trying to dodge as much as you can... but it is indeed a simple request that you should be able to point to the words or section that grants to power as you say


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, son, you made the claim.  Support it.  Posting the constitution does not mean anything.  Give us your best shot.

In other words, reactionaries, you don't get to post an unsupported assertion, then ask others why you are wrong.  You have to post your support.

You have not done that.


----------



## DiamondDave

JakeStarkey said:


> No, son, you made the claim.  Support it.  Posting the constitution does not mean anything.  Give us your best shot.
> 
> In other words, reactionaries, you don't get to post an unsupported assertion, then ask others why you are wrong.  You have to post your support.
> 
> You have not done that.



No son... you made the claim that this was a power of the SC.... I showed my claim that there is nothing within the constitution that gives such a power to the SC (I have posted for you, word for word, the exact powers indeed granted to the judicial branch)... I have also supported my claim that the constitution is what grants powers to the federal government.. and supported my claim that all powers not granted to the federal government are in the hands of the states or the individual citizens..

You have failed, jokey... you are a blow-hard disingenuous piece of shit who will not back up anything you state with any sort of fact....

Put up or shut up, motherfucker


----------



## geauxtohell

DiamondDave said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, son, you made the claim.  Support it.  Posting the constitution does not mean anything.  Give us your best shot.
> 
> In other words, reactionaries, you don't get to post an unsupported assertion, then ask others why you are wrong.  You have to post your support.
> 
> You have not done that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No son... you made the claim that this was a power of the SC.... I showed my claim that there is nothing within the constitution that gives such a power to the SC (I have posted for you, word for word, the exact powers indeed granted to the judicial branch)... I have also supported my claim that the constitution is what grants powers to the federal government.. and supported my claim that all powers not granted to the federal government are in the hands of the states or the individual citizens..
> 
> You have failed, jokey... you are a blow-hard disingenuous piece of shit who will not back up anything you state with any sort of fact....
> 
> Put up or shut up, motherfucker
Click to expand...


The fact that you guys have been bickering over this issue for the past three pages kind of re-iterates my point that defining the constitution isn't a simple matter of reading the document and thus terms like "protect the constitution" are just flowery language that accomplish nothing.


----------



## DiamondDave

geauxtohell said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, son, you made the claim.  Support it.  Posting the constitution does not mean anything.  Give us your best shot.
> 
> In other words, reactionaries, you don't get to post an unsupported assertion, then ask others why you are wrong.  You have to post your support.
> 
> You have not done that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No son... you made the claim that this was a power of the SC.... I showed my claim that there is nothing within the constitution that gives such a power to the SC (I have posted for you, word for word, the exact powers indeed granted to the judicial branch)... I have also supported my claim that the constitution is what grants powers to the federal government.. and supported my claim that all powers not granted to the federal government are in the hands of the states or the individual citizens..
> 
> You have failed, jokey... you are a blow-hard disingenuous piece of shit who will not back up anything you state with any sort of fact....
> 
> Put up or shut up, motherfucker
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you guys have been bickering over this issue for the past three pages kind of re-iterates my point that defining the constitution isn't a simple matter of reading the document and thus terms like "protect the constitution" are just flowery language that accomplish nothing.
Click to expand...


That is why I don't sloganeer with such a statement... I do state, however, that we should ABIDE by the constitution as a nation and that any and all changes, additions, or deletions to the constitution MUST go thru the amendment process

A general and basic understanding of the constitution should show most any logical person that government has indeed over stepped it's legal boundaries and has morphed into an overgrown bastardization of what was intended... all in the name of political power and payback


----------



## geauxtohell

DiamondDave said:


> That is why I don't sloganeer with such a statement...



So I am not alone in thinking that "protect the constitution" as a movement's number 1 issue is a little lame?

I mean, what in the hell does it mean?



> I do state, however, that we should ABIDE by the constitution as a nation and that any and all changes, additions, or deletions to the constitution MUST go thru the amendment process
> 
> A general and basic understanding of the constitution should show most any logical person that government has indeed over stepped it's legal boundaries and has morphed into an overgrown bastardization of what was intended... all in the name of political power and payback



So you actually favor hitting the reset button on judicial review/Marbury v. Madison?

BTW, how would you define the term "arms" in the second amendment?  Who does define it?


