More USA political questions

marc

Lifetime Supporter
You know I have heard enough that the Tea Party is at fault for all the US's problems. I am a Tea Party Member and we have had enough finger pointing. Anyone who enjoys pay more taxes or making others pay more "to make it fair" for those sitting on their couch playing games or using the taxpayers money to buy a mechanical bull or other bull-s//t is not right. 47% of Americans don't pay a dime in taxes because they either don't make enough or just don't care to. The rest have found or made loopholes so they don't have to pay taxes. GE Netted 5B last year and paid not one penny in taxes and in fact got government subsides to add to their bottom line.
We are called Tea Party because we have had enough taxation and are standing up and saying it, just like the famous Boston Tea Party. Giving billions in aid around the globe and trillions in healthcare to illegal immigrants. The Democrats and Republicans have been racking up the debt drunk with power and corruption. Stand up to them and you are facing IRS hassles even if you have clean tax records. Why are you so surprised that we are standing up and saying "whoa". Right now its all about wasting money with little regard because it doesn't come from their pocket. A liberal friend of mine is a perfect example. She doesn't mind if we pay 5K for a hammer, but if the 5K came out of her pocket she scream like a raped ape.

Tea Party is not a party with power yet, but we've stood up and are saying we are mad as heck and won't take it anymore.
 
You know I have heard enough that the Tea Party is at fault for all the US's problems. I am a Tea Party Member and we have had enough finger pointing. Anyone who enjoys pay more taxes or making others pay more "to make it fair" for those sitting on their couch playing games or using the taxpayers money to buy a mechanical bull or other bull-s//t is not right. 47% of Americans don't pay a dime in taxes because they either don't make enough or just don't care to. The rest have found or made loopholes so they don't have to pay taxes. GE Netted 5B last year and paid not one penny in taxes and in fact got government subsides to add to their bottom line.
We are called Tea Party because we have had enough taxation and are standing up and saying it, just like the famous Boston Tea Party. Giving billions in aid around the globe and trillions in healthcare to illegal immigrants. The Democrats and Republicans have been racking up the debt drunk with power and corruption. Stand up to them and you are facing IRS hassles even if you have clean tax records. Why are you so surprised that we are standing up and saying "whoa". Right now its all about wasting money with little regard because it doesn't come from their pocket. A liberal friend of mine is a perfect example. She doesn't mind if we pay 5K for a hammer, but if the 5K came out of her pocket she scream like a raped ape.

Tea Party is not a party with power yet, but we've stood up and are saying we are mad as heck and won't take it anymore.

Problem is a lot of people in the tea party go of script into religion and other issues which alienates people. Sadly mnost people dont realise that this garden of eden called the USA is being used up and motagaged to hell, its somehow not a big concern to them. Or maybe they dont realise thta just because w ehad 50 years of post ww2 properity it may not always be thus, great societies fall. So I agre with you wholheartedly, where we may differ is that the tea party get involved in social issues like gender rights or whatever and unecessarily alienates poeple for the wrong reasons. plus if we want less government, lets not then preach social issues.

A balanced budget amendment is the way forward, plus a tax code rewirte along simpson bowles, then gov can spend what it has not more.
 
Larry, the Supreme Court's job is to enforce the constitution, but who would want them to enforce things as they were back in the 1700's when the constitution was written? We're an evolving society and the founding fathers recognized that, so the Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the constitution as they see it applying to our changing society...such as a baby's "right to life"....the Supreme Court has yet to determine when in the gestational period a baby becomes a person and not a zygote or an embryo, and AFAIK the general "guideline" is as soon as that embryo could reasonably be expected to survive if it were delivered. Now think about the medical progress that has been made not only in the last 200+ since the Constitution/ammendments were written, but also within recent times...would we want them to apply the same standards to when an embryo becomes a viable "baby" as were effective back in the days the constitution was written.... I think not, and I think the answer is that we might not want them to utilize the same standards as were in effect 50 years ago....perhaps 5 years ago. It is the job of the Supreme Court to determine what IS constitutionally protected, like it or not.

Surely you recognize the need for the complex issues in our complex societies to be decided based on what is right in today's world, not what was right back when the Constitution was written, no?

Cheers!

Doug

Very well put. However the real debate is over gov spending, debt and taxes. Supreme court rulings are in the larger picture mostly a social issues sideshow. That the two are all bundled is a mistake. It allows fiscaly irresponsible libs to denigrate those who are fiscaly conservative and split the vote. Because fiscaly conservative people are bundled in with socialy conservative views which alienate women, hispanics(30% of the vote). Doubly ironic as Hispanics are otherwise conservative christians.
 
