Tea Party Persecution...Why?

[BlackSand]

I actually already know what a strict constructionist is, and didn't have to look it up.

Was I wrong in my conclusion?

And the only reason anyone has to be coy is if they have something to hide.

You didn't follow the simple instructions ... You don't have anything to base the conclusion on ... And if you had, you wouldn't be asking.

.

 

[RKMBrown]

Is that supposed to be some kind of reasoned argument?

So I'll ask you the same question... Do you consider yourself a Tea Partier and do you support federal drug laws and the DEA?

Since you are apparently the arbiter of what the Tea Party is all about, what does it mean to be a Tea Partier?

I have gone to some Tea Party events. I believe our War on Drugs to be counter productive and a restriction on liberty. I am in favor of some federal drug laws. I support the DEA through my taxes, I have no choice.

Perhaps if you could form your sentences with more care, and define some of these terms you are using, we might be able to have a fruitful conversation.

I'm not the arbiter of what the Tea Party is all about, far from it.

That's why I'm here asking questions.

As for your support through taxes argument, I guess I can conclude you support Obamacare and federal welfare programs too (as long as you have no choice and all).

And lastly, which federal drug laws do you believe are justified by the authority granted to the federal government by the US Constitution?

If you are not an arbiter of what the Tea Party is about, then why are you claiming that which you think it is about, then demanding we defend it against your accusations?

You appear to be confused about the term support. You apparently don't understand that our taxes are taken at the point of gun, we have no freedom of will to choose an alternative. Thus, we have allowed the government to make us into slaves.

>> And lastly, which federal drug laws do you believe are justified by the authority granted to the federal government by the US Constitution?

I'm to busy to look up all the laws and give you a list of pros and cons to each one. Why don't you pick one you want to discuss instead?

 

[manifold]

I am not a Tea Party Member ... I am a Strict Constructionist (more of a philosophy on law and legislation).
Look it up and you will soon find out why it is considered archaic, absolutely hated by Progressive Liberals ... And if you have any sense whatsoever ... It will answer your questions about where I stand on the DEA or any law.

Sounds to me like you don't support federal drug laws or the DEA.

However I am left to wonder why you'd be so coy about it.

Your extremely broad brush statements and questions don't tell the whole story.

I'm perfectly fine with a federal law requiring all states restrict children from buying booze & drugs. I'm perfectly fine with a federal law authorizing regulation of testing of medicines and medical procedures. I'm perfectly fine with the feds regulating imports of food & medical products.

You may be fine with it, and that's your prerogative.

But can you point me to the particular text in the US Constitution that you believe grants this authority to the federal government? The best I can come up with is the general welfare clause, but I'm not sure you want to open that can of worms.

 

[RKMBrown]

You really have to ask this question this soon after mostly Tea Party infantile obstructionism shut down the government?

Ok, so you are against anyone who opposes the policies of this administration, and refuses to sit in the corner and shut the fuck up eh? How is that anything other than authoritarian totalitarianism?

You're both right IMO.

I support a lot of what the Tea Party alleges to want to accomplish, but I definitely didn't agree with that particular tactic.

For a person who knows nothing about the Tea Party, you sure make a lot of UN-substantiated accusations. This leads me to guess you are likely in one of two groups, neo-con compassionate republican, or progressive/modern liberal. Is that true? Pls declare your politics, so we can understand your goals.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Tea Party isn't concerned with marijuana or any other social issues. It is concerned with restoring the government the Founder's intended.

The founders never intended the federal government to be involved in social issues. Such concerns are PURELY the purvey of the states. This includes abortion.

 

[manifold]

its not that simple. I support some controls on drugs. I support the legalization of some drugs that are now illegal. I support reducing the length of drug patents in order to get generics in the marketplace sooner. I support the right of a state to make its own decisions on which drugs it wants to sell over the counter and which ones require a prescription.

Ok, that's a pretty reasonable position.

But you can still support all that and still oppose "federal" drug laws and the DEA. In fact, I would argue that would make your position more consistent. If you believe it should be up to the states, then logically you should oppose all federal encroachment in that regard.

No, the federal govt still has an enforcement role at the borders if nowhere else. We cannot open our borders and allow all kinds of unregulated drugs to come into the country.

No disagreement here on that point.

But what about a resident of Colorado who gets busted by the DEA for possession of marijuana?

