Tea Party Is Recycled John Birch Society Hate Rhetoric

[rightwinger]

The whole damn DOCUMENT is based on limiting government you idiot!

What do you think checks and balances are about?

You sound like Sarah Palin when she doesn't know the answer...."All of it"

Nowhere in the Constitution does it call out limited government. Checks and balances keep one branch of government from being too powerful.

Come on....what you got next?

This is typical of liberals. First they will deny you are right, THEN CONFIRM YOU ARE RIGHT, all in the same breath.

Hey genius. It isn't just one branch of government the Constitution prevents from being powerful, BUT ALL OF THEM!

Come on Sarah Palin...you are still not backing up your statements. Show me where in the Constitution it says or implies the government has limited powers? Show me in a hundred years of legal decisions where your Tea Bagger position is backed up?

Come on Sarah...aren't you capable of more than Tea Bagger one liners?

 

[teapartysamurai]

You sound like Sarah Palin when she doesn't know the answer...."All of it"

Nowhere in the Constitution does it call out limited government. Checks and balances keep one branch of government from being too powerful.

Come on....what you got next?

No where in the constitution does it call for the democrat and republican parties.

You are not helping your argument...

Hundreds of years of judicial decisions have established the limitations on the scope and reach of government.

None of them have said that the Tea Party gets to define the scope of government

And hundreds of union flunkies told you so, so you have to be right about those legal decisions!

 

[skookerasbil]

Show me where the Constitution says limited government

The whole damn DOCUMENT is based on limiting government you idiot!

What do you think checks and balances are about?

sorry, i don't discuss my area of education with loons.

 

[Oddball]

Again the idiocy, stupidity, and-Americanism, and outright schizophrenia of the Tea Party agenda is put on public display.

The Courts of the Time all understood the concept of Judicial Review, and many jurisdictions so-stated. So when Contitutional Court system finally got around to making the rules: Then it adopted a common meaning of the time.

The same concept applies in the matter of the Tea Party itself. Judicial Review is Constitutional. The critics commenting that Judicial Review was expressed in an original case either, (1) accept the evidence of history, or (2) reject the entire concept.

The Tea Party rejects the entire concept of Judicial review. It specifically demands a Blue Ribbion Commission to pass on all the funding, of all of history! In their Contract From America, their perspective of any billionaires is the only one permitted. It is as though "Judicial Review," had never been agreed to, in all of history!

"Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution’s meaning."

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many things in history, would of course be thrown out in the contest of a very thorough Blue Ribbion Review of the Constitutionality of Everything!)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Show me where the Constitution says limited government

The tenth and ninth imply it.

To Tea Baggers it might

To a hundred years of legal decisions their are no restrictions limiting government

HUMMM... me thinks you are confused or smoking some of that liberal shit again

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Show me in the Constitution where the Federal governmen can do as it pleases? The Constitution allows the Federal government certain powers none of those powers gives them the right to expand.

 

[teapartysamurai]

7 of 9 Founders on record about JD defended it. 9 0f 13 state constitutions recognized the principle. Who else can judge the constitutionality of legislation: the legislature? the president?

Stop the moronic nonsense. You don't like it? Isn't going to change anytime soon.

Well REAL FUNNY that liberals are all for the USSC being the last word on the Constitution UNTIL they make a decision liberals don't like, LIKE Bush v. Gore or Citizens United.

Hypocrites!

Or you guys getting upset by Brown. Judicial Review is not going away, period.

No it's not. Not even in the Citizens United case. Boo freaking hoo!

 

[JakeStarkey]

teapartysamurai pawns herself. What a freaking loon. She reveals her lack of education and lack of skills in discussion. What a nutwad.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[teapartysamurai]

You sound like Sarah Palin when she doesn't know the answer...."All of it"

Nowhere in the Constitution does it call out limited government. Checks and balances keep one branch of government from being too powerful.

Come on....what you got next?

This is typical of liberals. First they will deny you are right, THEN CONFIRM YOU ARE RIGHT, all in the same breath.

Hey genius. It isn't just one branch of government the Constitution prevents from being powerful, BUT ALL OF THEM!

Come on Sarah Palin...you are still not backing up your statements. Show me where in the Constitution it says or implies the government has limited powers? Show me in a hundred years of legal decisions where your Tea Bagger position is backed up?

Come on Sarah...aren't you capable of more than Tea Bagger one liners?