Last edited:

marc

Lifetime Supporter
As well as most of the black vote for the party that was the party of their parents masters. Sad. Doesn't you just feel bad for the fact that dead, felons, babies, etc. can vote democrat. Multiple times.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Larry, the Supreme Court's job is to enforce the constitution, but who would want them to enforce things as they were back in the 1700's when the constitution was written?

Let me answer you this way: Have the original words written on the pages of the constitution changed? No, they haven't. They still outline exactly what The Founders intended - like that or not. ;)


...and that "living document" argument is a non starter.
 
Last edited:
Please see my answer in between your quotes.


That's because it WASN'T illegal back then. That's what the Civil War was fought over.


Actauly the civil war was started over states rights, namely the northern tates using federal power to crush the southern states, and of course conveniantly giving the fed gov the power it enjoys to this day.
The slavery issue was a conveniant rallying cry that became predominant a tear or so in, it certainly was not the cause, maybe at best it was a supporting cause.



I'd disagree there too. When looking at "constitutional principles", the constitution should be "interpreted" thru a 'lens' that focuses on what the meaning of words/phrases/social customs were back then...NOT by how any of the aforesaid might be defined as 'meaning' today.


The constitution is a living document, designed to be such. Even the bible moves on, look at a 1200's bible and customs,, we dont follow those now either if we did women would sytill be nothing ore than chattel as in Afghanistan The constitution speaks of the inalienable rights of man(not people or humans man). The founding fathers elucidated principles, well applied today by the suprme court, that is why they mandated a supreme court and why women are regaded as having those rights too..




And I'd submit that, given some of the absolutely R-I-D-I-C-L-O-U-S decisions the court has made, it's not beyond the realm of reason to conclude that that very court could destroy the constitution as well. Example? The DISGUSTINGLY W-R-O-N-G ruling on eminent domain. A CHILD OF THREE wouldn't have decided the way the SO-CALLED "supremes" did in that matter. It absolutely FLEW IN THE FACE of over 200 yrs of tradition/precedent - not to MENTION the dictates of the constitution itself. The very IDEA that it's now SUPPOSEDLY CONSTITUTIONAL for govt to take someone's private property and hand it over to a developer who then builds whatever project on it that produces HIGHER TAX REVENUE FOR GOVT is just plain c-r-i-m-i-n-a-l. The constitution says ones property can ONLY be taken by "due process"...meaning court action brought about by ones ILLEGAL behavior.



Eminent domain has a history of hundreds of years of precedent, our legal system is based on precident. I imagine the arguement that you are compensated is a sign that due process was followed. But yes I have seen the corruption of towns doing exactly what you say above. Not to mention towns and civil servants in general seeing us all as crop to harvest.



"ut, the entire constitution is based on Judeo-Christian philosophy! So, I repeat: The Founders would not have even considered listing abortion as a "right". Ditto "gay rights".

As you say based on a philosophy, its the moral code. But its phlosophical principles, not a rigid set of rules cast in stone tied to the mores of the 1700's forever, more moral principles, so those principles lest call them universal principles have broadening application as society moves on.I think the founding father went as far as they could at the time. thats why the constitution can abolish slavery so to speak but the founding faters did not in their time, although they certainly designed a mechanism that would in time, as well as for example give women rights.





It DOES. How could it be otherwise since a human being has to go thru A-L-L stages of pregnancy in order to be born. If there is no conception, there is no birth. If, after conception, the various body 'cells' aren't formed, there is no birth. If no lungs form, there is no birth...etc., etc., etc. The b.s. that masquerades as a 'scientific argument' about when life actually begins is just that - b.s. It's just so much secularist/liberal smoke and fog. It's intellectual pettifogging and obfuscating at its best.


I think human life reasonalbly begins with the devlopment of the brain and thought. I disagree with the court that the standard is viability of the foetus, because we know from scans that there is a lot going on in the womb. To me by the time there is a fully formed being it may still be developing but it exists. Divided cells may become a being but they are not one. Maybe the standard is development of something more than a limbic brain and a nervious system, ie 3 months. In any event as long as repubs are going to alienate 70% of women over this libs are going to remain in power wasting the country. Its just not a gov issue, if we want gov out of our lives its out, not only when it suits.