Should the federal government have the authority to incarcerate this person in a federal prison?

 

[manifold]

Ok, so you are against anyone who opposes the policies of this administration, and refuses to sit in the corner and shut the fuck up eh? How is that anything other than authoritarian totalitarianism?

You're both right IMO.

I support a lot of what the Tea Party alleges to want to accomplish, but I definitely didn't agree with that particular tactic.

For a person who knows nothing about the Tea Party, you sure make a lot of UN-substantiated accusations. This leads me to guess you are likely in one of two groups, neo-con compassionate republican, or progressive/modern liberal. Is that true? Pls declare your politics, so we can understand your goals.

For a person typing words in English, you sure struggle with reading comprehension.

Go ahead and point out these alleged accusations i've been making.

 

[manifold]

I actually already know what a strict constructionist is, and didn't have to look it up.

Was I wrong in my conclusion?

And the only reason anyone has to be coy is if they have something to hide.

You didn't follow the simple instructions ... You don't have anything to base the conclusion on ... And if you had, you wouldn't be asking.

.

The next honest strict constructionist I encounter that supports federal drug laws and the DEA will be the first.

If you're the first, then I question your honesty and/or your understanding of strict constructionism.

Hopefully you're not the flag bearer for the Tea Party movement, otherwise it's already doomed.

 

[j-mac]

You really have to ask this question this soon after mostly Tea Party infantile obstructionism shut down the government?

Ok, so you are against anyone who opposes the policies of this administration, and refuses to sit in the corner and shut the fuck up eh? How is that anything other than authoritarian totalitarianism?

You're both right IMO.

I support a lot of what the Tea Party alleges to want to accomplish, but I definitely didn't agree with that particular tactic.

And that is reasonable. But, I will only say that one thing that accomplished is that by the end of the shut down, the repubs were offering 1. delay the mandate for 6 months, and 2. they firmly made it clear that the republican's were against O-care.

The administration refused to even negotiate anything. They just HAD to go forward with this disaster without working with repubs in any way, much like the way they wrote and passed this turd from the beginning. Now, people still want to blame Cruz, and repubs for closing the government, but fail to realize that the moment the site hit live, and the government re opened, the demo's started calling for the very same delay....

Should they now be called "obstructionists"?

 

[Uncensored2008]

No disagreement here on that point.

But what about a resident of Colorado who gets busted by the DEA for possession of marijuana?

Should the federal government have the authority to incarcerate this person in a federal prison?

The Tea Party is not the Libertarian Party. The Tea Party is narrowly focused on fiscal issues. Dramatic reduction of taxes and spending.

Yes, the DEA, BATF, NSA, NTA, etc. should be abolished - but this isn't the purpose of the Tea Party.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sounds to me like you don't support federal drug laws or the DEA.

However I am left to wonder why you'd be so coy about it.

Your extremely broad brush statements and questions don't tell the whole story.

I'm perfectly fine with a federal law requiring all states restrict children from buying booze & drugs. I'm perfectly fine with a federal law authorizing regulation of testing of medicines and medical procedures. I'm perfectly fine with the feds regulating imports of food & medical products.

You may be fine with it, and that's your prerogative.

But can you point me to the particular text in the US Constitution that you believe grants this authority to the federal government? The best I can come up with is the general welfare clause, but I'm not sure you want to open that can of worms.

Section 8 excerpts:
The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; and To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Then the 14th amendment due process clause which of course allows our governments to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, with due process of law.

Thus if they pass a bill, and it becomes law and due process was adhered to (it is if they say it is) then everything we own, everything we are, our very liberty is for government to take and it's all constitutional like, esp. when it is a product produced, then bought or sold across state lines, but not really limited as such, it depends on the whim of the SCOTUS.

 

[manifold]

No disagreement here on that point.

But what about a resident of Colorado who gets busted by the DEA for possession of marijuana?

Should the federal government have the authority to incarcerate this person in a federal prison?

The Tea Party is not the Libertarian Party. The Tea Party is narrowly focused on fiscal issues. Dramatic reduction of taxes and spending.

Yes, the DEA, BATF, NSA, NTA, etc. should be abolished - but this isn't the purpose of the Tea Party.

OK. Fair enough.

So the Tea Party movement is essentially Libertarianism sans all that pesky liberty. /jk

 

[JoeNormal]

You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....

