Tea Party Is Recycled John Birch Society Hate Rhetoric

[teapartysamurai]

teapartysamurai defends Beck, Becks' material is rooted in the John Birch Society, thus . . .

She is fail. Post something pertinent, tps.

Where did I defend Beck?

I'm still waiting for that?

This is typical of Jake Starkey.

Apparently, he is desperate for people to believe I'm a Beck fan.

The only evidence he relies on is his own troll.

And when he is challenged that's immediately what he turns into, is a pathetic little troll.

Sad and funny at the same time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Robert Welch was crazy paranoid. Mostly the Tea Party is crazy, full-blown schizophrenic. It is self-destrucive. It doesn't even know if the federal government, and so including them, should even exist.

The Constitution they pretend to believe in, sets up Judicial Review. Everything still funded through the federal government, since the adoption of the U. S. Constitution, has already gone through Judicial Review, and is subject to continuing, Judicial Review.

The Tea Party intends to by-pass the Constitution, with some Blue Ribbon Commission, likely of billionaires, to pass on all of U. S. federal history.

That is insane.

The reference is to Item 5 in their Contract from America!

Communists didn't even think up that. They came up with nuclear weapons instead! Even General Eisenhower, knew this.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(There were in fact a lot of policies which Eisenhower took for granted!)

Hey moron!

Marbury v. Madison, NOT the Constitution set up judicial review. <snip>

7 of 9 Founders on record about JD defended it. 9 0f 13 state constitutions recognized the principle. Who else can judge the constitutionality of legislation: the legislature? the president?

Stop the moronic nonsense. You don't like it? Isn't going to change anytime soon.

 

[rightwinger]

No. Not the same rhetoric. Repeating that dishonest mantra is still dishonest.

And we all already know that you leftwingers are opposed to fidelity to our Constitutional Republic founding principle of a limited government.

Show me where the Constitution says limited government

The tenth and ninth imply it.

To Tea Baggers it might

To a hundred years of legal decisions their are no restrictions limiting government

 

[teapartysamurai]

Show me where the Constitution says limited government

The whole damn DOCUMENT is based on limiting government you idiot!

What do you think checks and balances are about?

You sound like Sarah Palin when she doesn't know the answer...."All of it"

Nowhere in the Constitution does it call out limited government. Checks and balances keep one branch of government from being too powerful.

Come on....what you got next?

This is typical of liberals. First they will deny you are right, THEN CONFIRM YOU ARE RIGHT, all in the same breath.

Hey genius. It isn't just one branch of government the Constitution prevents from being powerful, BUT ALL OF THEM!

 

[jillian]

No. Not the same rhetoric. Repeating that dishonest mantra is still dishonest.

And we all already know that you leftwingers are opposed to fidelity to our Constitutional Republic founding principle of a limited government.

Show me where the Constitution says limited government

The whole damn DOCUMENT is based on limiting government you idiot!

What do you think checks and balances are about?

sorry, i don't discuss my area of education with loons.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[teapartysamurai]

you are also fully aware that government has expansive power to act in furtherance of the general welfare and regulate commerce.
.

That is but one interpretation of it. The quotes in my signature come from some of the people who wrote the constitution and passed it. At least those 3, clearly did not think that the government should have expansive powers in the name of General Welfare and regulation of commerce.

The fact remains the question was asked "show me where the constitution says limited government" Which is a silly question. Considering the fact that our constitution was written to spell out what the Government can and cant do. It is a document that by it's very nature seeks to limit the power given to the government it created.

Charles, we are guided by the Constitution, not by their intentions before or after. The document has to work for us in this generation and time of history. Now the corporations try to take over government, thus We the People have to use the Constitution to protect us from the corporations. Are you for or against the welfare of Americans?

Yeah funny how we "need protection" from the corporations but we don't "need protection" from the unions.

How utterly obvious and self serving can liberals get.

 

[Jack Fate]

If the founders of the USA were for big government, why didn't they institute national health care, Social Security, Medicare, etc.?

Anyone who thinks America was founded on the principle of big government is a ******* moron.

 

[Liability]

Wow. Your level of ignorance is kinda scary.

Are you actually going to sit there and pretend that our constitution does not set up the three branches of our Federal Government with ENUMERATED powers?

Do you not grasp the meaning of, among other notions, the 10th Amendment?

In your paltry rhetorical efforts are you going to claim that if the Constitution doesn't use the PHRASE "limited government" that it didn't set up a limited government?

Some lib rhetoric is more rancid and useless than others. Yours is pathetic.

wow... for a lawyer, that's pretty selective.

you are also fully aware that government has expansive power to act in furtherance of the general welfare and regulate commerce.

so why pretend that government is only allowed to do specifically limited things.

the constitution is not some fundie version of the bible.

Wow, for a lawyer you sure made a lame argument.

No. You are wrong. The federal government does not have "expansive powers" to act under the general welfare clause NOR does the power to regulate interstate commerce properly give it any such "expansive powers."

You paraphrase words in the Preamble as though it had the force of an Article. It never did; and that interpretation is absurd on its face.

Of course the Constitution is not a bible nor a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible. But it still has damn clear meaning which, thankfully, (usually) can be properly derived from the contemporaneous words of its authors and from the document itself.

The spin imposed on the Constitution by later generations and jurists which isn't faithful to the actual meaning is hardly a valid substitute.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Robert Welch was crazy paranoid. Mostly the Tea Party is crazy, full-blown schizophrenic. It is self-destrucive. It doesn't even know if the federal government, and so including them, should even exist.