They clearly AREN'T. And we're all FOOLS for allowing it. What part of "...NO LAW INFRINGING..." needs clarification? I submit NONE.

I can't think of even ONE 'gun law' that IS constitutional at the moment.

Agreed, and if pro choice and gays want their interpreted rights reckognised, I think by the same principle my 2nd amendment rights shoudl be at the forefront.

I was at a function seated next to an exptreme lib, he works for a non profit protecting some rights or the other, probably transgender or somehting. He was really passionate about constitutional rights. I asked then what he was doing to protect the 2nd, he said nothing.

I said to him, if you think about it, if the second which is actauly written in, if it can be trampled than any interpeted right can be more easily trampled. If you are an extrmem lib protect the second because its the bulwark that protects the principles of all your other rights, once its breached anything goes.

Ans so I say to you, what protects out rights is the constitution and the power of that comes from the supreme court, we may not like all the decisions we may even despise some, whether left or right, we must repsect the rulings because the principle that protects others rights protects ours also. Thinka bout ti, the supreme court and the constitution is the only thing that stands between us an parlimantary one side takes allchaos which is how every other democracy is run. We are special because of our system, lets reckognise and respect it,
 
Let me answer you this way: Have the original words written on the pages of the constitution changed? No, they haven't. They still outline exactly what The Founders intended - like that or not. ;)

Yes and its pretty easy to understand the principles they intended. Thats what the court does. They never intended it to be an orthodox dead document, but aliving thing as interpreted by the court.

Same for that matter with any religion, some people got to pray every day, but they are bad. Others never go pray but live their lives through moral principls, even if they dont follow every comma and period of amedeival text. Its the principles that count, not the exact sentance structure.
 
As well as most of the black vote for the party that was the party of their parents masters. Sad. Doesn't you just feel bad for the fact that dead, felons, babies, etc. can vote democrat. Multiple times.

Ironic then that the repubs which were the progressive party is now seen as a social brake.
 

marc

Lifetime Supporter
Yes and its pretty easy to understand the principles they intended. Thats what the court does. They never intended it to be an orthodox dead document, but aliving thing as interpreted by the court.

Same for that matter with any religion, some people got to pray every day, but they are bad. Others never go pray but live their lives through moral principls, even if they dont follow every comma and period of amedeival text. Its the principles that count, not the exact sentance structure.

That is not a valid intent. The document is a fixed object that has the ability to be amended to. It is the interpretation that is a living thing. You would need those that created the document alive today to say otherwise.

The 10 commandments of the Jews haven't changed in almost 7000 years. The Magna Carta has not changed. The bible has changed because those in power or have broken off from the main course of the bible decided they had the ability to rewrite the bible. But each of those are identified as such.

Also whos decided what principals are moral? Is an eye for an eye just? Or to kill a baby in a mother womb? How about if its 3am on a Sat night and no one is on the road why should you stop at a stop sign? If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there, how do you know it made a noise? Each of these are examples of doctrine, fact, and even quantum physics theory, yet none convey a just reality from the Constitution. Yet we have hundreds of thousands of laws in this country and it is the Supreme Court (of which they use their own belief system) to interpret the Constitution and apply properly.

Don't water down America with this bs of a living document, the current administration has walked all over it, starting with the lie of the President being a born in America citizen.
 
That is not a valid intent. The document is a fixed object that has the ability to be amended to. It is the interpretation that is a living thing. You would need those that created the document alive today to say otherwise.

The 10 commandments of the Jews haven't changed in almost 7000 years. The Magna Carta has not changed. The bible has changed because those in power or have broken off from the main course of the bible decided they had the ability to rewrite the bible. But each of those are identified as such.

Also whos decided what principals are moral? Is an eye for an eye just? Or to kill a baby in a mother womb? How about if its 3am on a Sat night and no one is on the road why should you stop at a stop sign? If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there, how do you know it made a noise? Each of these are examples of doctrine, fact, and even quantum physics theory, yet none convey a just reality from the Constitution. Yet we have hundreds of thousands of laws in this country and it is the Supreme Court (of which they use their own belief system) to interpret the Constitution and apply properly.

Don't water down America with this bs of a living document, the current administration has walked all over it, starting with the lie of the President being a born in America citizen.

The ten comandments have not changed, but how we live by them, those of us even with solidly moral lives has. We also dont have camels and goats and "chattel". We have cars houses, family(wives daughters) bank acounts and mortages, so we interpret the intent.