You really have to ask this question this soon after mostly Tea Party infantile obstructionism shut down the government?

Ok, so you are against anyone who opposes the policies of this administration, and refuses to sit in the corner and shut the fuck up eh? How is that anything other than authoritarian totalitarianism?

Why don't they use logic and reason to convince the people of America that they understand how our society and economy work and that they have the correct ideas for getting things back on track? Then the court of public opinion could apply some pressure to the other members of our government to make some positive changes.

I'm kidding of course. The average Tea Party congressman appears to have an IQ somewhere around 80 and would be scared as hell if an actual idea popped into his brain.

 

[j-mac]

So the Tea Party movement is essentially Libertarianism sans all that pesky liberty. /jk

No.

 

[RKMBrown]

No disagreement here on that point.

But what about a resident of Colorado who gets busted by the DEA for possession of marijuana?

Should the federal government have the authority to incarcerate this person in a federal prison?

The Tea Party is not the Libertarian Party. The Tea Party is narrowly focused on fiscal issues. Dramatic reduction of taxes and spending.

Yes, the DEA, BATF, NSA, NTA, etc. should be abolished - but this isn't the purpose of the Tea Party.

The Tea Party is a loose organization of people who get together to "discuss" important issues. The Tea Party is not an organization with defined political party planks.

 

[BlackSand]

The next honest strict constructionist I encounter that supports federal drug laws and the DEA will be the first.

If you're the first, then I question your honesty and/or your understanding of strict constructionism.

Hopefully you're not the flag bearer for the Tea Party movement, otherwise it's already doomed.

Again ... You don't know what Strict Constructionist is if you think they are driven by personal desire when assessing the benefits or interpretation of the law.
It would be easier to "unfold" the laws surrounding the DEA and Federal Drug Laws by breaking down the individual parts and how they are applied in context with what is written versus what people want them to say or mean.
Because people are somehow satisfied with legislators that purposely generate legislation without defining certain lines of adequate dissemination ... Is beyond the scope of what I think Congress has the right to do.

Edit ... I mean look at the Constitution itself, and consider the pains the founders went to in generating a document that is ultimately easy to understand if you just quit trying to make it say something that it doesn't ... And if you respect the fact that government was never meant to be the cure-all.

.

 

[manifold]

So the Tea Party movement is essentially Libertarianism sans all that pesky liberty. /jk

No.

/jk means I was just joking.

But seriously though, I've seen enough contradiction in this thread from self-proclaimed Tea Party supporters to know that it means different things to different people. And that's not necessarily a bad thing either.

 

[Redfish]

Ok, that's a pretty reasonable position.

But you can still support all that and still oppose "federal" drug laws and the DEA. In fact, I would argue that would make your position more consistent. If you believe it should be up to the states, then logically you should oppose all federal encroachment in that regard.

No, the federal govt still has an enforcement role at the borders if nowhere else. We cannot open our borders and allow all kinds of unregulated drugs to come into the country.

No disagreement here on that point.

But what about a resident of Colorado who gets busted by the DEA for possession of marijuana?

Should the federal government have the authority to incarcerate this person in a federal prison?

of course not, if the guy is in compliance with state laws its none of the feds business.

 

[RKMBrown]

Ok, that's a pretty reasonable position.

But you can still support all that and still oppose "federal" drug laws and the DEA. In fact, I would argue that would make your position more consistent. If you believe it should be up to the states, then logically you should oppose all federal encroachment in that regard.

No, the federal govt still has an enforcement role at the borders if nowhere else. We cannot open our borders and allow all kinds of unregulated drugs to come into the country.

No disagreement here on that point.

But what about a resident of Colorado who gets busted by the DEA for possession of marijuana?

Should the federal government have the authority to incarcerate this person in a federal prison?

Was he trafficking across state lines?

 

[RKMBrown]

So the Tea Party movement is essentially Libertarianism sans all that pesky liberty. /jk

No.

/jk means I was just joking.

But seriously though, I've seen enough contradiction in this thread from self-proclaimed Tea Party supporters to know that it means different things to different people. And that's not necessarily a bad thing either.

Now you get it. The Tea Party is nothing more than a movement for getting people to discuss issues of importance. People claiming otherwise, are likely just using the popularity or unpopularity of the movement to achieve personal goals. Well, that or folks who have been led to believe the Tea Party is something more or other than what it really is.