O-Trap;924956 wrote:Given that the Tea Party started out as a movement by people from any political party who were tired of the reckless spending, the easy additions to spot would be 3, 5, 12, 14, & 15. They don't address, in any way, the problem that the Tea Party was started to address: out if control economic intrusion and spending.

#3 - Strengthening defense. Perish the thought. Strengthening defense does not necessitate increased spending. Do you have any idea the waste, corruption, and politics in the department of defense? Every congressman and his brother has there useless pork defense project in their district.

#5 - Protecting the 2nd amendment. Horrible addition hear. By the way that amendment is in there to protect the individuals liberty. It is the final check against an intrusive out of control government.

#12 - Political offices available to average citizens. Average citizens getting better access to their representative as apposed to some scumbag corporate lobbyist. Another strike against individual liberty.

#14 - Having all our citizens learn and comprehend English? The international language of buisness? The language that is vastly spoken in this nation. Every road sign and communication is in English. Just because we choose to have English as our core language does not mean other languages should not be required to be taught as well. Its not disparaging any language or culture. Its just common sense. By the way your buddy Ron Paul. The supposed father of the Tea Party sponsered a bill in the House that would make English the official language of the United States. H.R. 997

#15 - Traditional family values encouraged not enforced. Big difference. Them family values are so bad. Yeah lets keep throwing tax dollars to loose women raising kids in single family homes while the "Fathers" drop their sperm and leave. If you want the liberty to spread your legs for any guy outside the bonds of marriage don't ask me to pay for your free choice.

FatHobbit;925004 wrote:
Yes, I don't want the government (or anyone else) to tell me what language I should speak or what values I should hold.



We've done ok so far without having an official language. I don't see any need now to change that now. And I don't want them encouraging me to have any values. My values are none of their business.

Until your fuckups start costing me tax dollars....then it damn well is my business.

fish82;925024 wrote:Until your fuckups start costing me tax dollars....then it damn well is my business.

You have no right to live your life unaffected by others. That "his fuckups" cost you money is (in the only two words of Polish I know) "Tough Shitski".

FatHobbit;925004 wrote:
Yes, I don't want the government (or anyone else) to tell me what language I should speak or what values I should hold.



We've done ok so far without having an official language. I don't see any need now to change that now. And I don't want them encouraging me to have any values. My values are none of their business.

1. No one said the government is forcing you to speak a certain language, the official language thing is so that the government is not forced to cater to those who do not speak the official language.
2. They are not telling you what values you need to hold, it said they encourage values period. The government is already doing this by telling you that you can not steal my stuff.

fish82;925024 wrote:Until your fuckups start costing me tax dollars....then it damn well is my business.

I don't support wasting tax money on my fuck ups either.

majorspark, I clarified in a different post, but I admit that I probably should have in that one.

I'm not saying I inherently disagree with those things. I'm just saying that they were not part of the initial movement, and have only served to exclude people from joining in on the movement subsequently.

majorspark;925020 wrote:#3 - Strengthening defense. Perish the thought. Strengthening defense does not necessitate increased spending. Do you have any idea the waste, corruption, and politics in the department of defense? Every congressman and his brother has there useless pork defense project in their district.

It doesn't say "defense," does it?

It says "military." I would contend that we wouldn't need to expand anything to increase defense. We'd be able to CUT spending on defense if we stopped all the asinine NON-DEFENSE military action going on.

I agree with you that the military is grossly inefficient, corrupt, and wasteful. As such, I don't believe it is our MILITARY that needs expanded or strengthened. I merely think we need to redistribute our resources so that FAR more of our military are defending our homeland and our borders ... and from there, we could significantly cut spending.

I merely was saying that this wasn't part of the original purpose.

majorspark;925020 wrote: #5 - Protecting the 2nd amendment. Horrible addition hear. By the way that amendment is in there to protect the individuals liberty. It is the final check against an intrusive out of control government.

Again, not at all saying this is BAD. I am a proud owner of firearms and a member of the NRA. I am an adamant supporter of protecting the Second Amendment.

It simply wasn't the point of the Tea Party.

majorspark;925020 wrote: #12 - Political offices available to average citizens. Average citizens getting better access to their representative as apposed to some scumbag corporate lobbyist. Another strike against individual liberty.

Again, I agree with you. Again, it merely wasn't the initial point.

majorspark;925020 wrote: #14 - Having all our citizens learn and comprehend English? The international language of buisness? The language that is vastly spoken in this nation. Every road sign and communication is in English. Just because we choose to have English as our core language does not mean other languages should be required to be taught as well. Its not disparaging any language or culture. Its just common sense. By the way your buddy Ron Paul. The supposed father of the Tea Party sponsered a bill in the House that would make English the official language of the United States. H.R. 997

Having an official language and forcing people to learn it are not the same. If someone doesn't want to learn English (hell, they could be a 4th generation legal American for all I care), they shouldn't have to, so long as it is then solely their responsibility to deal with the challenges of not speaking the language that would enable them to do business, have a job, order goods or services, etc.