The constitution elucidates principles, just as the 10 comansments do, these are interpeted as universal truths seen through the lens of contemporary social realities, this interpretation is done by the suprmee court. Now we may have issue with how far these interpretations go, and judge others like gun laws as not going far enough, but the decsions are stil based on these unchanged principles.

The pourpose and existance of the supreme court is to interpet the constitution, ie make decsions in contermprary times based on the principles in the constitution, that is why it was set up. As an example, we all know murder is wrong, its a universal truth. Yet we also know that if a man kills someone molesting his child we dont put them away. Courts interpret. The constitution is silent on this exact subject.

The Magna carta has not changed, its lets say a core document in the UK. But there is also a core principle of precedent in engish legal code. English legal code is built on precedent. The Magna Carta starts as the core principle and precenndent evolves that principle for specific situations the origional writers could not have imagined.

The founding fathers saw certain universal truths to be self evident. Those were core principles. As an example if we are free from unlawful search and seizure, what is the governement doing spying on us. A strict constitutionalist would say there were no phones then or e-mail, so those things are free game as they are not mentioned in the constitution. Interpreting the constitution and its principles would and does tell me that the gov has no buisness spying on citizens, or for that matter seizing assets to coerce legal outcomes as it does. Only with the backingof the constitution and the supreme court can we control and wind these excesses back. Point is its a two way street, and we get good with bad in the supreme court.

Even with its faults the constitution interpeted by the supreme court is the best system by far, and if we did not have that, we would be in a central gov contralled state with no states rights long ago. What we need to do is use the constitution and the court to get our rights back.

Yes there is a political connection, but going on about abortion, or imigration, or gay rights looses elections, and frankly if gov should not be involved in our lives its a two way street. I would rather economicaly save the country, and have somethign for my chilldren than lose an election over social issues the gov has no buisness being involved in anyway. If you dont like abortions, then that is between you and your family, we cant dictate how other people live if it does not materialy affect us, and thta sia two way street too..

Plus I like to work withing plausible relaity, we are not turning back the clock. The constitution has been interpreted a100.000 ways if not more. I prefer to use the sprit of the docuemt to hold the hand to the fire. Like the 2nd is sarcosanct, like on what basis is there income tax and a whole host of other things.

As to living with larger morals, this is for us to teach our chilldren and family. Its not for the governemnt to impose on society, other than to the extent imoral behaviour affects us all. Frankly what gays do, what other women do is their buisness. If my and my families moral code is unable to handle that, then I will question the strength of what I teach. We have no buisness inviting gov into out lives to regulate them, just because we dont like what someone else does, and thats a two way street applicable to libs and conservatives.

Right now each side wants to pick and chgoose where gov is and is not involved, this picking and choosing is contradictory. I prefer to operate on principles. The first being gov has no buisness regulating individual behaviour where is causes no appreciable harm to others. I say this because we all have the right to freedom liberty and happyness, how we interpret these things is not for others to say, unless our interpretation directly affetcs others. And yes I am prepared to be offended by some behaviour because offence does not rise to the level of harm and we must be tolerant, just as others must be tolerant of us. Oyur flaw as a society is we are loosing our tolerance with each sode dictating.

I also think as we see in these threads thta there are two boradly dofferent outlooks in this country, with a few rationalists liek myself in the middle. It behooves ups from the dofferent outlooks to accept and tolerrate the other views as they are out brothers in this great nation. The failure to do so leads to things like secession plans in colorado where alib "majority" is disregarding the views of 47% and dictaing, in other states its the other way around. What we need is acceptance and tolerance. the founding fathers also had very different views, but they found ways to incorporate and work together.
 

Keith

Moderator
Sean, I find your comments very interesting and informative. I have learned more about the USA from the last 10 or so posts than in the past few years of myopic ranting, graph posting and pointless blame seeking that has infested the Paddock and I guess American political thinking in general.

Note also that this has been achieved with input from all "sides"
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Guys,

As we are talking about the intent of the Founding Fathers........

Do you think that the Founding Fathers intended for a political party that lost the President vote in a landslide.............

Does not controll the Senate, and lost the House vote (more Americans voted for Democratic candidates than voted for Republican candidates, gerrymandering by Republicans allowed them to steal the House) Americans voted for a Democratic House!!!...........

Do you think the Founding Fathers intended for a political party that lost the peoples vote in all three Branches of Government to be able to stomp their feet, scream, bloody murder and insist that they get their way or else thy will shut down the government and ruin the economy?

