remembering all of you teabaggers

[Antiderivative]

Still don't see it. Sorry.

I know you don't. There is a persistent delusion among tea baggers.

 

[Antiderivative]

I remember when teabaggers hijacked a valid libertarian movement in order to superficially rebrand the GOP.

They are charlatans.

no political belief is more "valid" than another

WTF are you talking about?

First, I never presented this argument.

Second, I strongly disagree with you.

Perhaps you want to try this again.

 

[The Rabbi]

Taxation is the Constitutionally mandated way the government keeps itself liquid..



Don't like it?

Move.

Ace.

And where does it contain the CHARITY aspect of it?

Don't look for it. It doesn't EXIST. And don't even try 'General Welfare Clause'...because it doesn't mean what YOU and the welfare takers think it does.

Got it ACE?

Drunkie..I lose more pocket change then you make in an entire year.

And yeah..the General Welfare clause basically covers it. If the government doesn't do anything to take care of the people...then there is no reason for government.

Got it..Ace?

I had no idea WalMart greeter paid so much.
Or are you pretending to be a CEO this week?
Whatever. I know when people start boasting like high schoolers then the empty drum sounds loudest.

The general welfare clause cannot be stretched to cover every eventuality. That would defeat the purpose of limited government, which was the object of the Framers.
That is probably way above your level of understanding however.

 

[Foxfyre]

Taxation is the Constitutionally mandated way the government keeps itself liquid..



Don't like it?

Move.

Ace.

And where does it contain the CHARITY aspect of it?

Don't look for it. It doesn't EXIST. And don't even try 'General Welfare Clause'...because it doesn't mean what YOU and the welfare takers think it does.

Got it ACE?

Drunkie..I lose more pocket change then you make in an entire year.

And yeah..the General Welfare clause basically covers it. If the government doesn't do anything to take care of the people...then there is no reason for government.

Got it..Ace?

Do you really believe that the intended function of the federal government is to take care of the people? Do you honestly believe that those that endured the long winter and other extreme hardships in a bloody revolution did that so that some monarch or dictator or totalitarian government would take care of them?

Or did they do that so that they would at last be free with the hard won liberty to take care of themselves rather than be under a government that would decide what they could and could not have?

The function of the federal government is to secure our rights, provide for a common defense, and promote--that's promote, not provide--the general welfare meaning that government would not get in the way of the people forming whatever society they wished to have or whatever honorable prosperity they could obtain.

Even a cursory reading of the Founding Fathers is crystal clear that they did not see 'taking care of the people' as a function of government and in fact saw that as a dangerous thing.

 

[boedicca]

Drunkie..I lose more pocket change then you make in an entire year.

And yeah..the General Welfare clause basically covers it. If the government doesn't do anything to take care of the people...then there is no reason for government.

Got it..Ace?

I seriously doubt that.

People who brag about how much money they make are generally on the low levels of the income scale...or they are so seriously under endowed that they use money to over compensate for their shortcummings.

In your case, I suspect both are applicable.

 

[sinister59]

Good. Since you seem to mean it?

WE the people are dog-tired of having charity corerced from us via TAXATION for Government control...

Get it ACE?

I do hope your state get hit hard .
ace .

but if you ass's in texas knew a damn thing , y fuck I'm reasoning with a texan ? now that a trick .

don't need you fucking charity here boy .

but your still bitching about new orleans .

texas drought continue I hope .

 

[The Rabbi]

Good. Since you seem to mean it?

WE the people are dog-tired of having charity corerced from us via TAXATION for Government control...

Get it ACE?

I do hope your state get hit hard .
ace .

but if you ass's in texas knew a damn thing , y fuck I'm reasoning with a texan ? now that a trick .

don't need you fucking charity here boy .

but your still bitching about new orleans .

texas drought continue I hope .

You can't read. You can't write. You can't think.
Just what the fuck can you do other than vote Democratic??

 

[Antiderivative]

And yeah..the General Welfare clause basically covers it. If the government doesn't do anything to take care of the people...then there is no reason for government.

Got it..Ace?

Actually, the GWC didn't mean this in the original context. In the original context it meant that the government provided a legal system that protects your labor. Protecting peoples labor from theft is utmost importance to society and is considered "the general welfare".

However, rw kooks, this that protecting people's labor from theft is enacting policies and programs that only benefit the rich at everyone else.