----------



## DiamondDave

arm
2&#8194; &#8194;/&#593;rm/ Show Spelled[ahrm] Show IPA
&#8211;noun
1.
Usually, arms. weapons, esp. firearms. 

Yes indeed.. I would hit the reset button on that, as it was one of the very early attempts at the expansion of governmental control without constitutional amendment... it was improper for the court to consider any issues beyond its jurisdiction


----------



## geauxtohell

DiamondDave said:


> arm
> 2&#8194; &#8194;/&#593;rm/ Show Spelled[ahrm] Show IPA
> noun
> 1.
> Usually, arms. weapons, esp. firearms.



Now put that in today's terms:  the average citizen has a constitutional right to AT-4s?  Machine Guns?  Tanks?  Single Shot Assault Rifles? Fully Automatic Assault Rifles? 

What defines "free speech"?  Should their be limits?  Should the Phelps family be able to picket soldier's funerals under their first amendment rights?  The SCOTUS just issued a writ on that issue, so look for a 1st amendment decision to come down in October.



> Yes indeed.. I would hit the reset button on that, as it was one of the very early attempts at the expansion of governmental control without constitutional amendment... it was improper for the court to consider any issues beyond its jurisdiction



I won't argue your opinion.  I think Marbury V. Madison has served our nation well for over 210 years.  I'll leave it to legal scholars to bicker about the constitutionality of the matter.  

However, it re-affirms that the constitution is not, in fact, a document that any two Americans who have read it can agree on.


----------



## DiamondDave

geauxtohell said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> arm
> 2&#8194; &#8194;/&#593;rm/ Show Spelled[ahrm] Show IPA
> noun
> 1.
> Usually, arms. weapons, esp. firearms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now put that in today's terms:  the average citizen has a constitutional right to AT-4s?  Machine Guns?  Tanks?  Single Shot Assault Rifles? Fully Automatic Assault Rifles?
> 
> What defines "free speech"?  Should their be limits?  Should the Phelps family be able to picket soldier's funerals under their first amendment rights?  The SCOTUS just issued a writ on that issue, so look for a 1st amendment decision to come down in October.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes indeed.. I would hit the reset button on that, as it was one of the very early attempts at the expansion of governmental control without constitutional amendment... it was improper for the court to consider any issues beyond its jurisdiction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I won't argue your opinion.  I think Marbury V. Madison has served our nation well for over 210 years.  I'll leave it to legal scholars to bicker about the constitutionality of the matter.
> 
> However, it re-affirms that the constitution is not, in fact, a document that any two Americans who have read it can agree on.
Click to expand...


I think it has at times served well, and at other times been nothing more than an abomination of our government... and why?? Because the limitations and charges are not laid out in the constitution, which is what grants the federal government its power and boundaries.. and because we don't have those defined, the SC has acted like so many other politicians, and has expanded its power for its own gain

As for arms... it is indeed pretty simple.... there is nothing preventing states to define legal arms, as any and all powers not grated to the fed are grated to the states and/or the individuals... as for free speech, I am all for saying anything you want that does not infringe upon the rights of others, for one cannot exercise their rights at the expense of the rights of another


----------



## JakeStarkey

Government by Marbury v. Madison or government by Dave.  OK.  I know for which I vote.


----------



## DiamondDave

JakeStarkey said:


> Government by Marbury v. Madison or government by Dave.  OK.  I know for which I vote.



Government empowered and limited  by the constitution or unsubstantiated and basis-less bullshit by Jokey.. I know which one any sane person would or should choose


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dave, once you again, you lose.  Read the Constitution, son, and then live by it.


----------



## geauxtohell

DiamondDave said:


> I think it has at times served well, and at other times been nothing more than an abomination of our government...



So do you take the good with the bad or toss the baby out with the bathwater? 



> and why?? Because the limitations and charges are not laid out in the constitution, which is what grants the federal government its power and boundaries..



Do you ever consider that the constitution was made specifically vague in recognition that it was impossible to articulate and cover every single facet of a nation as it grew?



> and because we don't have those defined, the SC has acted like so many other politicians, and has expanded its power for its own gain



Which is inherent to any bureaucracy.  I mean, the only other real solution is anarchy.

At any rate, I'd argue that M V. M took a SCOTUS that had a weak role in the country and gave it the power to be an equal branch of government, which is what the founders intended.



