The Tea Party loves the Constitution?

[Rinata]

Maureen Dowd wrote that we are living in "the era of Republican Mean Girls, grown-up versions of those teenage tormentors who would steal your boyfriend, spray-paint your locker and, just for good measure, spread rumors that you were pregnant. These women -- Jan, Meg, Carly, Sharron, Linda, Michele, Queen Bee Sarah and sweet wannabe Christine -- have co-opted and ratcheted up the disgust with the status quo that originally buoyed Barack Obama. . . . They are the ideal nihilistic cheerleaders for an angry electorate."

“Man up, Harry Reid,” Sharron Angle taunted him at their Las Vegas debate here Thursday night. That’s not an idle insult, coming from a woman who campaigns at times with a .44 Magnum revolver in her 1989 GMC pickup.

According to their own narrative, weren't conservative women supposed to be the ones who liked men – and hated seeing them put down? Isn't there something disconsonant about touting womb-to-tomb respect for life, then shouting about testicles in any language?

The sentiment behind the current usage certainly isn't new, and Madeleine Albright questioned Fidel Castro's cojones 14 years ago. But isn't it time to button up about man-pants, and maybe even big-girl panties? Women in politics and beyond would rightly cry sexism if the tables were turned. And wouldn't a little more decorum from the aspiring gentlemen and gentleladies do us all good?

Weren't Republican Women Supposed to Like Men -- and Act Like Ladies?

Like most women, I've had issues with men along the way. But I still think women need to treat men with the same respect that we demand they show us. "Man up", is an insult, any way you shake it. I think it's just as bad as women getting called the "c" word. It's like calling a man so many negative things all rolled into one!!! If Dem women do it, the same goes for them. Knock it off, all you broads.

 

[Moon]

so what about the constitution is it that you want to 'protect and defend'?

The principles outlined in the Constitution, including the ability to change it through the amendment process. What about you?

again, specifically, what principals do you protect and defend?

You're going to have to be more specific, because I don't do well at gotcha moments. I already said I support the Constitution, so I don't know what exactly you're fishing for here.

 

[jillian]

The principles outlined in the Constitution, including the ability to change it through the amendment process. What about you?

again, specifically, what principals do you protect and defend?

You're going to have to be more specific, because I don't do well at gotcha moments. I already said I support the Constitution, so I don't know what exactly you're fishing for here.

it is easy to say you support the constitution. pretty and meaningless words. i asked what principals, specifically, do you protect and defend, given that you want to amend so many parts of the document.

you're the one who will have to get more specific.

 

[shintao]

Got any links that have examples and gives thier reasons for thinking this way?

I don't know many, and am not one myself, but;
!st; I have yet to hear anyone say either of those. Asking muslims not to be assholes, is not breaking the law or wanting to change the Constitution.
2nd; well no shit, that's something Dems, libs and progs want to do away with.
4th; what?
14th; People come into America on a regular basis just to give birth so they can't be sent home.
16th; since when?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJEbFI03BNA At 1:30

17th; the electoral college sucks ass. How many Presidents have won the popular vote, but not been elected?

Sounds like they want to fix what's broken. But broken is how the DNC wants America, so shame on those people that want to make it better.

.................

 

[shintao]

I repeat: No one is under any obligation to defend against your stereotypes.

Have you ever considered thinking for yourself?

No stereotype at all.

And "thinking" is something I wish you guys would do once in a while. With cognition.

Okay, let me try out your kind of "thinking":

All liberals smoke pot, wear Birkenstocks, and drive smoke-belching '74 Volvos covered in loony bumper stickers.

There. How'd I do?

The republicans are so splintered and diluted that I don't even staunch party members agree on their plank. It didn't take long for the party to dis Palin & rape her of clothing. Yet she hangs in there embarrassing you, because she isn't a follower of the right. She just wants the party to gain power through an election. The same is true of t-party members and having ideas scattered to the winds.

 

[R.C. Christian]

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

Those are some pretty sweeping statements, but you need to consider what a mixed bag of nuts (pun not intended) the tea party is. Libertarian, and GOP. All equally disenfranchised yet not totally in agreement. I don't think it's accurate to make such a generalization.

 

[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?

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

 

[daveman]

No stereotype at all.

And "thinking" is something I wish you guys would do once in a while. With cognition.