Basically, I'm of the persuasion that you shouldn't be forced to learn the language, but any problem incurred as a result is your responsibility, and yours alone.

majorspark;925020 wrote: #15 - Traditional family values encouraged not enforced. Big difference. Them family values are so bad. Yeah lets keep throwing tax dollars to loose women raising kids in single family homes while the "Fathers" drop their sperm and leave. If you want the liberty to spread your legs for any guy outside the bonds of marriage don't ask me to pay for your free choice.

Dear sweet Moses, you won't find ANY of what you're mentioning supported by ANY statement I've ever made on here.

Hell, I probably embody many of the values deemed "traditional family values" in my own life:

- I think abortion -- in most cases anyway -- is immoral.
- I think homosexual behavior is immoral.
- I think extramarital sex at all is immoral.
- I think an able-bodied person is responsible to make himself or herself as small a burden on others as possible.

I do NOT believe anyone else should be encouraged by a governing entity to adopt these positions. However, I believe people should then be held responsible to take care of THEMSELVES if the consequences of their actions. As such, they should not have a governing entity encourage ANY values, and you should not have to pay one dime to cover the consequences of someone else's actions in light of their values.

jhay78;924992 wrote:I think by #15 they mean "No activist Supreme Court dictating what the standard morality of all 50 states and their citizens should be", which has happened numerous times in the last 50 years.

Yep especially those silly activist judges that allowed women and African American's the right to vote, attend public school, be free from discrimination....etc....:rolleyes:

fish82;925024 wrote:Until your fuckups start costing me tax dollars....then it damn well is my business.

I doubt if your dance studio will be paying any extra tax dollars.

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves." --Abraham Lincoln

Belly35;925248 wrote:"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves." --Abraham Lincoln

Wrong again belly.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln/prosperity.asp

Bigdogg;925239 wrote:I doubt if your dance studio will be paying any extra tax dollars.

You'd need to ask that of the owners. It's not my studio.

When people lose their job, or go bankrupt....it is their own fault and they must deal with the consequences.

When the big banks and insurance companies go bankrupt, the government bails them out.

If you think this is unfair, then you agree with Occupy Wall Street, whether or not you vote along the same lines as those people or agree with their methods.

Mooney44Cards;925408 wrote:When people lose their job, or go bankrupt....it is their own fault and they must deal with the consequences.

When the big banks and insurance companies go bankrupt, the government bails them out.

If you think this is unfair, then you agree with Occupy Wall Street, whether or not you vote along the same lines as those people or agree with their methods.

Sounds good but please don't pretend the individual is tossed to the streets to fend for themselves.

When individuals go bankrupt or lose their jobs, the government does bail them out to one extent or another. Their debt is erased by court edict in bankruptcy and if they lose their jobs there are a series of government assistance programs they can tap into to help them recover including unemployment, Food Stamps, and welfare itself if necessary.

Further, those who file for bankruptcy tend to be offered new credit cards, car loans, and even mortgages shortly after their bankruptcies clear the courts by those same eeeeevil Wall Street banks and insurance companies you've mentioned.

Many of these "protesters" are a motley mix of spoiled rich kids with nothing better to do and/or unemployed left-wing kooks who have exhausted their gubmint bailout public assistance.

Bigdogg;925233 wrote:Yep especially those silly activist judges that allowed women and African American's the right to vote, attend public school, be free from discrimination....etc....:rolleyes:

Last time I checked, the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments were approved by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states. The Civil Rights Acts were passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses. I'm curious which activist judges brought all those improvements into being?

Mooney44Cards;925408 wrote:When people lose their job, or go bankrupt....it is their own fault and they must deal with the consequences.

When the big banks and insurance companies go bankrupt, the government bails them out.

If you think this is unfair, then you agree with Occupy Wall Street, whether or not you vote along the same lines as those people or agree with their methods.

1. Doesn't seem like the bailouts are the sole cause of the protests.

2. If so, why don't they protest the entity that gave the bailouts in the first place? Oh, that's right, then would be identifying with the Tea Party.

believer;925428 wrote:Sounds good but please don't pretend the individual is tossed to the streets to fend for themselves.

When individuals go bankrupt or lose their jobs, the government does bail them out to one extent or another. Their debt is erased by court edict in bankruptcy and if they lose their jobs there are a series of government assistance programs they can tap into to help them recover including unemployment, Food Stamps, and welfare itself if necessary.

Further, those who file for bankruptcy tend to be offered new credit cards, car loans, and even mortgages shortly after their bankruptcies clear the courts by those same eeeeevil Wall Street banks and insurance companies you've mentioned.

Many of these "protesters" are a motley mix of spoiled rich kids with nothing better to do and/or unemployed left-wing kooks who have exhausted their gubmint bailout public assistance.

