The Tea Party loves the Constitution?

[Dr.House]

Then why do they constantly want to change it?

First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people

The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much

Nobody told me it was Post-In-Sweeping-Generalizations-And-Stereotypical-Idiocy Day....

I'm glad you get the inside information on these special days... Huffington tells you what to type, right?

I notice you are the one conducting a generalized dismisal of an argument you can't defend.

Who in their right mind would even attempt to "defend" broad-brush sweeping generalizations based upon some leftwinger's interpretations?

I suppose if you want to claim some interweb victory, go ahead... Have at it... I'm sure the other hacks will agree with you...

How does a political groups that pretends to embrace the spirit and body of the Constitution stand against so much of what it includes?

Other than you and some other flaming leftists on this board, who says they do?

Personally, I just don't see the point in defending idiotic, sweeping, stereotypical generalizations... Waste of time...

 

[drsmith1072]

so they admit that they want to change it but they make lame excuses in a desperate attempt to justify their contradictions.

There is no contradiction. No one is under any obligation to defend against your stereotypes.

There IS a contradiction. It was shown in my post and IF you hadn;t edited my poost and removed 90% of it so you could avoid admitting and reposting that contradiction as you pretend it doesn't exist.

here is my full and complete post.

Then why do they constantly want to change it?

First Amendment: They want to outlaw burning the flag, they want a law to prevent Muslims from building Mosques
Second Amendment: Don't dare touch that one
Fourth Amendment: Support expanded searches in the name of public safety
14th Amendment: They want to change citizenship requirements for Mexicans, do not want it to apply to gays
16th Amendment: They want to repeal the right of the government to collect income taxes
17th Amendment: They do not want Senators directly elected by the people

The group that wraps itself in the Constitution does not seem to appreciate it very much

You're going to need to provide some documentation to back up your claims. May I suggest links to actual Tea Party sites where this is part of the individual groups platform. I've got a feeling that what you will find instead is a call for lower taxes and smaller government.

uh in case you missed it there has been evidence in this very thread that the right wishes to change at least some of what rightwinger listed.

one even tried to claim that

They key difference here is that conservatives want to change the Constitution in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.

so they admit that they want to change it but they make lame excuses in a desperate attempt to justify their contradictions.

Try not to stumble over yourself as you run away from it's entire context this time.

 

[Sallow]

Your petulant foot-stamping is immaterial. The current cop of liberals has no interest in individual liberty.

The problem here is that conservatives "lose" the argument on whether or not the Constitution is a Liberal or Conservative document. Or rather..that's basically more an internal argument among Conservatives..it's something Liberals already knew. So, to make themselves feel better..so they generated this brand. Liberals are Liberals..

I didn't hear much bellyaching from the Conservative spectrum about torture, illegal wiretaps, denying trials and habeas. I did hear it from the Liberal side of the spectrum. So your argument concerning "indivdual liberty" is basically in the crapper. Unless you are talking about indivdual liberty for corporations who have magically become "people" in the eyes of the law. Then..you are on solid ground.

Like I told the other idiot, I will defend anything I say, but I will not defend anything you insist I've said but in reality haven't.

Then your opinion on warrantless wiretaps, denial of speedy trials, suspension of Habeas, torture, and secret prisons is what..exactly?

Perhaps..starting there would be a good point.

 

[Sallow]

Looks like the GOP has a pretty big tent, huh?

Lars Erik Nelson died a few years back..I can't speak for him..per se. But I doubt very much if any of his views would be welcome in today's GOP..just as someone like Jack Kemp would be forced out of Today's GOP.

Speculation. Got anything concrete?

Oh. If you did, you would have posted it.

Concrete? I pointed to two people, both republican, that I think would not be at home in today's GOP. Don't know how much more concrete one can get then that.

 

[rightwinger]

Nobody told me it was Post-In-Sweeping-Generalizations-And-Stereotypical-Idiocy Day....

I'm glad you get the inside information on these special days... Huffington tells you what to type, right?

I notice you are the one conducting a generalized dismisal of an argument you can't defend.

Who in their right mind would even attempt to "defend" broad-brush sweeping generalizations based upon some leftwinger's interpretations?

I suppose if you want to claim some interweb victory, go ahead... Have at it... I'm sure the other hacks will agree with you...

How does a political groups that pretends to embrace the spirit and body of the Constitution stand against so much of what it includes?