That's funny coming from you! You haven't shown JACK!

Why do I have to defend your statement. It is YOU that posited this ludicrous notion the Constitution isn't for limited government, not ME.

All you have done is claim you are right because there's all these law decisions that say so!

You haven't given us one law decision backing you up.

AND I HAVE TO DO YOUR RESEARCH NOW?

Spoken like a true liberal.

Just like Obama. Claims the COC is donating foreign money to the GOP WITH NO EVIDENCE, and then demands the COC prove otherwise.

Sorry. The onus is on YOU. It's YOUR assertion!

 

[rightwinger]

Wow. Your level of ignorance is kinda scary.

Are you actually going to sit there and pretend that our constitution does not set up the three branches of our Federal Government with ENUMERATED powers?

Do you not grasp the meaning of, among other notions, the 10th Amendment?

In your paltry rhetorical efforts are you going to claim that if the Constitution doesn't use the PHRASE "limited government" that it didn't set up a limited government?

Some lib rhetoric is more rancid and useless than others. Yours is pathetic.

wow... for a lawyer, that's pretty selective.

you are also fully aware that government has expansive power to act in furtherance of the general welfare and regulate commerce.

so why pretend that government is only allowed to do specifically limited things.

the constitution is not some fundie version of the bible.

Wow, for a lawyer you sure made a lame argument.

No. You are wrong. The federal government does not have "expansive powers" to act under the general welfare clause NOR does the power to regulate interstate commerce properly give it any such "expansive powers."

You paraphrase words in the Preamble as though it had the force of an Article. It never did; and that interpretation is absurd on its face.

Of course the Constitution is not a bible nor a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible. But it still has damn clear meaning which, thankfully, (usually) can be properly derived from the contemporaneous words of its authors and from the document itself.

The spin imposed on the Constitution by later generations and jurists which isn't faithful to the actual meaning is hardly a valid substitute.

The spin imposed on the Constitution by later generations and jurists which isn't faithful to the actual meaning is hardly a valid substitute

I'm afraid it is....those jurists get to interpret the Constitution. Not message board posters

 

[teapartysamurai]

teapartysamurai pawns herself. What a freaking loon. She reveals her lack of education and lack of skills in discussion. What a nutwad.

Who reveals their lack of education?

"Pawns????"

 

[teapartysamurai]

wow... for a lawyer, that's pretty selective.

you are also fully aware that government has expansive power to act in furtherance of the general welfare and regulate commerce.

so why pretend that government is only allowed to do specifically limited things.

the constitution is not some fundie version of the bible.

Wow, for a lawyer you sure made a lame argument.

No. You are wrong. The federal government does not have "expansive powers" to act under the general welfare clause NOR does the power to regulate interstate commerce properly give it any such "expansive powers."

You paraphrase words in the Preamble as though it had the force of an Article. It never did; and that interpretation is absurd on its face.

Of course the Constitution is not a bible nor a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible. But it still has damn clear meaning which, thankfully, (usually) can be properly derived from the contemporaneous words of its authors and from the document itself.

The spin imposed on the Constitution by later generations and jurists which isn't faithful to the actual meaning is hardly a valid substitute.

The spin imposed on the Constitution by later generations and jurists which isn't faithful to the actual meaning is hardly a valid substitute

I'm afraid it is....those jurists get to interpret the Constitution. Not message board posters

That would include you dumbass, who's claiming you know 100s of legal decisions.

Hypocrite!

 

[rightwinger]

This is typical of liberals. First they will deny you are right, THEN CONFIRM YOU ARE RIGHT, all in the same breath.

Hey genius. It isn't just one branch of government the Constitution prevents from being powerful, BUT ALL OF THEM!

Come on Sarah Palin...you are still not backing up your statements. Show me where in the Constitution it says or implies the government has limited powers? Show me in a hundred years of legal decisions where your Tea Bagger position is backed up?

Come on Sarah...aren't you capable of more than Tea Bagger one liners?

That's funny coming from you! You haven't shown JACK!

Why do I have to defend your statement. It is YOU that posited this ludicrous notion the Constitution isn't for limited government, not ME.

All you have done is claim you are right because there's all these law decisions that say so!

You haven't given us one law decision backing you up.

AND I HAVE TO DO YOUR RESEARCH NOW?

Spoken like a true liberal.

Just like Obama. Claims the COC is donating foreign money to the GOP WITH NO EVIDENCE, and then demands the COC prove otherwise.