However, the productivity gains of the last three decades have been captured by the rich. Even though workers have become more productive, the rich have captured those gains. This is what is called "Legalized Plunder".

Sadly, the GOP perpetuates this travesty, instead of correcting it.

 

[DaGoose]

And where does it contain the CHARITY aspect of it?

Don't look for it. It doesn't EXIST. And don't even try 'General Welfare Clause'...because it doesn't mean what YOU and the welfare takers think it does.

Got it ACE?

Drunkie..I lose more pocket change then you make in an entire year.

And yeah..the General Welfare clause basically covers it. If the government doesn't do anything to take care of the people...then there is no reason for government.

Got it..Ace?

I had no idea WalMart greeter paid so much.
Or are you pretending to be a CEO this week?
Whatever. I know when people start boasting like high schoolers then the empty drum sounds loudest.

The general welfare clause cannot be stretched to cover every eventuality. That would defeat the purpose of limited government, which was the object of the Framers.
That is probably way above your level of understanding however.

Uh-huh.

The federal government certainly expanded its social welfare legislation considerably in the twentieth century, but the roots of current federal social welfare reach back into the earliest years of the nation.

https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=3B15&key=aa72da5400c8e9d611836adcc06ffca0

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Drunkie..I lose more pocket change then you make in an entire year.

And yeah..the General Welfare clause basically covers it. If the government doesn't do anything to take care of the people...then there is no reason for government.

Got it..Ace?

I had no idea WalMart greeter paid so much.
Or are you pretending to be a CEO this week?
Whatever. I know when people start boasting like high schoolers then the empty drum sounds loudest.

The general welfare clause cannot be stretched to cover every eventuality. That would defeat the purpose of limited government, which was the object of the Framers.
That is probably way above your level of understanding however.

Uh-huh.

The federal government certainly expanded its social welfare legislation considerably in the twentieth century, but the roots of current federal social welfare reach back into the earliest years of the nation.

https://litigation-essentials.lexis...cid=3B15&key=aa72da5400c8e9d611836adcc06ffca0

.

You understand that your quotation and the entire article do not refute my point, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

And yeah..the General Welfare clause basically covers it. If the government doesn't do anything to take care of the people...then there is no reason for government.

Got it..Ace?

Actually, the GWC didn't mean this in the original context. In the original context it meant that the government provided a legal system that protects your labor. Protecting peoples labor from theft is utmost importance to society and is considered "the general welfare".

.

Do you have a source for this belief?

 

[washamericom]

I remember when teabaggers hijacked a valid libertarian movement in order to superficially rebrand the GOP.

They are charlatans.

no political belief is more "valid" than another

WTF are you talking about?

First, I never presented this argument.

Second, I strongly disagree with you.

Perhaps you want to try this again.

i took your posts to mean that the teabaggers highjacked a valid libertarian movement to superficially rebrand their own movement. how can one party "hijack" from another. it's all politics, and i'm saying that partys argue their case, then the voter decides, that's the democratic process.

there has always been the argument that so an so "stole" so and so's vote. well, the vote belongs to the voter, subsequently to the candidate to which they cast.

ergo, all political ideologies, and ensuing representations are equal in the eyes of the law, which organises and manages the public elections, no political expression carries more validity than any other, under the careful watch of the state. "hijacking" implies ownership, like a car, or an airplane full of people, i won't get into duress right now.

 

[editec]

If society goes down in the worst possible way (unlikely but possible) then we might very well all get the chance to DECIDE which among us are our brothers.

Meanwhile, in that event horizon, everybody else will NOT be our brothers.

And that my friends, will be the downside of that tragic affair.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

on Obama's comment on we are all responsible for each other , then theses last storms that came through Mo. , I can see your whining now about Obama might give us government aid ,

I look for no help from you selfish bastards . just complaints

When people say "teabaggers" they mean average Americans.

No.....they're referring to the spawn of The DICK; Armey....

......aka The DICK ARMY!!!!

*

"Thanks for the fattened-up RETIREMENT-PLAN....SUCKERS!!!"​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I remember when teabaggers hijacked a valid libertarian movement in order to superficially rebrand the GOP.

They are charlatans.

And there it is.................

And there's WHAT?

*NOTHING*

I think that's geauxtohel's POINT!!!!!!!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

And in typical fashion, on Page ONE of the thread even, the left is again incapable of focusing on and discussing the issue but we're already to BLAME BUSH. (Of course the Tea Party didn't exist under President Bush but that doesn't bother them.)