Other than you and some other flaming leftists on this board, who says they do?

Personally, I just don't see the point in defending idiotic, sweeping, stereotypical generalizations... Waste of time...

Simple questions House...why duck them?

Does the right wing/Tea Party support banning mosques near the wtc?
Do they support eliminating birth right 14th amendment citizenship?
Do they support changing the 16 the amendment?

Who came up with the term "second amendment remedies"???

 

[Liberty]

my god....its impossible to have a civil discussion when there are so many hacks who ignore facts when proven beyond doubt (Difference between classical and modern liberalism, example) it is really really sad. Why choose fantasy over reality, you modern liberals?

i can't speak for anyone else, since it seems they're pretty much responding as you are (without me making judgments as to who started it)

but i can say, without question, that you ignored my comments and called liberals 'hacks'.

so much for civil debate???

ah well.. now you know why otherwise civil people lose patience. because your classical and modern liberalism thesis is simply silliness.

I did ignore your comments. I was attacking rightwinger and swallow.

 

[drsmith1072]

Even if the original post WAS accurate, so what? The amendment process makes it perfectly legal to AMEND the constitution legally. Amending the constitution does not mean you are against the constitution, it means you want to amend it to make it better...LEGALLY...unlike the democrats who would rather circumvent the process, lie to the people, and come up with bullshit statements when questioned about it in town halls.

I think the bigger question for you, rightwinger, is...

Why do you think the amendment process is bad? The same amendment process that freed slaves, established for women their right to vote, and gave Presidents term limits?

Why do you think the amendment process is bad?

what you would call "legally" and "better" is subjective and a matter of OPINION. BTW got any specfiics on that whole circumventing thing you keep spewing out??

No one is arguing against the amendement process so please drop the strawman BS. The primary point is that the tea party/ringwingers wrap themselves in teh anctity of the constitution claiming that only they can protect it from the evil democrats even as they wish to change what they claim they wish to protect. It reeks of hypocrisy. even you ahve to see that.

 

[drsmith1072]

not that you care, but I was a sailor, a sub sailor, with 9 1/2 of honorable service. I more that passed my PT test everytime, but since I was 1/2% over the limit my career was ended illegally, the money that I was due, do to my discharge being a breach of contract, was stolen from me.

See now that is some BS. If you can pass all the tests you should be able to serve.

yeah it's BS becuase at least in the army they don't kick you out after ONE failing of the weight and body fat standards. You would have to fail a few times before you are booted. so IF what he says is true and that he got removed from service it would be his own fault and yet he blames clinton as he refuses to take personal responsibility for his own failure.

I was always over weight but passed the body fat test and never had an issue with it. Hell we has some seriously FAT NCOs who were always under weight so they never got hassled about it. So I seriously doubt he was removed from service after one failure but then maybe the navy has different standards for the tight spaces of a sub. too much missing info to know for certain.

 

[Liberty]

Even if the original post WAS accurate, so what? The amendment process makes it perfectly legal to AMEND the constitution legally. Amending the constitution does not mean you are against the constitution, it means you want to amend it to make it better...LEGALLY...unlike the democrats who would rather circumvent the process, lie to the people, and come up with bullshit statements when questioned about it in town halls.

I think the bigger question for you, rightwinger, is...

Why do you think the amendment process is bad? The same amendment process that freed slaves, established for women their right to vote, and gave Presidents term limits?

Why do you think the amendment process is bad?

what you would call "legally" and "better" is subjective and a matter of OPINION. BTW got any specfiics on that whole circumventing thing you keep spewing out??

No one is arguing against the amendement process so please drop the strawman BS. The primary point is that the tea party/ringwingers wrap themselves in teh anctity of the constitution claiming that only they can protect it from the evil democrats even as they wish to change what they claim they wish to protect. It reeks of hypocrisy. even you ahve to see that.

Your question's answer: Health Care "Law"
Also, you are wrong. Show me one tea party candidate's "issues" page in which they support what you claim. I'll wait.

 

[rightwinger]

my god....its impossible to have a civil discussion when there are so many hacks who ignore facts when proven beyond doubt (Difference between classical and modern liberalism, example) it is really really sad. Why choose fantasy over reality, you modern liberals?

i can't speak for anyone else, since it seems they're pretty much responding as you are (without me making judgments as to who started it)

but i can say, without question, that you ignored my comments and called liberals 'hacks'.

so much for civil debate???

ah well.. now you know why otherwise civil people lose patience. because your classical and modern liberalism thesis is simply silliness.