Okay, let me try out your kind of "thinking":

All liberals smoke pot, wear Birkenstocks, and drive smoke-belching '74 Volvos covered in loony bumper stickers.

There. How'd I do?

It might have worked had Liberals been lockstep and rote.

They are not.

Like Conservatives.

I basically just need a couple of words during a conversation to suss one out.

It'll probably come as a surprise to you to find out that you haven't said one single original thing.

It's a good thing message board members have avatars so you can tell the lefties apart.

 

[daveman]

No stereotype at all.

And "thinking" is something I wish you guys would do once in a while. With cognition.

Okay, let me try out your kind of "thinking":

All liberals smoke pot, wear Birkenstocks, and drive smoke-belching '74 Volvos covered in loony bumper stickers.

There. How'd I do?

The republicans are so splintered and diluted that I don't even staunch party members agree on their plank. It didn't take long for the party to dis Palin & rape her of clothing. Yet she hangs in there embarrassing you, because she isn't a follower of the right. She just wants the party to gain power through an election. The same is true of t-party members and having ideas scattered to the winds.

The Tea Party is bringing the GOP back to their conservative ideals, away from the Dem-Lite trend they've been following.

 

[Moon]

again, specifically, what principals do you protect and defend?

You're going to have to be more specific, because I don't do well at gotcha moments. I already said I support the Constitution, so I don't know what exactly you're fishing for here.

it is easy to say you support the constitution. pretty and meaningless words. i asked what principals, specifically, do you protect and defend, given that you want to amend so many parts of the document.

you're the one who will have to get more specific.

I support the Constitution as it is the law of the land. I'm not sure what you're having so much difficulty understanding here. I don't recall ever saying I wanted to amend "so many parts" of it, but I don't see any problem with people supporting amendments to the Constitution as that is the specific method of changing it as provided in the document itself.

I think the "gotcha" you're looking for is for me to say I'd like to see some specific part changed, and then you will try to make the claim that I couldn't possibly support the Constitution if I want to change it. That's ridiculous, of course, so if that's where you were going, you might want to consider another tactic.

 

[Liberty]

Here is an example of someone who truly loves the constitution and supports it. (ie. ME)

I love guns. I own guns, I support the NRA and gun rights.
If there is an amendment that is passed in a legal constitutional method that repeals the 2nd amendment, I will disagree with it personally, but I will also recognize that it was done in a constitutional method and therefore is legal and legitimate. Will I be sad? Yes. Will I flip out? No. However, I would flip out if guns were illegally confiscated, that is, not backed by any written law or constitutionality. Get it? Amendments to the constitution, if done in the appropriate manner, is perfectly legal and fine. The glory of the constitution is that getting an amendment passed is very difficult, which is a good thing.

 

[Sallow]

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?

This might be a valid point if most conservatives weren't strict constructionalists and orginalists. Most don't consider the document subject to change or "living and breathing". And using that as the mold...and then coming out and advocating for some pretty radical changes, really seems contradictory..no?

 

[Sallow]

It'll probably come as a surprise to you to find out that you haven't said one single original thing.

It's a good thing message board members have avatars so you can tell the lefties apart.

That's fine..I don't need to be "original" these posts aren't subject to copyrights.

And yes..there's probably a template for the left..there is most definitely a very rigid one for the right.

But I am always surprised by Liberals, for example..Lars Erik Nelson..one of my favorite column writers. His pragmatic and liberal pieces were grounded in solid facts and extremely pragmatic. He was always on the side of human rights, fairness and equality.

After his death, I found out he was a registered Republican.

Liberal AND Republican.

Go figure.

 

[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?

This might be a valid point if most conservatives weren't strict constructionalists and orginalists. Most don't consider the document subject to change or "living and breathing". And using that as the mold...and then coming out and advocating for some pretty radical changes, really seems contradictory..no?

woah woah woah. "living and breathing" as liberals understand it has nothing to do with the amendment process, but has to do with what powers the congress have, and quite honestly, is used to pervert the document as it stands, not to try to achieve an amendment of some kind.

 

[Sallow]

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?