Who want to trap them in the same situations that put them in bankruptcy. Or do you think those credit card companies and banks are trying to help out the poor fellow?

When individuals go bankrupt or lose their jobs, the government does bail them out to one extent or another. Their debt is erased by court edict in bankruptcy and if they lose their jobs there are a series of government assistance programs they can tap into to help them recover including unemployment, Food Stamps, and welfare itself if necessary.

+1

[Who want to trap them in the same situations that put them in bankruptcy. Or do you think those credit card companies and banks are trying to help out the poor fellow?

-1

I'm sure their arms were twisted to put that $2000 flat screen LED TV on their credit card.


I swear...some people are alive for the simple reason that it is illegal to kill them.

HitsRus;925833 wrote:+1



-1

I'm sure their arms were twisted to put that $2000 flat screen LED TV on their credit card.


I swear...some people are alive for the simple reason that it is illegal to kill them.

Did I say they forced them? Just meant that they aren't some puritanical entity out there to help businessmen get on their feet. They are gigantic conglomerates that are trying to make profits (not a bad thing) and they don't care what they have to do to achieve that (bad thing).

The taxpayers bail out fiscally irresponsible corporations/banks. The taxpayers bail out fiscally irreponsible individuals.
Maybe the government shouldn't do either.

Personally, I'm okay with the government helping out each of those entities a little when necessary.
I'm very uncomortable with the 'Wall Street protesters" because I think they are being instigated by a malevolent organization. Class warfare has beeen taken to a new level.

Mooney44Cards;925408 wrote: When the big banks and insurance companies go bankrupt, the government bails them out.

I refuse to call a loan a bailout. We can debate if it's good for capitalism and free markets, but it ain't no bailout. If and when welfare recipients start paying back their handouts, plus interest, then we can talk.

Also, "bailouts" are hardly restricted to the US...Shit, as far as investments and spending goes, that's about as good as it gets for big gubmit.

gut;925857 wrote:I refuse to call a loan a bailout. We can debate if it's good for capitalism and free markets, but it ain't no bailout. If and when welfare recipients start paying back their handouts, plus interest, then we can talk.

Also, "bailouts" are hardly restricted to the US...Shit, as far as investments and spending goes, that's about as good as it gets for big gubmit.

It's not really a loan if you pay it back with money you got from loans...from the same place.

O-Trap;925090 wrote:Having an official language and forcing people to learn it are not the same. If someone doesn't want to learn English (hell, they could be a 4th generation legal American for all I care), they shouldn't have to, so long as it is then solely their responsibility to deal with the challenges of not speaking the language that would enable them to do business, have a job, order goods or services, etc.

#14 in no way states that learning English should be forced on its citizens. Requiring it to be a "core" language in my opinion in no way implies it to be forced on anyone. Its not "the" language. It being the "core" language merely states its De facto use as the language of commerce in the United States. Requiring the De facto language to remain the "core" of commerce and official business makes sense. Thats all #14 is saying. We are the United States and one of the basic tenants of unity is the ability to communicate with each other. Now how this "core" is required and under what level of governance and authority I would need to know more.

#14 is nothing greater that making English the official language. Like I said above it makes sense to require a "core" language. The federal government has no power under the constitution to require current US citizens to learn English. Under article 1 section 8 the federal congress does have the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". With that power congress could require any potential immigrants seeking citizen ship to have a working knowledge of the current De facto language of commerce in the USA in order to become a citizen.

Under article 1 section 8 congress has the power to "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States". IMO this power would grant the federal congress the authority to establish English as the official language of commerce between the states. Internal state commerce would fall to the states.

HR 997 in which Ron Paul is a co sponsor pretty much follows what I laid out above. #14 would fit in that mold. The only way it would fall out is if it forces states to conduct internal state commerce in English. The "father" of the tea party approves. Add it to the list.

Review the bill for yourself.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.997:#

I Wear Pants;925883 wrote:It's not really a loan if you pay it back with money you got from loans...from the same place.

Did they? News to me.

gut;925891 wrote:Did they? News to me.

Pretty sure they "paid back" the TARP money with the normal money that they can get loaned from the government. Or maybe that was just the car companies. Either way, one of the giant corporations we gave money to fucked us over hard so that they could continue giving their executives massive bonuses and such. One of the points where I agree with the right that the bailouts were a bad idea or at least not done correctly.

HitsRus;925849 wrote:The taxpayers bail out fiscally irresponsible corporations/banks. The taxpayers bail out fiscally irreponsible individuals.

"Bailouts" and bankruptcy are two different things. You can't equate the two. An individuals only choice is to take the bankruptcy route for their bailout. Bankruptcy was meant for corporate entities as well. That is where they should have sought their "bailout".

The bailout the corporations/banks got were in the form of federal government handouts. Loans and interjections of capital. Free of bankruptcy rules and consequences under the constitution. The "bailout" the corporations/banks got were outside the rule of constitutional law.