Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

YAY NC Tea Party!


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#46 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,800 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 04:29 PM

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.

#47 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,319 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 07:02 PM

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. :)

#48 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,010 posts

Posted 19 March 2013 - 07:43 PM

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.

#49 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 03:09 AM

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.

#50 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,443 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 04:02 AM

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.

#51 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 08:18 AM

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.


Not part of the official platform. Straw man. Don't take my word for it.... ask the co-founder himself:

http://davidwebbshow.com/teaparty365/

#52 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,894 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 09:53 AM

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.


This brief manifesto is why I hope for the sake of this country that the Tea Party never has any actual power.

#53 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 10:22 AM

This brief manifesto is why I hope for the sake of this country that the Tea Party never has any actual power.


The reason you don't challenge the contents is because you cannot. The avarice that drives not only those in dc but the ones that put them there speaks volumes about the lack of character of this country's populace.

#54 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,894 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 10:39 AM

The reason you don't challenge the contents is because you cannot. The avarice that drives not only those in dc but the ones that put them there speaks volumes about the lack of character of this country's populace.


No, it is because just about everything in the last two paragraphs is either factually wrong or would be disastrous to the US economy and quality of life. It would take too long to point out everything wrong with it.

#55 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,443 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 12:44 PM

Not part of the official platform. Straw man. Don't take my word for it.... ask the co-founder himself:

http://davidwebbshow.com/teaparty365/


So the actions of the first Tea Party candidate elected to Gov. are a straw man and irrelevant?

I mean, that's a great plan. If we focus on what the Tea Party officially says rather than what they actually, you know, do, it's pretty easy to defend.

#56 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 05:19 PM

So the actions of the first Tea Party candidate elected to Gov. are a straw man and irrelevant?

I mean, that's a great plan. If we focus on what the Tea Party officially says rather than what they actually, you know, do, it's pretty easy to defend.


Do you support drone strikes on American citizens on American soil?

#57 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,328 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 05:20 PM

No, it is because just about everything in the last two paragraphs is either factually wrong or would be disastrous to the US economy and quality of life. It would take too long to point out everything wrong with it.


So terribly wrong that you can't take the time out to correct me on a single thing. Great job there.

#58 Delhommey

Delhommey

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 12,443 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 05:53 PM

Do you support drone strikes on American citizens on American soil?


Answer my question first and stop trying to change the subject.

#59 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,800 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 07:48 PM

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.


You forgot to say how the military draft and selective service need to be abolished, as they are not voluntary, but other than that you have a great plan for turning us back into a nation of poor farmers. A truly free market would have led to a total collapse of the nation many, many times and also prevented us from becoming the greatest nation on earth. It's already so free that banks can collude with the wealthy to steal OUR nations wealth for their own benefit; we actually need a LOT more control over the process of the economy and anyone who actually looks at the real world instead of inside an Ayn Rand fantasy novel understands this. There's a reason the American Dream is dying, and it has nothing to do with worker productivity or welfare. Our wealth is hidden from us, preventing us from reinvesting in education and infrastructure and everything else a society needs to succeed.

#60 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,894 posts

Posted 20 March 2013 - 09:29 PM

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.

So terribly wrong that you can't take the time out to correct me on a single thing. Great job there.


I will give you the cliff notes.

1) If making social security voluntary resulted in even a 5% reduction in Social Security it would result in a smaller economic output of around 63 billion dollars and would cost the economy around 400,000 jobs. These losses would also be disproportional to rural areas who would be hit the hardest and can not afford to take that kind of hit. That is the economic impact, that doesn't even take into account the middle to lower class people who wouldn't volunteer because they need to feed their families and pay their mortgage that would end up homeless once they leave the workforce. But of course you could make the argument that feeding your family or paying your mortgage would not be "responsible". What the Tea Party doesn't seem to realize is that Social Security is not just a social safety net for quality of life, it is also an economic safety net.

2) Obamacare didn't really do anything to consumers except mandate that they have insurance. So before Obamacare health care was voluntary and the people that were punished for those who chose not to have it were the "people that have otherwise been responsible" who had insurance or paid their bills, only to have them priced outrageously to recoup the people who did not have insurance and didn't pay their medical bills.

3) If the banks were not bailed out, the smaller banks did not have the capital to assume the bigger bank's assets and liabilities (therefore free market principles would have destroyed the economy because there was no one else big enough to take over their market share, thus "too big to fail"), therefore without government assistance on the merger of some of the larger banks, asset relief by the government, and the government capitalizing the banks to loosen credit, you would have seen a literal evaporation of most of the nation's wealth, retirement packages disappearing, and frozen credit. Business rely very heavily on bank credit to pay their payroll. Between the frozen credit and the loss of wealth it would have resulted in unemployment of as high as, 50%-60% and would have reduced the US to a third world country virtually overnight.

Why do I say that? There has been only one major crisis that the government did not step in and assist the banks or force the other banks to assist, it is now known as the "Great Depression" which was actually a smaller shock to the system than the one we experienced in 2008 yet resulted in unemployment of 24% overall and 30% for non farm workers compared to a max of @10% and 10.5% respectively in this current recession. Plus the bailout actually reduced the decades of stagnation that this type of shock would likely cause.

Not to mention that the reason we got there was because of the free market taking advantage of deregulation and throwing consumer protection out the window in favor of big profits, which is the achilles heel of free market without checks and balances (i.e. regulation). Study after study also show that the Community Reinvestment Act did not cause the housing bubble.

4) The government did not subsidize high risk loans nor did they force banks to create them, banks set their own lending standards.

5) without federal loans on education you effectively set up a Plutocracy by making sure that the only people who can afford to get a higher education is those who come from a wealthier background.

6) Medical care has to be propped up because illness and health care contribute to 62% of all bankruptcies in the US. Without medical assistance that number would be even higher and there would be even more bankruptcies.

So yeah, it is pretty clear that every point you made would be disastrous to the US economy and quality of life and I stand by my earlier statement

http://www.minneapol...lay.cfm?id=4136
http://www.pnhp.org/...ruptcy-2009.pdf
http://www.dailyyond...2011/12/18/3649
http://srdc.msstate..../graphmaps.html
http://www.project-s...g-toward-sanity
http://www.factcheck...and-bankruptcy/
http://www.gao.gov/n...tems/d09782.pdf
http://www.fhfa.gov/...hars9132010.pdf
http://www.ccc.unc.e...nnieFreddie.php
http://research.stlo...12/2012-005.pdf
http://www.time.com/...2136864,00.html


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.