This might be a valid point if most conservatives weren't strict constructionalists and orginalists. Most don't consider the document subject to change or "living and breathing". And using that as the mold...and then coming out and advocating for some pretty radical changes, really seems contradictory..no?

woah woah woah. "living and breathing" as liberals understand it has nothing to do with the amendment process, but has to do with what powers the congress have, and quite honestly, is used to pervert the document as it stands, not to try to achieve an amendment of some kind.

This is confusing and contradictory..so you might have to elaborate.

And by "living and breathing" as Liberals understand it, means that the Liberals who wrote the Constitution didn't think America was going to be a fly by night, here today gone tomorrow kind of place. They thought it would be a place that would survive the test of time. And it order to do that..the founding document must be able to grow with the nation, but keep at it's core some fundamental principles. Quite frankly, the "perversion" I see is the lobby process..which is all well and good..but I doubt it was original intent that wealth would trump ideas.

 

[Liberty]

This might be a valid point if most conservatives weren't strict constructionalists and orginalists. Most don't consider the document subject to change or "living and breathing". And using that as the mold...and then coming out and advocating for some pretty radical changes, really seems contradictory..no?

woah woah woah. "living and breathing" as liberals understand it has nothing to do with the amendment process, but has to do with what powers the congress have, and quite honestly, is used to pervert the document as it stands, not to try to achieve an amendment of some kind.

This is confusing and contradictory..so you might have to elaborate.

And by "living and breathing" as Liberals understand it, means that the Liberals who wrote the Constitution didn't think America was going to be a fly by night, here today gone tomorrow kind of place. They thought it would be a place that would survive the test of time. And it order to do that..the founding document must be able to grow with the nation, but keep at it's core some fundamental principles. Quite frankly, the "perversion" I see is the lobby process..which is all well and good..but I doubt it was original intent that wealth would trump ideas.

Ok, first of all do not try to say that modern liberals share the same views of classical liberals, that is gross and incorrect characterization. Everything else, is true, HOWEVER, if modern liberals put that view into practice, there would be amendments that rewrite article 1 section 9. Instead, they circumvent the amendment process by saying stupid shit like the preamble allows for UHC, and they appoint judges to back up these absurd claims. I am not saying republicans are not guilty, the patriot act was obviously illegal to any legitimate constitutional scholar, but the point remains that congress is becoming TOO RADICAL and this is proven by the fact they know they can never get the American people to support amendments that legalize their illegal actions.

Side note, I believe it was Jefferson that said he would be surprised if liberty survived in the USA for more than 200 years, as then is when free societies tend to start collapsing due to power struggles, corruption etc. Unfortunately it looks like he was right.

 

[Sallow]

woah woah woah. "living and breathing" as liberals understand it has nothing to do with the amendment process, but has to do with what powers the congress have, and quite honestly, is used to pervert the document as it stands, not to try to achieve an amendment of some kind.

This is confusing and contradictory..so you might have to elaborate.

And by "living and breathing" as Liberals understand it, means that the Liberals who wrote the Constitution didn't think America was going to be a fly by night, here today gone tomorrow kind of place. They thought it would be a place that would survive the test of time. And it order to do that..the founding document must be able to grow with the nation, but keep at it's core some fundamental principles. Quite frankly, the "perversion" I see is the lobby process..which is all well and good..but I doubt it was original intent that wealth would trump ideas.

Ok, first of all do not try to say that modern liberals share the same views of classical liberals, that is gross and incorrect characterization. Everything else, is true, HOWEVER, if modern liberals put that view into practice, there would be amendments that rewrite article 1 section 9. Instead, they circumvent the amendment process by saying stupid shit like the preamble allows for UHC, and they appoint judges to back up these absurd claims. I am not saying republicans are not guilty, the patriot act was obviously illegal to any legitimate constitutional scholar, but the point remains that congress is becoming TOO RADICAL and this is proven by the fact they know they can never get the American people to support amendments that legalize their illegal actions.

Side note, I believe it was Jefferson that said he would be surprised if liberty survived in the USA for more than 200 years, as then is when free societies tend to start collapsing due to power struggles, corruption etc. Unfortunately it looks like he was right.

I will break this down as such:

A. This whole notion of "Classical Liberalism" vs. "Modern Liberalism" is just absurd. Liberal values, principles and precepts at it's core retains it's structure..just as Conservatism does. This whole Classical crapola is a Conservative construct..and I am simply not having it.