> As for arms... it is indeed pretty simple.... there is nothing preventing states to define legal arms, as any and all powers not grated to the fed are grated to the states and/or the individuals... as for free speech, I am all for saying anything you want that does not infringe upon the rights of others, for one cannot exercise their rights at the expense of the rights of another



So a person could have, say, an M240B and you'd be fine with that?  Do you think the average American wants that?     

I won't argue your opinion, but my larger point is that there is plenty to argue about when it comes to the laws of the lands.

It's not "so easy a caveman can do it" after all.


----------



## DiamondDave

JakeStarkey said:


> Dave, once you again, you lose.  Read the Constitution, son, and then live by it.



I did and posted it for you WORD FOR WORD numerous times... and I have asked you to simply point out any supporting wording for your assumption... I have shwon you each time that there is no supporting wording for your assertion

You have had mega super uber ultra fail


----------



## DiamondDave

geauxtohell said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it has at times served well, and at other times been nothing more than an abomination of our government...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do you take the good with the bad or toss the baby out with the bathwater?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and why?? Because the limitations and charges are not laid out in the constitution, which is what grants the federal government its power and boundaries..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you ever consider that the constitution was made specifically vague in recognition that it was impossible to articulate and cover every single facet of a nation as it grew?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and because we don't have those defined, the SC has acted like so many other politicians, and has expanded its power for its own gain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is inherent to any bureaucracy.  I mean, the only other real solution is anarchy.
> 
> At any rate, I'd argue that M V. M took a SCOTUS that had a weak role in the country and gave it the power to be an equal branch of government, which is what the founders intended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for arms... it is indeed pretty simple.... there is nothing preventing states to define legal arms, as any and all powers not grated to the fed are grated to the states and/or the individuals... as for free speech, I am all for saying anything you want that does not infringe upon the rights of others, for one cannot exercise their rights at the expense of the rights of another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a person could have, say, an M240B and you'd be fine with that?  Do you think the average American wants that?
> 
> I won't argue your opinion, but my larger point is that there is plenty to argue about when it comes to the laws of the lands.
> 
> It's not "so easy a caveman can do it" after all.
Click to expand...


You throw it out if it is against the rules set forth in the constitution... if indeed you WANT this power or path, simply amend the constitution

Did you ever consider the powers were SPECIFICALLY laid out in an attempt to prevent the government from turning into an all encompassing entity with more controls over day to day life than the citizenry or the states??

I would argue that M V. M was an illegal power grab.. and nothing less... as stated.. I would be for some sort of judicial review if the specific powers and limitations were laid out within the constitution and not at the whim of the court itself... there is a process for change with checks and balances, and it should not have been bypassed in the power grab


If Alaska or Maine or wherever wants to have that as their stipulation for an 'arm', just as they make state stipulations for carry ad conceal laws that are not inherently the same throughout the union, that is their business... the magic about having the state with that power is that if that power is solely held by the fed, the citizenry has no choice whether they agree of disagree (without losing citizenship or not residing within the US)


----------



## geauxtohell

DiamondDave said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it has at times served well, and at other times been nothing more than an abomination of our government...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do you take the good with the bad or toss the baby out with the bathwater?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever consider that the constitution was made specifically vague in recognition that it was impossible to articulate and cover every single facet of a nation as it grew?
> 
> 
> 
> Which is inherent to any bureaucracy.  I mean, the only other real solution is anarchy.
> 
> At any rate, I'd argue that M V. M took a SCOTUS that had a weak role in the country and gave it the power to be an equal branch of government, which is what the founders intended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for arms... it is indeed pretty simple.... there is nothing preventing states to define legal arms, as any and all powers not grated to the fed are grated to the states and/or the individuals... as for free speech, I am all for saying anything you want that does not infringe upon the rights of others, for one cannot exercise their rights at the expense of the rights of another
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So a person could have, say, an M240B and you'd be fine with that?  Do you think the average American wants that?
> 
> I won't argue your opinion, but my larger point is that there is plenty to argue about when it comes to the laws of the lands.
> 
> It's not "so easy a caveman can do it" after all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You throw it out if it is against the rules set forth in the constitution... if indeed you WANT this power or path, simply amend the constitution
> 
> Did you ever consider the powers were SPECIFICALLY laid out in an attempt to prevent the government from turning into an all encompassing entity with more controls over day to day life than the citizenry or the states??
> 
> I would argue that M V. M was an illegal power grab.. and nothing less... as stated.. I would be for some sort of judicial review if the specific powers and limitations were laid out within the constitution and not at the whim of the court itself... there is a process for change with checks and balances, and it should not have been bypassed in the power grab
> 
> 
> If Alaska or Maine or wherever wants to have that as their stipulation for an 'arm', just as they make state stipulations for carry ad conceal laws that are not inherently the same throughout the union, that is their business... the magic about having the state with that power is that if that power is solely held by the fed, the citizenry has no choice whether they agree of disagree (without losing citizenship or not residing within the US)
Click to expand...