I did ignore your comments. I was attacking rightwinger and swallow.

The Conservatives of today would hae lynched the founding fathers

 

[Liberty]

i can't speak for anyone else, since it seems they're pretty much responding as you are (without me making judgments as to who started it)

but i can say, without question, that you ignored my comments and called liberals 'hacks'.

so much for civil debate???

ah well.. now you know why otherwise civil people lose patience. because your classical and modern liberalism thesis is simply silliness.

I did ignore your comments. I was attacking rightwinger and swallow.

The Conservatives of today would hae lynched the founding fathers

Well played, troll. Well played.

 

[rightwinger]

I did ignore your comments. I was attacking rightwinger and swallow.

The Conservatives of today would have lynched the founding fathers

Well played, troll. Well played.

Conservatives were on the side of the King then....they would support the king now (there was more money to be made)

The Colonists were the biggest Liberals on the planet

 

[Dr.House]

I notice you are the one conducting a generalized dismisal of an argument you can't defend.

Who in their right mind would even attempt to "defend" broad-brush sweeping generalizations based upon some leftwinger's interpretations?

I suppose if you want to claim some interweb victory, go ahead... Have at it... I'm sure the other hacks will agree with you...

How does a political groups that pretends to embrace the spirit and body of the Constitution stand against so much of what it includes?

Other than you and some other flaming leftists on this board, who says they do?

Personally, I just don't see the point in defending idiotic, sweeping, stereotypical generalizations... Waste of time...

Simple questions House...why duck them?

Does the right wing/Tea Party support banning mosques near the wtc?
Do they support eliminating birth right 14th amendment citizenship?
Do they support changing the 16 the amendment?

Who came up with the term "second amendment remedies"???

Simple question, leftwinger: Why use leftist stereotypical generalizations? You haven't answered that yet...

 

[Liberty]

The Conservatives of today would have lynched the founding fathers

Well played, troll. Well played.

Conservatives were on the side of the King then....they would support the king now (there was more money to be made)

The Colonists were the biggest Liberals on the planet

What is the difference between a classical liberal and a social liberal?

 

[rightwinger]

Meanwhile, the Tea Baggers would have been the Know-nothings or the John Birch Society

Same rhetoric, same tactics

 

[Liberty]

Meanwhile, the Tea Baggers would have been the Know-nothings or the John Birch Society

Same rhetoric, same tactics

I am stupid, right? So please explain to me what the difference between classical and social liberalism is. Help me learn.

 

[rightwinger]

Meanwhile, the Tea Baggers would have been the Know-nothings or the John Birch Society

Same rhetoric, same tactics

I am stupid, right? So please explain to me what the difference between classical and social liberalism is. Help me learn.

Sorry..I don't play those games

If you want to make a point about classical vs social liberals you are free to do so

 

[Dr.House]

Meanwhile, the Tea Baggers would have been the Know-nothings or the John Birch Society

Same rhetoric, same tactics

I am stupid, right? So please explain to me what the difference between classical and social liberalism is. Help me learn.

Sorry..I don't play those games

Why not? You play the sweeping idiotic leftist generalizations game....

 

[Liberty]

Meanwhile, the Tea Baggers would have been the Know-nothings or the John Birch Society

Same rhetoric, same tactics

I am stupid, right? So please explain to me what the difference between classical and social liberalism is. Help me learn.

Sorry..I don't play those games

If you want to make a point about classical vs social liberals you are free to do so

I don't know what the difference is though! Please help me understand! I am begging you!

 

[daveman]

Just because you choose to believe something you have been spoon fed, it doesn't make it true. LOL Your "key difference" is nothing but a delusion that the right uses to justify their hypocrisy.

Furthermore, the right loves judges who legislate from the bench as long as the decision agrees with their opinions.

Speaking of spoon-fed delusion...

Thanks for trolling loser now let's see if you have anything valid to offer or are you here just to attack in the typical hit and run style of the lame and moronic right??

He presented a baseless OPINION and I called him out for it and all you can do is troll. GJ hack. LOL

A baseless opinion, huh?

Can you find where the right to privacy, the basis for Roe v. Wade, is enumerated in the Constitution?

Kthnxbai.