B. The notion of "provide for the welfare" appears in more then just the preamble. It falls under congressional powers. And the commerce clause of congressional powers more then covers the health care bill. However, IMHO, much of the military expenditures as well has it's various departments are not.

C. There has been nothing more absurd then the "Citizens United" case..which is clearly an example of legislating from the bench and judicial activism.

D. We live in a representative republic. Love it or hate it..the people in congress are duly elected by the states/districts they represent.

 

[theHawk]

- The mosque near ground zero?
- Equal rights for gays?
- Birth citizenship for illegals?
- The federal income tax?
- Direct election of Senators?

These are all rightwing conservative issues that are protected by our Constitution

- The mosque near ground zero?
Just because a person does not "support" a mosque being built at ground zero doesn't mean they want to change the constitution. The only reason a mosque is being allowed to be built is because the local government voted and allowed it (against the will of the poeple though), not because of any constitutional right. There are many churches around the country that get denied building permits by local governments. We don't hear you libs championing their "consitutional rights" to build where they want to.

- Equal rights for gays?
Gays have the same rights as everyone else already.

- Birth citizenship for illegals?
Many people do want to change the law to close the loophole on illegals having anchor babies. Funny how when libs want to change laws its "practicing democracy" but if anyone else wants to its going against the constitution.

- The federal income tax?
Income tax used to be unconstitutional. Same as above, why would it be wrong to change the law? We used to make all revenue off tariffs. But apparently Dems would rather ship all jobs overseas and freely let the goods flow in without tariffs, and tax the American people's income instead.

- Direct election of Senators?
I don't have any problem with how senators get elected, and I have never heard that the "Tea Party" wants to change it.

 

[Liberty]

This is confusing and contradictory..so you might have to elaborate.

And by "living and breathing" as Liberals understand it, means that the Liberals who wrote the Constitution didn't think America was going to be a fly by night, here today gone tomorrow kind of place. They thought it would be a place that would survive the test of time. And it order to do that..the founding document must be able to grow with the nation, but keep at it's core some fundamental principles. Quite frankly, the "perversion" I see is the lobby process..which is all well and good..but I doubt it was original intent that wealth would trump ideas.

Ok, first of all do not try to say that modern liberals share the same views of classical liberals, that is gross and incorrect characterization. Everything else, is true, HOWEVER, if modern liberals put that view into practice, there would be amendments that rewrite article 1 section 9. Instead, they circumvent the amendment process by saying stupid shit like the preamble allows for UHC, and they appoint judges to back up these absurd claims. I am not saying republicans are not guilty, the patriot act was obviously illegal to any legitimate constitutional scholar, but the point remains that congress is becoming TOO RADICAL and this is proven by the fact they know they can never get the American people to support amendments that legalize their illegal actions.

Side note, I believe it was Jefferson that said he would be surprised if liberty survived in the USA for more than 200 years, as then is when free societies tend to start collapsing due to power struggles, corruption etc. Unfortunately it looks like he was right.

I will break this down as such:

A. This whole notion of "Classical Liberalism" vs. "Modern Liberalism" is just absurd. Liberal values, principles and precepts at it's core retains it's structure..just as Conservatism does. This whole Classical crapola is a Conservative construct..and I am simply not having it.

B. The notion of "provide for the welfare" appears in more then just the preamble. It falls under congressional powers. And the commerce clause of congressional powers more then covers the health care bill. However, IMHO, much of the military expenditures as well has it's various departments are not.

C. There has been nothing more absurd then the "Citizens United" case..which is clearly an example of legislating from the bench and judicial activism.

D. We live in a representative republic. Love it or hate it..the people in congress are duly elected by the states/districts they represent.

A. Wrong. I know of NO MODERN LIBERAL that supports John Locke's ORIGINAL concept of liberalism or has read John Locke...hell or even knows who John Locke is...the founder of classical liberalism. Read about FDR and the new deal. Read about how FDR hijacked the term liberal. Read history.

B. it says PROMOTE the general welfare, NOT PROVIDE. Promote means to encourage, not supply. Basic english language. Don't misquote the constitution, please. You are sounding just as bad as the perversion supporters in DC.

C. Clearly.

D. Ok. They are still restricted by the enumerated powers in which they ignore. It is a gangster government now.