The Constitution they pretend to believe in, sets up Judicial Review. Everything still funded through the federal government, since the adoption of the U. S. Constitution, has already gone through Judicial Review, and is subject to continuing, Judicial Review.

The Tea Party intends to by-pass the Constitution, with some Blue Ribbon Commission, likely of billionaires, to pass on all of U. S. federal history.

That is insane.

The reference is to Item 5 in their Contract from America!

Communists didn't even think up that. They came up with nuclear weapons instead! Even General Eisenhower, knew this.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(There were in fact a lot of policies which Eisenhower took for granted!)

Hey moron!

Marbury v. Madison, NOT the Constitution set up judicial review.

And when it comes to Blue Ribbon Commissions you better look at Obama's Czars.

I mean, SERIOUSLY liberals. Do YOU EVEN COMPREHEND THE CONCEPT HYPOCRISY BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR IGNORANT MOUTHS?????

Wow...You were able to comprehend a mascale post?

Shzam!

 

[skookerasbil]

Im gonna let Borris in here to give the poop in a nutshell ( no pun intended )..............

 

[rightwinger]

The whole damn DOCUMENT is based on limiting government you idiot!

What do you think checks and balances are about?

You sound like Sarah Palin when she doesn't know the answer...."All of it"

Nowhere in the Constitution does it call out limited government. Checks and balances keep one branch of government from being too powerful.

Come on....what you got next?

No where in the constitution does it call for the democrat and republican parties.

You are not helping your argument...

Hundreds of years of judicial decisions have established the limitations on the scope and reach of government.

None of them have said that the Tea Party gets to define the scope of government

 

[teapartysamurai]

Robert Welch was crazy paranoid. Mostly the Tea Party is crazy, full-blown schizophrenic. It is self-destrucive. It doesn't even know if the federal government, and so including them, should even exist.

The Constitution they pretend to believe in, sets up Judicial Review. Everything still funded through the federal government, since the adoption of the U. S. Constitution, has already gone through Judicial Review, and is subject to continuing, Judicial Review.

The Tea Party intends to by-pass the Constitution, with some Blue Ribbon Commission, likely of billionaires, to pass on all of U. S. federal history.

That is insane.

The reference is to Item 5 in their Contract from America!

Communists didn't even think up that. They came up with nuclear weapons instead! Even General Eisenhower, knew this.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(There were in fact a lot of policies which Eisenhower took for granted!)

Hey moron!

Marbury v. Madison, NOT the Constitution set up judicial review. <snip>

7 of 9 Founders on record about JD defended it. 9 0f 13 state constitutions recognized the principle. Who else can judge the constitutionality of legislation: the legislature? the president?

Stop the moronic nonsense. You don't like it? Isn't going to change anytime soon.

Well REAL FUNNY that liberals are all for the USSC being the last word on the Constitution UNTIL they make a decision liberals don't like, LIKE Bush v. Gore or Citizens United.

Hypocrites!

 

[uscitizen]

If the founders of the USA were for big government, why didn't they institute national health care, Social Security, Medicare, etc.?

Anyone who thinks America was founded on the principle of big government is a ******* moron.

Umm they had barely gottern past burning witches.
The practice of medicine consisted of what back then?
40 pills a day?

 

[teapartysamurai]

Show me where the Constitution says limited government

The tenth and ninth imply it.

To Tea Baggers it might

To a hundred years of legal decisions their are no restrictions limiting government

Suddenly a union flunkie is the last word on court decisions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hey moron!

Marbury v. Madison, NOT the Constitution set up judicial review. <snip>

7 of 9 Founders on record about JD defended it. 9 0f 13 state constitutions recognized the principle. Who else can judge the constitutionality of legislation: the legislature? the president?

Stop the moronic nonsense. You don't like it? Isn't going to change anytime soon.

Well REAL FUNNY that liberals are all for the USSC being the last word on the Constitution UNTIL they make a decision liberals don't like, LIKE Bush v. Gore or Citizens United.

Hypocrites!

Or you guys getting upset by Brown. Judicial Review is not going away, period.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Show me where the Constitution says limited government

The whole damn DOCUMENT is based on limiting government you idiot!

What do you think checks and balances are about?

sorry, i don't discuss my area of education with loons.

Don't want to give us another reason to laugh? Or is it too painful to realize it doesn't say much about that education when someone like me can own you so easily, and all YOU can do about is neg rep and run?

 

[teapartysamurai]

If the founders of the USA were for big government, why didn't they institute national health care, Social Security, Medicare, etc.?

Anyone who thinks America was founded on the principle of big government is a ******* moron.

When you look up big ******* moron in the dictionary it says see rightwinger.

 

[mascale]

Again the idiocy, stupidity, and-Americanism, and outright schizophrenia of the Tea Party agenda is put on public display.

The Courts of the Time all understood the concept of Judicial Review, and many jurisdictions so-stated. So when Contitutional Court system finally got around to making the rules: Then it adopted a common meaning of the time.

The same concept applies in the matter of the Tea Party itself. Judicial Review is Constitutional. The critics commenting that Judicial Review was expressed in an original case either, (1) accept the evidence of history, or (2) reject the entire concept.

The Tea Party rejects the entire concept of Judicial review. It specifically demands a Blue Ribbion Commission to pass on all the funding, of all of history! In their Contract From America, their perspective of any billionaires is the only one permitted. It is as though "Judicial Review," had never been agreed to, in all of history!

"Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution’s meaning."

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Many things in history, would of course be thrown out in the contest of a very thorough Blue Ribbion Review of the Constitutionality of Everything!)

 

[ClosedCaption]