The Tea Party loves the Constitution?

[rightwinger]

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.

I don't see Liberals complaining about the Constitution. Yet somehow, the right wing conservatives who wrap themselves in the Constitution have obviously never read it. That is why they want to change so much of the document

Liberals don't complain about it because they work around it. They don't need to know what it says because they ignore it.

And obviously, people who want to change it in the manner it prescribes HAVE read it.

So as a Conservative you admit that you do not like what is currently in the Constitution?

 

[Sallow]

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

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.

Why? Tea Parties have been changing the message so they can win general elections.

But heck..here ya go.

Candidates Who Want to Amend or Repeal Sections of the US Constitution

 

[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.

 

[Sallow]

Liberals don't complain about it because they work around it. They don't need to know what it says because they ignore it.

And obviously, people who want to change it in the manner it prescribes HAVE read it.

Liberals don't "complain" about it because it was written by people who were mostly Liberal.

You're right, but not in the way you think.

The Founding Fathers were classical liberals: They believed personal liberty of the individual was the most important facet of society, and wrote the Constitution to limit government's ability to interfere with that liberty.

However, modern liberalism has nothing to do with individual liberties. It's concerned with people as a collective, and the collective is more important than the individual. Individual freedoms are unimportant.

Modern conservatives are classical liberals.

You can deny this, but not credibly.

Yeah I am right..and in the exact way I think.

And saying "Modern Conservatives" are "Classical Liberals" is laughable.

They would be better compared to Tories or Whigs.

 

[daveman]

I don't see Liberals complaining about the Constitution. Yet somehow, the right wing conservatives who wrap themselves in the Constitution have obviously never read it. That is why they want to change so much of the document

Liberals don't complain about it because they work around it. They don't need to know what it says because they ignore it.

And obviously, people who want to change it in the manner it prescribes HAVE read it.

So as a Conservative you admit that you do not like what is currently in the Constitution?

You get awfully anxious when people don't fit into the nice neat cubbyholes you think they should be in, don't you?

Where have I said anything that would make you think I'm unsatisfied with the Constitution?

Please note that the stereotypes you use instead of rational thought are based on nothing but the lies the Left keeps telling itself.

 

[daveman]

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...

 

[Two Thumbs]

How was the military getting fucked over by (your hero) clinton [sic]? Be specific.

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.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Clinton took office in Jan 1993 right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Of course he downsized the military. Our Military was designed to fight the cold war. It was bloated, the doctrine was wrong, the equipment was wrong, the structure was wrong.

You may also note that by downsizing the military we managed to have a balanced budget

Oh, and don't forget, when we had to go to war. We were undermanned and under equipt. Men died and you can thank clinton.

My god man!!

It's ok to fuck Vets over for a fucking surplus!? How fucking evil are dems?

This would have been the right way;

We are limiting enlisment of new people and limiting the re-enlistment of current people. Here's the list of rates that will be limited...

But you fucks got your surplus, never mind who you discriminated against to get it.

BS, we were undermanned because a retarded monkey named Donald Rumsfeld refused to listen to then General Shinseki that the war could not be fought and maintained with the plan they had in mind and that it would take more troops, Rumsfled, Bush Monkey and Cheyney didn't listen thats why there was a debacle, that debacle had nothing to do with Bill Clinton's drawdown in the 1990s.

More with the "monkey" speak.... Do you really think anyone takes anything you say seriously when you work retarded or monkey into every post? Grow up. Ya got nothing.

 

[daveman]

Yeah I am right..and in the exact way I think.

And saying "Modern Conservatives" are "Classical Liberals" is laughable.

They would be better compared to Tories or Whigs.

Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

 

[Ozmar]

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

Here's why the whole idea of liberalism is distasteful to moderates such as myself:

I think the majority of Teabaggers realize that building Mosques and burning the flag are constitutionally protected, but they are using their own constitutionally protected free speech to express their disdain for both.

You are just being silly with the 14th amendment one. The whole anchor baby thing, while disproportionately affecting Mexicans, is not solely about Mexicans. It just so happens that the majority of people who abuse that clause of the constitution happen to be illegal Mexican immigrants. How much can one country absorb before it goes bankrupt?

I don't know where you get this whole thing about gays. I'll put it to you trying to stir shit up.

I don't think they want the government to stop collecting income taxes on the whole, but the constitution is pretty clear that the federal government should only be collecting them at a minimum, for the constitutional functions of the government.

The part about senators elected by the people, that's more of a Ron Paul thing. Did you know America is one of the few countries in the world without its subnational units actually having representatives accountable to them in the national government?

The original purpose of having the senators selected by state legislatures was so that they would be direct representatives of the state governments, and thus accountable to those state governments. If senators are directly elected by the people in those states, the dynamic changes.

Looky here, an Australian pointing out the flaws in your logic.

 

[kwc57]

A quick search of the web didn't turn up any of the claimed items in the OP. Here is what I found.

Nationwide Tea Party Coalition | Plug into the Tea Party Movement Ecosystem

Our Core Values
1. Limited Government, as authorized by the Constitution
2. Fiscal Responsibility
3. Free Markets

Our Goals:
1.To Defeat Tax and Spend Politicians at the Polls on Election Day, November 2010.
2.To Place a Fiscally Responsible Politician as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Tea Party Nation

Tea Party Nation is a user-driven
 group of like-minded people who desire our God-given individual
 freedoms written out by the Founding Fathers. We believe in Limited 
Government, Free Speech, the 2nd Amendment, our Military, Secure 
Borders and our Country.

Tea Party Patriots | Mission Statement and Core Values

Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.


Core Values
•Fiscal Responsibility
•Constitutionally Limited Government
•Free Markets


Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.


Our Philosophy
Tea Party Patriots, Inc. as an organization believes in the Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. Tea Party Patriots, Inc. is a non-partisan grassroots organization of individuals united by our core values derived from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill Of Rights as explained in the Federalist Papers. We recognize and support the strength of grassroots organization powered by activism and civic responsibility at a local level. We hold that the United States is a republic conceived by its architects as a nation whose people were granted "unalienable rights" by our Creator. Chiefly among these are the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Tea Party Patriots stand with our founders, as heirs to the republic, to claim our rights and duties which preserve their legacy and our own. We hold, as did the founders, that there exists an inherent benefit to our country when private property and prosperity are secured by natural law and the rights of the individual.

Home Page

A broad coalition of local and regional Tea Party groups have announced the formation of the National Tea Party Federation (NTPF). The NTPF is established to create a unified message and media response amongst key leadership and their affiliates. At the same time, the NTPF will act as a clearinghouse and to prepare leadership to promote the Tea Party movement's objectives of:

■Fiscal Responsibility
■Constitutionally Limited Government
■Free Markets

Contract from America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Contract lists 10 agenda items that it encourages congressional candidates to follow:[2][3]

1.Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03%).
2.Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. (72.20%).
3.Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)
4.Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%)
5.Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an 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. (63.37%)
6.Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%).
7.Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%).
8.Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%).
9.Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%).
10.Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%).

 

[drsmith1072]

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

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.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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...

No kidding..... drsmith lives in alternate reality where up is down and left is right.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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...

No kidding..... drsmith lives in alternate reality where up is down and left is right.

And no pun intended!

 

[Sallow]

Yeah I am right..and in the exact way I think.

And saying "Modern Conservatives" are "Classical Liberals" is laughable.

They would be better compared to Tories or Whigs.

Nonsense. Utter nonsense.

Hogwash. You guys put up vague generalities about freedom and liberty..and when asked for specifics on exactly what that means..you point to freedom and liberty for corporate entities. Replace those corporate entities with nobility and yes..you guys are closer to the Tories and Whigs.

 

[ClosedCaption]

meanwhile the aclu whose sole purpose is to defend the constitution is vilified by the tea party.

Have any of them even read the constitution?

that's a lie.

The aclu only enforces the constitution when it wants to.

oh no thats horrible! You're right they should be tar and feathered!!

 

[The T]

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

SOURCE for every assertion? By the numbers.

 

[The T]

Liberals don't "complain" about it because it was written by people who were mostly Liberal.

You're right, but not in the way you think.

The Founding Fathers were classical liberals: They believed personal liberty of the individual was the most important facet of society, and wrote the Constitution to limit government's ability to interfere with that liberty.

However, modern liberalism has nothing to do with individual liberties. It's concerned with people as a collective, and the collective is more important than the individual. Individual freedoms are unimportant.

Modern conservatives are classical liberals.

You can deny this, but not credibly.

Yeah I am right..and in the exact way I think.

And saying "Modern Conservatives" are "Classical Liberals" is laughable.

They would be better compared to Tories or Whigs.

Thing is We are. The Founders were classical Liberals whom cherished Liberty across the spectrum...but they tempered it with the Rule Of LAW...this is where Statist DOLTS as you get tripped up.

 

[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

SOURCE for every assertion? By the numbers.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[Sallow]

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

SOURCE for every assertion? By the numbers.

Here ya go.

Candidates Who Want to Amend or Repeal Sections of the US Constitution

I put this up before.