The Tea Party loves the Constitution?

[jillian]

No, they don't. Idiot.

Oh really?

How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
How do they feel about gay rights?
How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?

So: Three issues are covered by "much of what is in the Constitution"?

Really?

You're not very bright, are you?

well, whether someone can build a place of worship is a first amendment issue. and it isn't just near ground zero that people seem to think the first amendment doesn't apply to muslims. Take a look at *this* link.

Hundreds protest proposed mosque and community center in Staten Island | 7online.com

gay rights is an equal protection issue, plain and simple.

and citizenship by birth is a 14th amendment issue.

you know that. so just because you disagree with him, doesn't make him 'not bright'... particularly considering he's correct on those issues.

some people on the right have a very selective love (or even respect) for the constitution... hence you get loons like sharon angle and at least one ignorant twit on this board talking about second amendment remedies if they don't like the way the majority vote.

and you're smart enough where you don't need me to tell you those things. so i can assume you're just being a curmudgeon

 

[Sallow]

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.

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.

 

[Sallow]

Oh really?

How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
How do they feel about gay rights?
How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?

So: Three issues are covered by "much of what is in the Constitution"?

Really?

You're not very bright, are you?

Notice how you ducked the question

Well there's nothing really to argue. Hence insults.

 

[rightwinger]

So: Three issues are covered by "much of what is in the Constitution"?

Really?

You're not very bright, are you?

Notice how you ducked the question

Hey dumbass, wake the fuck up. I answered your childish questions. But like a typical loony ignorant moron you are ignoring it. What is it like being a hack and a fool?

Hey dumbass, wake the fuck up........your name is not daveman

 

[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.

 

[rightwinger]

The biggest disrespect the Tea Party has against the Constitution is their abuse of the Second Amendment to resolve issues against the rest of the document. The Constitution is full of ways for citizens to exercise their rights anf peacefully resolve conflicts.

The Tea Party has their "Second Amendment Remedies" where if they don't get their way they are going for their guns

 

[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?

 

[Sallow]

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?

What you guys put out there..is not reality.

And agreeing with you on this..would make us both wrong.

 

[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?

 

[daveman]

Oh really?

How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
How do they feel about gay rights?
How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?

So: Three issues are covered by "much of what is in the Constitution"?

Really?

You're not very bright, are you?

Notice how you ducked the question

The question is flawed to begin with. Furthermore, I feel no obligation to defend against your bigoted stereotypes. I will defend anything I say, but I will not defend anything you insist I've said but in reality haven't.

Understand?

 

[daveman]

Oh really?

How do they feel about Muslims building a Mosque two blocks from ground zero?
How do they feel about gay rights?
How do they feel about citizenship for Mexicans born in this country?

So: Three issues are covered by "much of what is in the Constitution"?

Really?

You're not very bright, are you?

well, whether someone can build a place of worship is a first amendment issue. and it isn't just near ground zero that people seem to think the first amendment doesn't apply to muslims. Take a look at *this* link.

Hundreds protest proposed mosque and community center in Staten Island | 7online.com

gay rights is an equal protection issue, plain and simple.

and citizenship by birth is a 14th amendment issue.

you know that. so just because you disagree with him, doesn't make him 'not bright'... particularly considering he's correct on those issues.

some people on the right have a very selective love (or even respect) for the constitution... hence you get loons like sharon angle and at least one ignorant twit on this board talking about second amendment remedies if they don't like the way the majority vote.

and you're smart enough where you don't need me to tell you those things. so i can assume you're just being a curmudgeon

Jillian, thanks, but he's complaining that Tea Partiers hate the Constitution based on the fact that SOME of them want to change PARTS of it in the manner prescribed by the Constitution itself.

It's a ridiculous argument.

 

[Dr.House]

So: Three issues are covered by "much of what is in the Constitution"?

Really?

You're not very bright, are you?