Was that their intent?

Additionally, if things were reversed, if Republicans won the popular vote in all three branches of Government would you be OK with Democrats using these tactics to get their way?
 
Last edited:
Guys,

As we are talking about the intent of the Founding Fathers........

Do you think that the Founding Fathers intended for a political party that lost the President vote in a landslide.............

Does not controll the Senate, and lost the House vote (more Americans voted for Democratic candidates than voted for Republican candidates, gerrymandering by Republicans allowed them to steal the House) Americans voted for a Democratic House!!!...........

Do you think the Founding Fathers intended for a political party that lost the peoples vote in all three Branches of Government to be able to stomp their feet, scream, bloody murder and insist that they get their way or else thy will shut down the government and ruin the economy?

Was that their intent?

Additionally, if things were reversed, if Republicans won the popular vote in all three branches of Government would you be OK with Democrats using these tactics to get their way?

Lets analyse the objective facts.

Firstly getting 48% of the popular vote is not loosing by a landslide. Secondly they did not loose all 3 houses. In fact the Dems held all 3 houses till the last congressional elections when they lost congress. The founding fathers absolutly intended 3 branches so you could not have a dictatorship, as happened during the passibng of obaba care.

Seriously any party that presends a 4500 page document a few days before a vote, with no consultation, and then railroads it thorugh, is a party of despots, petty despots maybe but despots nontheless.

It is for that very reason that congress was retaken by the republicans. I would also bet my last testicle that if the republicans had not stupidly alienated women over abortion or hispanics over immigration they would have won handily. Which indicates that when it comes to economics people feel a little, and I mean a just a little better with the republicans. On other issues they lose the plot.

This here and now is an economic debate.

However you slice it, only 30%(by yesterdays poll) of the public thinks more debt and rasing the debt ceiling is a good idea. Anybopdy who knows 1+1=2 not 5 knows that if you chronicaly spend 30% more than you take in, it is going to end badly. That if things are not reformed within 10 years medicare medicaid will grow 70%.

Now we have a president very adept at eletctoral politics, very adept at spending to make people temprarily happy and get votes, but seriously what has he done that you can think of that will put us on a stable long term financial track.

And dont retort about what the repubs did or didnt do, they are clowns of epic proportions. But obaba is supposed to be smart, he claimed to be the president of all the people, and he is supposed to be the leader. Instead what we have is a community orgaizer game player unionist, no matter how smart he is. Lecturing from the pulpit is what college professors do, not leaders. leader reach across.

The arguement that the other side is worse is just plain lame, is that what we have become. Repubs may be ointo something with fiscal consevatism but people have to votye for them in spite of their social stance, and for most that is justa bridge too far, none of which means people like or approve of the dems fiscal policiees, because by the last poll 70% do not.
 
Seriously any party that presends a 4500 page document a few days before a vote, with no consultation, and then railroads it thorugh, is a party of despots, petty despots maybe but despots nontheless.

Exactly! There should be a statue of pelosi with her infamous quote, "We need to pass the bill to find out what's in it." We're still finding out to this day.
 
It is for that very reason that congress was retaken by the republicans. I would also bet my last testicle that if the republicans had not stupidly alienated women over abortion or hispanics over immigration they would have won handily. Which indicates that when it comes to economics people feel a little, and I mean a just a little better with the republicans. On other issues they lose the plot.

Here, I disagree. When the Conservative Majority in this country have a candidate that embodies what they are about, there is no beating them, witness the 2010 election.

Sadly, Mitt wasn't that man.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Lets analyse the objective facts.

Firstly getting 48% of the popular vote is not loosing by a landslide. Secondly they did not loose all 3 houses.

Yes Sean, lets analyse the facts.

I'm sure you are aware, but you probably just forgot to mention that Presidents are not elected by the "popular vote", are they?

Presidents are elected by the Electoral College, in that vote, the only one that matters, the election results were

Obama..................332

Romney.................206

That is a LANDSLIDE of major porportions!

If votes elected Presidents we would not have been subjected to BushII, his wars and his debt!

And as far as all three braches of the Government................

More Americans voted for Democrtic House candidates than voted for Republican Candidates, thats a fact!

Yes due to several reasons including gerrymandering, Republicans do control the House (but not for much longer).

So lets recap, Democrats received more votes in all three branches of Government..............

Yet we have a Republican House who acts like they have a mandate, when in reality they do not even have a majority!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top