Do you suppose we'll get to corporate welfare and racism by Page Two?

Hell.....what need is there, for corporate-welfare, when you Teabaggers are MORE-than-happy (thru sheer-laziness) to Allow The Marketplace To Regulate Itself????​

"If there’s anything that Warren Buffett has prized more than his billions, it’s his company’s reputation. Which is why there was a collective gasp of betrayal when Buffett’s onetime heir apparent, David Sokol, resigned in the aftermath of pocketing $3 million from trading in the stock of a chemical company Berkshire was acquiring. Buffett furiously spun the departure, insisting nothing “unlawful” transpired. In a Reuters survey of 23 top bankers, 21 said Sokol’s trades looked ethically wrong to them, yet only one in five expected any insider-trading charges to be brought. The incident has raised the question, yet again, about what it takes to succeed in finance. Do bankers think of the law as something to be scoffed at and ethics are only for suckers? Increasingly, even veteran investors say the answer is an outraged “yes.”

“What you’re seeing on Wall Street is disgusting,” says Vanguard Group founder John Bogle. “Not so many years ago there were some things one simply didn’t do. Period. And that’s evolved into moral relativism, into ‘When everybody else is doing it, I can do it too.’ I’ve only been in this business 60 years,” adds Bogle, and it is “absolutely” worse now than before. He believes that “we have a societal problem, not just a Wall Street problem.

Will anything chasten Wall Street? Oliver Budde, a former Lehman Brothers lawyer, says many bankers “really feel awful about what they do,” but “there’s this other dynamic of ‘Look, if we don’t do it, then someone else will do it.’?” As he puts it: “Morals, ethics—that’s not their job. The view on the Street is that that’s Congress’s job.” Washington, are you listening?"

Are Ethics for Suckers?​

If you Teabaggers are gonna save all your accolades for the Hu$tler$, nobody wants to hear a bunch o' whinin' & cryin', from you, when YOU get fucked, the next time!!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Good. Since you seem to mean it?

WE the people are dog-tired of having charity corerced from us via TAXATION for Government control...

Get it ACE?

Taxation is the Constitutionally mandated way the government keeps itself liquid..

You actually think you're gonna (successfully) explain the art of balancing-the-books, to these people????



*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUPMjC9mq5Y]YouTube - 9.12 DC TEA PARTY - MARCH FOOTAGE WITH INTERVIEWS[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fevga9jUC48]YouTube - 9.12 DC TEA PARTY - INTERVIEW B-ROLL[/ame]

Good LUCK!!!! (....And, don't forget to take a lunch, with you.)​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Good. Since you seem to mean it?

WE the people are dog-tired of having charity corerced from us via TAXATION for Government control...

Get it ACE?

Taxation is the Constitutionally mandated way the government keeps itself liquid..

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Don't like it?

Move.

Ace.

And where does it contain the CHARITY aspect of it?

Don't look for it. It doesn't EXIST. And don't even try 'General Welfare Clause'...because it doesn't mean what YOU and the welfare takers think it does.

Got it ACE?

Gee.....lemme guess.....the 'General Welfare Clause' was designed, specifically, for White-people....right??

I guess the Founding Fathers never (really) felt any need to be more-specific, huh??

 

[Mr. Shaman]

And where does it contain the CHARITY aspect of it?

Don't look for it. It doesn't EXIST. And don't even try 'General Welfare Clause'...because it doesn't mean what YOU and the welfare takers think it does.

Got it ACE?

Drunkie..I lose more pocket change then you make in an entire year.

And yeah..the General Welfare clause basically covers it. If the government doesn't do anything to take care of the people...then there is no reason for government.

Got it..Ace?

Do you really believe that the intended function of the federal government is to take care of the people? Do you honestly believe that those that endured the long winter and other extreme hardships in a bloody revolution did that so that some monarch or dictator or totalitarian government would take care of them?

Or did they do that so that they would at last be free with the hard won liberty to take care of themselves rather than be under a government that would decide what they could and could not have?

Ohhhhhhhhh.....so it wasn't just a bunch o' (Teabagger-style) individual, self-centered pricks....runnin'-around....shootin' at everything that moved....just lookin' to save their own lame-ass, huh??

Gee.....it almost sounds like it was organized.​

 

[washamericom]

billboard guy might be right about the constitution being open ended, for the evolution of a democracy, technology etc...