Notice how you ducked the question

The question is flawed to begin with. Furthermore, I feel no obligation to defend against your bigoted stereotypes. I will defend anything I say, but I will not defend anything you insist I've said but in reality haven't.

Understand?

Leftwinger is just mad his life-partner duct taped down all his breakables in preparation for next Tuesday... H's mad he can't play with his Hummel collection like he always does on Mondays...

At least Swallow is here to, um... swallow his bullshit...

 

[daveman]

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.

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.

 

[daveman]

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

Oh you have just got to be fucking kidding me. Did you just complain about someone calling liberals hacks? OMG!

 

[drsmith1072]

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

Liberals want to change the Constitution by ignoring it and passing laws and by judges legislating from the bench.

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

 

[drsmith1072]

Clinton downsized the military.
To get people out he first offered a comical early retirement. A rew took it, most laughed at it.

Then he made a new rule (a breach of our contracts) That if you hadn't made a certain rank by a certain time, you would be kicked out. You ever see your bosses job, and think to yourself; "I don't want that job"? We lost a lot of senior men and women with that move. No one was promoted to fill the holes.

Then he made discrimination legal.

If you were not under a certain amount of body fat you were kicked out. That is discrimination, and a breach of contract.

And then he legalised theft.

Anyone kicked out lost 1/2 of thier breach of contract money on the day they were discharged, then the military would send you a letter telling you that you got too much and took the rest out of tax returns. Unless you could afford a very good lawyer.


Now, Where the hell was the aclu? Where were YOU when the men and women that volunteered to fight and die for this country were getting fucked over?

I'll tell you. You were all cheering, b/c none of you give a shit.

Uh so did reagan and HW. They started cutting the defense budget in 85 and that trend continued until 1999 when clinton became the first president to increase it instead of cutting it since 1985.

BTW can you provide a link to show that clinton established the pay grade time limits? how about the weight standards that are still in effect today, do you have a link? Can you actually show where any of the things that you listed came from?

I served 4 years (95-99) while clinton was president and noticed how much we were getting even as the right complained about how much we were allegedly losing. New vehicles, new personal equipment, new computers, money for new barracks and on post housing. Yeah it was SOOO bad. LOL

Served 84-95

Ask anyone that was there when these rules were invented.

You came in at the end of it, so you missed all the men getting fucked. But hey, it's ok, you got a nice barracks or a house.

unreal, you think having a nice room is better than honoring those that came before you. Glad you only did 4 years, would have felt bad for anyone that would have had to take orders from you.

So in other words you have NO specifics and can't prove anything that you are saying. Thanks for explaining that.

You claimed clinton made up those rules so PROVE IT.

Furthermore, NO i didn't come in at the end of it they were downsizing since 85 and continued it while I was in service and yet I don't see you compaining about it during a time when a republican was CIC. I wonder why??

BTW when did I say anything about thinking that having a nice room is better than honoring those that came before me?? Oh you mean I didn't say that or anything like it and that it was nothing but a lame attempt by you to put words into my mouth so you can try to smear me for something that I NEVER said.
GJ hack.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

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

 

[drsmith1072]

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.

And in case you missed it, the OP is broadbrushing a whole movement with the actions of a few. You are of course aware that there are pro-life liberals/Democrats and pro-choice conservatives/Republicans aren't you? Of course you are. Parties and movements define core values that their candidate generally adhere to, but not always. Each candidate brings his own individual flavor to the mix. You still have not disproved my point. If you go to the various tea party pages and look at the rallying points of their group, it is lower takes, free markets and limited government......period. That is what unites them. What individual candidates espouse is just that, their own personal view.

and in case you missed it so is the right. Go back and read how the posters on the right in this thread are painting the left with a broad brush criticize them and then you can come back and whine about how awful it is that the tactics the right uses are being used against them.

The FACT that there are several posters in this very thread that hold the position and defend the positions that have been mentioned shows that your point is invalid. Thanks for playing though.