Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

teeray

YAY NC Tea Party!

107 posts in this topic

Yeah... in the meantime, you've yet to propose anything at all.

The reason you put your argument forth for debate is because it simply won't stand. The reason you won't debate an actual issue that I've put forth is because your lack of understanding becomes instantly apparent. As for taking money from the poor to give to bankers... again, you poor, poor child. Here, lemme help you with that. Banks aren't just taking those funds willy nilly... this was PASSED BY THE EU. Your precious centrally controlled government is now pushing for this.

Don't worry, you've got nothing to worry about since you've invested nothing. So long as it is other people's money, it's all good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OR.... we could do what Cyprus is doing!

BTW - How much of 3.8 trillion annually do we need to run the government? You'll get no argument from me that DC is spending WAY too much period. The tax thing is merely trying to force the issue for 5 years and counting now.... DC is all like "DAMN THE TORPEDOES!"

Yeah.... Cyprus... that'll go over well. Get ready. It's coming whether you like it or not.... then again, YOU don't mind that do you? I mean... if you don't pay into the system, then you've actually got no skin in the game. So it works out rosy for you guys!

PS - Way to take this ball and run, buddy. You're doin' great!

Our revenue is at its lowest point since WWII. And every time there is a possibility of actually doing something fiscally responsible, politicians, generally the GOP, won't bend on any type of revenue from tax increases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teeray coming through with denial in GRAND style!

And how exactly are taxes "revenue" again? Do I have a choice in paying for said "services"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tea Party's about lowering spending? Then why do they support things like drug testing for welfare recipients like Rick Scott pulled in Fla., a move that clearly cost more than it saves, thereby increasing government spending?

It's not hard if you think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And.... Delhommey with the strawman!

Are welfare programs afforded in the 18 enumerated powers outlined in the Constitution? Try again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite enumerated power is

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years

Just to explain how completely dumb it is to think that 240 year old writings should be held as some kind of immovable object. Only people like that lady in the video could be so dopey to think that modern society can run like a frontier nation made up of landed white gentry, subjugated women with no power, a very significant portion of the nation made up as slaves with no rights whatsoever yet counted as part of an actual human being for the sole purpose of representation by white slave owners so they can remain slaves, and serfs.

The Constitution has some great ideas in it...for the late 1700s. A good many of them are still great ideas today. But there are still some great ideas from Roman times as well, and the Magna Carte still has some value. But the Founding Fathers would have never, ever, in their wildest dreams thought that two and a half centuries later, people would have the idea that their flowery ideas, tempered by severe compromise by the realities of the day, would be treated by some like they were the Word of God or something. Face the facts - this Constitutional Dogmatism is convenient only when it can be applied to things you don't like. In reality, it's a set of ideas for how things might work better, and has always been meant to be used as a living document, subject to interpretation by the people affected by it in the times they live in.

If your idea was actually implemented, we would rapidly devolve back into a backwards nation, economically unable to compete in the modern world, with a population relegated to subjugation, like the days of old, by the economically gifted - even more than today if thats even possible - you can trash our government all you want, but at least it's been able to slowly grant more rights, more opportunities, and more "pursuit of happiness" to more people, and the America you have always known, your entire life, has been in part created by things that the Founding Fathers would not have been able to comprehend. They would laugh at your slavish devotion to their words if they were not appalled at your misappropriation of them, because when they wrote them they had no idea how well they would work and in fact, they had to go back and rewrite their ideas 10 years down the road once they realized how many things they screwed up the first go round.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all I want to say that I feel for the lady because she is obviously nervous, but in this video you get to the gist of the Tea Party movement which is revisionist history (she knows that Lincoln was a Republican but has no clue what the southern strategy was/is; not to mention to comparing the Tea Party to the Sons of Liberty) and oozing with white entitlement (selling "your" principles to help other ethnic groups).

She can't answer questions about who they are taking the country back from, and doesn't know exactly what time period they want to take the country back to (the 60's were good to her, but I wonder if African Americans would agree that the 60's were so swell).

When you wonder what is destroying the Republican party, just come back and watch this video.

[

She sounds as bad as some of the Obama supporters. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah... in the meantime, you've yet to propose anything at all.

The reason you put your argument forth for debate is because it simply won't stand. The reason you won't debate an actual issue that I've put forth is because your lack of understanding becomes instantly apparent. As for taking money from the poor to give to bankers... again, you poor, poor child. Here, lemme help you with that. Banks aren't just taking those funds willy nilly... this was PASSED BY THE EU. Your precious centrally controlled government is now pushing for this.

Don't worry, you've got nothing to worry about since you've invested nothing. So long as it is other people's money, it's all good

if we're going to pretend that capitalism is sustainable long-term then the solution is of course to spend during a recession; austerity doesn't work. metallism doesn't work. go back to free republic.

also, you're fuging stupid IF you think leftists automatically support all government action just because it's "precious centrally controlled government"; just like you're fuging stupid IF you think government mandates to prop up blatant failures of capitalism (see: bank bailouts, obamacare, et al) are failures of socialism or whatever.

you're embarrassing yourself here. go back to free republic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if we're going to pretend that capitalism is sustainable long-term then the solution is of course to spend during a recession; austerity doesn't work. metallism doesn't work. go back to free republic.

also, you're fuging stupid IF you think leftists automatically support all government action just because it's "precious centrally controlled government"; just like you're fuging stupid IF you think government mandates to prop up blatant failures of capitalism (see: bank bailouts, obamacare, et al) are failures of socialism or whatever.

you're embarrassing yourself here. go back to free republic.

Cantrell, Delhommey already posted the straw man... you gotta come better than that.

You'll not find any Tea Party member that is in line with the official party philosophy that EVER supported bank bailouts. Moreover, NEVER has corporate cronyism ever been deemed a tenet of free market capitalism as is supported by Constitutional maxims. These arguments and more were born out in the subsequent Federalist Papers (where Madison and Hamilton laid out the arguments pretty succinctly).

The Commerce Clause is not the endless bounty of living document interpretation that so many judges have insisted upon using to prop up fallacious precedents over the years. It was put in place for the purpose of settling disputes between the States when it comes to trade for purposes of regulation... not a bastion for federal government to impose its will to micromanage our business affairs. No... the living part of this document is the amendment process. Otherwise, the document itself is meaningless.

If you've bothered to read the Constitution, you'll quickly find that it is born of a severe distrust of government. There was a long history giving good reason for that. That history has been repeated time and again in other countries to justify what held true back in that day.

So if Social Security and Obamacare are so great, then make them purely voluntary. There is no such thing as "a program so good it must be mandatory" . Banks shouldn't have been bailed out. Risky home loans should never have been federally subsidized. College loans should not be federally propped up. Medical care should not be propped up.

All of these have been and will continue to be abused to the point of bursting the bubble and breaking the backs of people that have otherwise been responsible. All the while, those that did not invoke responsible action have no consequences for their actions. A truly free market would have corrected this long ago. All we are doing now is inflating a bubble to what Bernanke thinks is infinitely inflatable. Never mind what has played out all over the world in the last century alone. We'll just have to see this train wreck to its spectacular end for Americans to actually finally get what has been proven about human nature throughout our relatively short history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's straw about what I asked? Why did the Tea Party support an taking an action that directly increased government spending levels? We're talking about a major Tea Party talking point, too, so stop trying to squirm out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites