|
I really do sympathize with the true libertarians in the Tea Party. While I am more of a moderate liberal now, several years ago I was a libertarian and I can respect the ideology as internally consistent and based on values I can either agree with or at least can appreciate. Over time, I've come to doubt the viability of their economic policies (not that I think any party really gets economics), but then again that's why we have our differences 
On the other hand, the "I'm a libertarian, except when they don't want to invade X country or when they take socially liberal positions" type is laughable. Just say you're a conservative Republican. Probably 40% of the country holds those views, it won't make you an outcast.
At this point, the majority of the "Tea Party" is simply the re-branding of conservatives who feel that the term "Republican" is tarnished by the fiasco that was the Bush presidency. It's an attempt to sell the same principles under a different name.
|
On September 17 2010 11:36 Sleight wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 11:27 Ooshmagoosh wrote:On September 17 2010 11:14 Tdelamay wrote:
It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
I don't like where this is going. I envy the American's current government. I can't fathom why they would be upset with it. The current administration / congress looks pretty slimy as of late.They may not be singing of blood and thunder, charging into foreign countries in the name of freedom, but the way they went about this "health care" bill was just icky. They pass an enormous bill that most of their members haven't even bothered to read, and the thing comes with a mandate that, regardless of what it aims to achieve, is blatantly unconstitutional. Okay, so for one, if they didn't read it, it is a) their fault because I certainly read through the vast majority of it and b) they passed it by voting, like EVERY OTHER BILL EVER. And also, that isn't what unconstitutional means. Unconstitutional means it actually CONTRADICTS the Constitution. In fact, this is the very definition of an issue that the government has every right to decide. Because it does not impede on ANY constitutional right and falls clearly under the jurisdiction of the appropriate articles of the document you are referring to. The government says kids can't just work all they want. They say health care has to meet a), b), and c) to be 'legal' and they sure as hell can say everyone needs to actually have a way of STAYING HEALTHY. What is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without the LIFE part? Based on traditional legal precedents, expanding that little ol' "life" bit to include right to HEALTHY life is well within the reasonable realm. LEGALWNED
No the government hasn't the right to decide.
it quite clearly states in big letters, WE THE PEOPLE. It's us who keep the government in check. it is not there right. The amendments aren't to be weaved to support what one wants to do. they are in stone.
and I really dont believe a mandatory payment from every citizen is constitutional in any way.
|
On September 17 2010 11:48 Signet wrote:I really do sympathize with the true libertarians in the Tea Party. While I am more of a moderate liberal now, several years ago I was a libertarian and I can respect the ideology as internally consistent and based on values I can either agree with or at least can appreciate. Over time, I've come to doubt the viability of their economic policies (not that I think any party really gets economics), but then again that's why we have our differences On the other hand, the "I'm a libertarian, except when they don't want to invade X country or when they take socially liberal positions" type is laughable. Just say you're a conservative Republican. Probably 40% of the country holds those views, it won't make you an outcast. At this point, the majority of the "Tea Party" is simply the re-branding of conservatives who feel that the term "Republican" is tarnished by the fiasco that was the Bush presidency. It's an attempt to sell the same principles under a different name.
Bush wasn't conservative lmao. Bush was just as bad as obama in these socialistic policies.
patriot act anyone?
|
Religion-based positions
In a 1996 discussion on CNN, O'Donnell advocated the teaching of creationism in public schools and argued for a literal interpretation of The Bible's Book of Genesis.[17] O'Donnell has rejected Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, asserting that it "had not met scientific criteria" and that "when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory."[17]
They voted for that?
I have never heard a Tea Party canidate say a rational or pragmatic thing regarding policy. They are all extremist and would turn this country into a theocracy if they could.
|
Luckily it wasn't a "real" election yet. They still have a general election now The dems got a free seat now, and that's just fine for me.
|
On September 17 2010 11:50 FindingPride wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 11:36 Sleight wrote:On September 17 2010 11:27 Ooshmagoosh wrote:On September 17 2010 11:14 Tdelamay wrote:
It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
I don't like where this is going. I envy the American's current government. I can't fathom why they would be upset with it. The current administration / congress looks pretty slimy as of late.They may not be singing of blood and thunder, charging into foreign countries in the name of freedom, but the way they went about this "health care" bill was just icky. They pass an enormous bill that most of their members haven't even bothered to read, and the thing comes with a mandate that, regardless of what it aims to achieve, is blatantly unconstitutional. Okay, so for one, if they didn't read it, it is a) their fault because I certainly read through the vast majority of it and b) they passed it by voting, like EVERY OTHER BILL EVER. And also, that isn't what unconstitutional means. Unconstitutional means it actually CONTRADICTS the Constitution. In fact, this is the very definition of an issue that the government has every right to decide. Because it does not impede on ANY constitutional right and falls clearly under the jurisdiction of the appropriate articles of the document you are referring to. The government says kids can't just work all they want. They say health care has to meet a), b), and c) to be 'legal' and they sure as hell can say everyone needs to actually have a way of STAYING HEALTHY. What is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without the LIFE part? Based on traditional legal precedents, expanding that little ol' "life" bit to include right to HEALTHY life is well within the reasonable realm. LEGALWNED No the government hasn't the right to decide. it quite clearly states in big letters, WE THE PEOPLE. It's us who keep the government in check. it is not there right. The amendments aren't to be weaved to support what one wants to do. they are in stone.
If you don't know what you're talking about you probably shouldn't attempt to contribute. To suggest you're lacking information on this subject would be a gross understatement. How you can type so few sentences and be incorrect that # of times is simply staggering.
|
On September 17 2010 11:51 On_Slaught wrote:
Religion-based positions
In a 1996 discussion on CNN, O'Donnell advocated the teaching of creationism in public schools and argued for a literal interpretation of The Bible's Book of Genesis.[17] O'Donnell has rejected Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, asserting that it "had not met scientific criteria" and that "when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory."[17]
They voted for that?
I have never heard a Tea Party canidate say a rational or pragmatic thing regarding policy. They are all extremist and would turn this country into a theocracy if they could.
The absolute biggest problem with the conservative movement today is it's trend of social conservatism becoming as or more important as economic conservatism. It's something that has always been the case, but now it has reached almost a fanatical level.
The Republican Party was hijacked by people who don't believe in evolution, and vehemently feel like sharing that, and it's paying the price for it now. The country isn't liking it.
Edit: they also have an open distrust of EDUCATION, or "smart people" which is just terrifying on so many levels. "Elite" is someone who went to a community college now.
|
On September 17 2010 11:34 Musoeun wrote:
On the one hand, you have a lot of the libertarian, mind-our-own-business, limit bureaucracy/make it work right, crowd that followed Ron Paul two years ago.
On the other hand, you have a lot of the old Religious Right, who also tend to be small government but are on the whole more moralistic and militaristic.
The former group is being used as pawns for the latter group. The Tea Party at this point is made up of Christianists like Odonnell and Palin. They're the ones that control it now. Ron Paul isn't ever mentioned. This is now a part that wants three things, a fully Christian America, low taxes, and to continue to borrow money from China to fund the war machine indefinitely.
|
I love the fundamentals of the tea party movement. However, this woman is just under-qualified and is a Bible-pushing non-thinking conservative. I don't like conservatives like that, and that's NOT what this country needs. We need libertarian conservatives. I think people's anger at the current gov't is blinding their ability to make correct choices - once again. Happens all the time. Hell, it's the only reason Obama got elected in the first place.
|
Libertarians got a really bad wrap when Rand Paul said he wouldn't mind if black people weren't allowed to be served in restaurants ( or something along those lines)
Conservatives / Libertarians sure know how to advertise their parties well..
|
On September 17 2010 11:54 I_Love_Bacon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 11:50 FindingPride wrote:On September 17 2010 11:36 Sleight wrote:On September 17 2010 11:27 Ooshmagoosh wrote:On September 17 2010 11:14 Tdelamay wrote:
It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
I don't like where this is going. I envy the American's current government. I can't fathom why they would be upset with it. The current administration / congress looks pretty slimy as of late.They may not be singing of blood and thunder, charging into foreign countries in the name of freedom, but the way they went about this "health care" bill was just icky. They pass an enormous bill that most of their members haven't even bothered to read, and the thing comes with a mandate that, regardless of what it aims to achieve, is blatantly unconstitutional. Okay, so for one, if they didn't read it, it is a) their fault because I certainly read through the vast majority of it and b) they passed it by voting, like EVERY OTHER BILL EVER. And also, that isn't what unconstitutional means. Unconstitutional means it actually CONTRADICTS the Constitution. In fact, this is the very definition of an issue that the government has every right to decide. Because it does not impede on ANY constitutional right and falls clearly under the jurisdiction of the appropriate articles of the document you are referring to. The government says kids can't just work all they want. They say health care has to meet a), b), and c) to be 'legal' and they sure as hell can say everyone needs to actually have a way of STAYING HEALTHY. What is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without the LIFE part? Based on traditional legal precedents, expanding that little ol' "life" bit to include right to HEALTHY life is well within the reasonable realm. LEGALWNED No the government hasn't the right to decide. it quite clearly states in big letters, WE THE PEOPLE. It's us who keep the government in check. it is not there right. The amendments aren't to be weaved to support what one wants to do. they are in stone. If you don't know what you're talking about you probably shouldn't attempt to contribute. To suggest you're lacking information on this subject would be a gross understatement. How you can type so few sentences and be incorrect that # of times is simply staggering.
since you didn't take the time to iterate why i can only assume you have no idea what your talking about.
please, enlighten me
|
On September 17 2010 11:50 FindingPride wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 11:36 Sleight wrote:On September 17 2010 11:27 Ooshmagoosh wrote:On September 17 2010 11:14 Tdelamay wrote:
It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
I don't like where this is going. I envy the American's current government. I can't fathom why they would be upset with it. The current administration / congress looks pretty slimy as of late.They may not be singing of blood and thunder, charging into foreign countries in the name of freedom, but the way they went about this "health care" bill was just icky. They pass an enormous bill that most of their members haven't even bothered to read, and the thing comes with a mandate that, regardless of what it aims to achieve, is blatantly unconstitutional. Okay, so for one, if they didn't read it, it is a) their fault because I certainly read through the vast majority of it and b) they passed it by voting, like EVERY OTHER BILL EVER. And also, that isn't what unconstitutional means. Unconstitutional means it actually CONTRADICTS the Constitution. In fact, this is the very definition of an issue that the government has every right to decide. Because it does not impede on ANY constitutional right and falls clearly under the jurisdiction of the appropriate articles of the document you are referring to. The government says kids can't just work all they want. They say health care has to meet a), b), and c) to be 'legal' and they sure as hell can say everyone needs to actually have a way of STAYING HEALTHY. What is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without the LIFE part? Based on traditional legal precedents, expanding that little ol' "life" bit to include right to HEALTHY life is well within the reasonable realm. LEGALWNED No the government hasn't the right to decide. it quite clearly states in big letters, WE THE PEOPLE. It's us who keep the government in check. it is not there right. The amendments aren't to be weaved to support what one wants to do. they are in stone. and I really dont believe a mandatory payment from every citizen is constitutional in any way.
Hahahahahahah.... wait wait wait wait..... Haahahahaah. This was awesome. Here is a brief list of the amendments that have been changed/added/etc just in the Bill of Rights.
1: Does not cover all speech.
3: Guarantees right to privacy
5: Miranda rights included under this
6: Miranda rights included under this
9: says the list of rights is NOT ALL OF THEM
The 18th amendment was REPEALED, look it up. You'll know a new word.
Congrats at being horribly wrong and clearly not even an American, if there were a test of our nation's government and history.
EDIT: Realized this isn't clear enough for them... They are NOT in stone. By definition the Constitution is a Living, Breathing Document. Look that up, too.
|
On September 17 2010 11:51 FindingPride wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 11:48 Signet wrote:I really do sympathize with the true libertarians in the Tea Party. While I am more of a moderate liberal now, several years ago I was a libertarian and I can respect the ideology as internally consistent and based on values I can either agree with or at least can appreciate. Over time, I've come to doubt the viability of their economic policies (not that I think any party really gets economics), but then again that's why we have our differences On the other hand, the "I'm a libertarian, except when they don't want to invade X country or when they take socially liberal positions" type is laughable. Just say you're a conservative Republican. Probably 40% of the country holds those views, it won't make you an outcast. At this point, the majority of the "Tea Party" is simply the re-branding of conservatives who feel that the term "Republican" is tarnished by the fiasco that was the Bush presidency. It's an attempt to sell the same principles under a different name. Bush wasn't conservative lmao. Bush was just as bad as obama in these socialistic policies. patriot act anyone?
The term conservative has many meanings, I was obviously using it in the "right of center" sense, not in terms of what it means to be conservative 100 years ago. But for what it's worth, if you made a statement like "Ron Paul is more of a true conservative than George W. Bush" then I would be in complete agreement.
How is the Patriot Act socialist? If anything it's fascist or statist. Do you understand what the term "socialist" means?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Socialism doesn't mean placing regulations on the companies in a competitive market, or taxing people, or giving subsidies to the poor. It's when the government actually controls production. Think Cuba, not Canada.
|
On September 17 2010 11:48 Signet wrote:
On the other hand, the "I'm a libertarian, except when they don't want to invade X country or when they take socially liberal positions" type is laughable. Just say you're a conservative Republican. Probably 40% of the country holds those views, it won't make you an outcast.
What if I'm a libertarian who thinks we should have invaded twice the number of countries we did, but is socially pretty liberal with about one exception?
|
On September 17 2010 12:03 FindingPride wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 11:54 I_Love_Bacon wrote:On September 17 2010 11:50 FindingPride wrote:On September 17 2010 11:36 Sleight wrote:On September 17 2010 11:27 Ooshmagoosh wrote:On September 17 2010 11:14 Tdelamay wrote:
It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
I don't like where this is going. I envy the American's current government. I can't fathom why they would be upset with it. The current administration / congress looks pretty slimy as of late.They may not be singing of blood and thunder, charging into foreign countries in the name of freedom, but the way they went about this "health care" bill was just icky. They pass an enormous bill that most of their members haven't even bothered to read, and the thing comes with a mandate that, regardless of what it aims to achieve, is blatantly unconstitutional. Okay, so for one, if they didn't read it, it is a) their fault because I certainly read through the vast majority of it and b) they passed it by voting, like EVERY OTHER BILL EVER. And also, that isn't what unconstitutional means. Unconstitutional means it actually CONTRADICTS the Constitution. In fact, this is the very definition of an issue that the government has every right to decide. Because it does not impede on ANY constitutional right and falls clearly under the jurisdiction of the appropriate articles of the document you are referring to. The government says kids can't just work all they want. They say health care has to meet a), b), and c) to be 'legal' and they sure as hell can say everyone needs to actually have a way of STAYING HEALTHY. What is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without the LIFE part? Based on traditional legal precedents, expanding that little ol' "life" bit to include right to HEALTHY life is well within the reasonable realm. LEGALWNED No the government hasn't the right to decide. it quite clearly states in big letters, WE THE PEOPLE. It's us who keep the government in check. it is not there right. The amendments aren't to be weaved to support what one wants to do. they are in stone. If you don't know what you're talking about you probably shouldn't attempt to contribute. To suggest you're lacking information on this subject would be a gross understatement. How you can type so few sentences and be incorrect that # of times is simply staggering. since you didn't take the time to iterate why i can only assume you have no idea what your talking about. please, enlighten me
The poster above me covered the fallacy of "are in stone". The second thing I'd tackle is the fact that, this is how government works. I'm not sure there's any other way to say it. We do not participate in a direct democracy and if you're attempting to suggest the government doesn't have the right to decide, ummm, things, then there really is nowhere to go with this discussion.