Sorry. The onus is on YOU. It's YOUR assertion!

Like your mentor Sarah Palin...all you have is tea bagger one liners and smilies...

I was not the one who claimed the Constitution was based on limited government. I merely disputed the fact and asked for a simple reference backing up the statement. As usual, you have nothing but smilies to back up your statements

 

[Avatar4321]

I hate communists. Don't you?

No. I love communists. I hate communism. The trouble is trying to get them out of communism.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Come on Sarah Palin...you are still not backing up your statements. Show me where in the Constitution it says or implies the government has limited powers? Show me in a hundred years of legal decisions where your Tea Bagger position is backed up?

Come on Sarah...aren't you capable of more than Tea Bagger one liners?

That's funny coming from you! You haven't shown JACK!

Why do I have to defend your statement. It is YOU that posited this ludicrous notion the Constitution isn't for limited government, not ME.

All you have done is claim you are right because there's all these law decisions that say so!

You haven't given us one law decision backing you up.

AND I HAVE TO DO YOUR RESEARCH NOW?

Spoken like a true liberal.

Just like Obama. Claims the COC is donating foreign money to the GOP WITH NO EVIDENCE, and then demands the COC prove otherwise.

Sorry. The onus is on YOU. It's YOUR assertion!

Like your mentor Sarah Palin...all you have is tea bagger one liners and smilies...

I was not the one who claimed the Constitution was based on limited government. I merely disputed the fact and asked for a simple reference backing up the statement. As usual, you have nothing but smilies to back up your statements

What statement?

I said the entire Constitution was based on limited government BECAUSE CHECKS AND BALANCES LIMIT GOVERNMENT. DUH.

YOU BACK THAT UP by AGREEING CHECKS AND BALANCES LIMIT GOVERNMENT (although you tried to weasel out by saying it only limits ONE PART of government. Oh yeah right. That makes all the difference!)

Now you say I have no evidence, when you conceded it?

Pal, the only person who has no evidence is YOU!

 

[Avatar4321]

What Beck puts up are whacky, out of context "Facts" much like Fox news. And that's when he isn't plain lying.

He's admitted to being PT Barum. Why isn't anyone on the right listening?

Oh wait..

It's this way to see the famous Egress..

Everyone on the right is laughing. We think it's pretty funny how you all are so obsessed with Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, and Fox news. Something about voicing our constitutional right to free speech that makes you all continue day after day posting your whining and moaning about them. Mental illness in full bloom is sad but kinda funny to watch.

Laughter is not the same as actually doing something constructive. It's easy to criticize and much harder to build.

An ironic statement considering the source.

 

[ClosedCaption]

 

[Avatar4321]

Bullshit. And utter bullshit.

George W. Bush did a tap dance on the Constitution and very few on the right even opened an eye.

They even moved the goal posts for him. Can you say "Enhanced Interrogation"?

Amazing.

There should be at least some contrition from you guys. But nothing. Nadda.

Bull..... I yelled at Boosh for the last six years of his terms... so STFU, we all didnt agree with him.
He was a liberal just like Obama... he just had more class about it. I still hated it too!

You are the Minority, most republicans defended his every move until he left office. Only THEN did you hear Repubs say "hey, I didnt like that thing he did! You just never saw me say it! But I did, really"

Bullcrap. Been on this board a long time and Almost everyone on the right was regularly criticizing President Bush when he was wrong throughout his administration. Including: Spending, War, No Child Left Behind, Immigration Reform, the Patriot Act.

To pretend as if there was some uniformity in support on the right is utter nonsense.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Yeah well that's Jillian!

"But some people without brains do an awful lot of talking... don't they?"

 

[Avatar4321]

I dont understand how wanting to follow the Constitution and not spend ourselves into oblivion is hate.

That is not the point of the Op, Avatar. The Op is about the direct line between the Tea Party and Glenn Beck to the John Birch Society....a connection few tea party people likely know of or would welcome.

I dun know a single American who does not want the government to follow the constitution, and virtually everyone is very alarmed by the spending that has gone on (especially since it would appear so much money was wasted).

I am not trying to pin the hate badge on every Tea Party person; I am only trying to rouse you to guard against those who would (Glenn Beck, etc.).

And the JB Society has long been encouraging people to follow the Constitution and not spend ourselves into oblivion as well as beware of the marxists in our mists. Which seems like pretety good advice.

How is that hate?