Due to the supremacy clause, you can't lay this at the state's feet.  If we are intrepret the 2nd amendment as broadly as you want to, states could not make gun laws that serve to be more restrictive than what the 2nd Amendment calls for.


----------



## JakeStarkey

DiamondDave has not made a point other than post the Constitution.

Point One: DD does not speak for the Constitution.

Point Two: SCOTUS does speak for the Constitution.

Point Three: DD fails, again.


----------



## Oscar Wao

Hell, let's forget about the Constitution for a second.

All of this spending during a crisis violates the basic laws of economics, let alone the Constitution itself.


----------



## Rinata

mudwhistle said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now all that stuff is racist and homophobic.
> 
> Better knock it off!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, I know. And... I wrote it myself (despite the fact that I provided a link). Therefore, I speak on behalf of the TEA Parties (only I don't).   And the left wonder why we don't take them seriously. I don't take them seriously because they are dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No...we're dumb, and racist, and homophobic, just because we don't like Obama's screwed up abusive policies.
Click to expand...


Oh, no. You have it all wrong. You're just dumb, racist, and homophobic. Period.


----------



## DiamondDave

JakeStarkey said:


> DiamondDave has not made a point other than post the Constitution.
> 
> Point One: DD does not speak for the Constitution.
> 
> Point Two: SCOTUS does speak for the Constitution.
> 
> Point Three: DD fails, again.




Again.. I supported all of my claims with facts as written in the constitution itself... you have failed to support any of your assertions with even a single iota of fact or even a misguided reference to anything within the constitution itself

You are a complete disingenuous buffoon


----------



## JakeStarkey

Those are not facts, DD, that support your contention.  Your contention is your assertion that the Constitution supports your assertion.  Son, that does not make sense.  Please do better.  Post some evidence that the Constitution supports your assertion, then we can proceed.


----------



## Foxfyre

Oscar Wao said:


> Hell, let's forget about the Constitution for a second.
> 
> All of this spending during a crisis violates the basic laws of economics, let alone the Constitution itself.



Actually, even though I am a devout Constitutionalist and find it interesting (and distressing) how many on the Left seem intent on diminishing or redefining that document, I think we might be blurring the focus here by focusing on the Constitution so much.

The Tea Partiers focus on returning to the basics of the Constitution as the Founders intended it, but in my opinion, that is to restore the role of government and the individual liberties of the people.

And the impetus to focus on that was triggered initially by those horrendous TARP and stimulus packages plus numerous other pork laden spending bills all borrowed on the backs of the taxpayers, their children, great grandchildren, and subsequent generations.  It's positively nuts and indefensible if you really get down to the crux of it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Then, foxfyre, a pox on both the houses of both parties, is what you are saying.


----------



## Foxfyre

No Jake, bless your heart.  I am not referring to political parties at all.  Have you looked up the definition for 'non sequitur' yet?

I am focusing on what it is that the Tea Partiers want and, in the case of my immediately preceding post, what triggered the initiatives in the first place.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are the queen of "it doesn't follow."  What you are trying to do, so poorly, is a segue.  Keep trying.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> The Tea Partiers focus on returning to the basics of the Constitution as the Founders intended it, but in my opinion, that is to restore the role of government and the individual liberties of the people.



Do you honestly believe that any two people in this country could agree on what the "founders intended"?  

I'll pose the same challenge to you that I often pose to "strict constitutionalists":  In regards to the second Amendment, define the term "arms".

Please don't paste some definition from a dictionary.  How do you define it?  What do you perceive the "founder's intent" to be, and how does that relate to what weapons the average citizen should be able to amass?


----------