I hate having these discussions (I use that term extremely loosely...). The fact that health care reform is such a big issue in America makes me sick to my stomach when you review our budget on military spending or many of our problems that should take our attention. Next up, gay marriage, stem cells, or abortion.
|
On September 17 2010 12:06 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 11:48 Signet wrote:
On the other hand, the "I'm a libertarian, except when they don't want to invade X country or when they take socially liberal positions" type is laughable. Just say you're a conservative Republican. Probably 40% of the country holds those views, it won't make you an outcast. What if I'm a libertarian who thinks we should have invaded twice the number of countries we did, but is socially pretty liberal with about one exception?
Trick question! You aren't a Libertarian!
Right RIght am I right?
|
On September 17 2010 12:03 Sleight wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 11:50 FindingPride wrote:On September 17 2010 11:36 Sleight wrote:On September 17 2010 11:27 Ooshmagoosh wrote:On September 17 2010 11:14 Tdelamay wrote:
It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
I don't like where this is going. I envy the American's current government. I can't fathom why they would be upset with it. The current administration / congress looks pretty slimy as of late.They may not be singing of blood and thunder, charging into foreign countries in the name of freedom, but the way they went about this "health care" bill was just icky. They pass an enormous bill that most of their members haven't even bothered to read, and the thing comes with a mandate that, regardless of what it aims to achieve, is blatantly unconstitutional. Okay, so for one, if they didn't read it, it is a) their fault because I certainly read through the vast majority of it and b) they passed it by voting, like EVERY OTHER BILL EVER. And also, that isn't what unconstitutional means. Unconstitutional means it actually CONTRADICTS the Constitution. In fact, this is the very definition of an issue that the government has every right to decide. Because it does not impede on ANY constitutional right and falls clearly under the jurisdiction of the appropriate articles of the document you are referring to. The government says kids can't just work all they want. They say health care has to meet a), b), and c) to be 'legal' and they sure as hell can say everyone needs to actually have a way of STAYING HEALTHY. What is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without the LIFE part? Based on traditional legal precedents, expanding that little ol' "life" bit to include right to HEALTHY life is well within the reasonable realm. LEGALWNED No the government hasn't the right to decide. it quite clearly states in big letters, WE THE PEOPLE. It's us who keep the government in check. it is not there right. The amendments aren't to be weaved to support what one wants to do. they are in stone. and I really dont believe a mandatory payment from every citizen is constitutional in any way. Hahahahahahah.... wait wait wait wait..... Haahahahaah. This was awesome. Here is a brief list of the amendments that have been changed/added/etc just in the Bill of Rights. 1: Does not cover all speech. 3: Guarantees right to privacy 5: Miranda rights included under this 6: Miranda rights included under this 9: says the list of rights is NOT ALL OF THEM The 18th amendment was REPEALED, look it up. You'll know a new word. Congrats at being horribly wrong and clearly not even an American, if there were a test of our nation's government and history. EDIT: Realized this isn't clear enough for them... They are NOT in stone. By definition the Constitution is a Living, Breathing Document. Look that up, too.
i suppose I should have worded what i wanted to point out a bit better. and Also we dont have a right to privacy of location.
and i'm sorry but healthcare doesn't follow under 9. I don't see it.
point is that government is ALWAYS TRYING TO FIND WAYS to bypass these amendments..
when i say in STONE i mean they cant be interpreted in such gross ways. and the PEOPLE should not let that happen.
|
On September 17 2010 12:09 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 12:06 kzn wrote:On September 17 2010 11:48 Signet wrote:
On the other hand, the "I'm a libertarian, except when they don't want to invade X country or when they take socially liberal positions" type is laughable. Just say you're a conservative Republican. Probably 40% of the country holds those views, it won't make you an outcast. What if I'm a libertarian who thinks we should have invaded twice the number of countries we did, but is socially pretty liberal with about one exception? Trick question! You aren't a Libertarian! Right RIght am I right?
You are not :<
|
Haha, I am from Delaware. This makes me sad 
Mike Castle was basically a shoo-in for the seat. He had moderate views so democrats and republicans both liked him (very good for a republican candidate in a democratic state).
It seems only the crazy extremist republicans bothered to vote in the primary (and knocked out a much better candidate). There is no way she is going to win the seat in a democratic state.
|
I guess I'm the only person on TL that likes her? Yay me *little flag* go radical christians!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
