Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you questioning any of the specific assertions made in the piece, or just dismissing it because you don't like who is saying it?
Both.
Any blogger that feels there is a "progressive constitution" is hardly an unbiased source.
As much as "progressives" would like to alter the Constitution to support their belief system the fact is the actual document does not support their beliefs.
Well sorry if you feel that way...not sure what that has to do with this thread though. I hope you're not trying to justify what I said by saying "well the left does it too"
What about the tea party makes you feel that they are saying we are better then you.
No I am not making any excuse just stating that is how many feels about the left. Its not just me
That is just the thing. Tea party people only follow the parts of the constitution they like. When was the last time you heard a tea party person standing up for the 16th amendment?
Probably for the same reasons a Tea Party member would be against the 18th amendmant
Enjoy.
Text & History » Strange Brew: The Tea Party (http://theusconstitution.org/blog.history/?p=1857 - broken link)
That's all you've got? Sorry, but that's a major failure on your part, and you're living up to the prediction I made in my last post.
That "article" (post on a left-wing blog) names one name, with no citation or even a quote from the candidate. I attended the Searchlight rally some months before the primary, where Sharron Angle spoke, and she didn't mention anything about it there. In fact, nobody did, the blog you linked to is the first time I've heard anything about the allegation against Angle.
The "article" you linked to may have mentioned Angle and the Tea Party movement, but it's obvious focus was on the legality of income tax, which I'm not disputing.
By the way, I wanted and expected Sue Lowden to get the nomination, not Angle. Generally speaking, Angle better represents my views on most political topics, but Lowden would have been a shoe-in, and this election season, my only priority as a Nevada voter is to get Reid out of office. Lowden getting the nomination would have sealed his fate, and he could have saved his record-setting campaign fund by just dropping out of the race. Instead, the Republicans (of which I am not one) chose Angle. An interesting selection, but not one I would have made this year.
Yeah but I submit that most Tea party members don't have any perspective on the taxes they are paying (and seemed fine with under GW Bush).
Our taxes are quite a bit lower then they were under Reagan, and quite low for present day developed countries, despite paying for 2 wars and economy saving measures (bailouts, stimulus).
Plus I hear alot of TPs with 'extreme' ideas like eliminating social security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, not to mention welfare. So maybe the TPs are quite extreme because they often aren't interested in social safety measures. So Sophies mommy, what will you do with Sophies grandmommy?
Yeah tea party members are just a bunch of dummies that cant figure out how much is taken out of their check and how much they pay in other taxes.
Its also about the new taxes coming.
Also lets not pretend that Bush had this really high approval rating.
Obama is talking about making changes to soc sec also. It's going to have to be dealt with. What do you wish us do pretend its all good and that it will be around forever.
So you think its extreme thinking that people should be responsible for their life? How is that extreme? I never thought I'd see the day that people think being responsible for your life is extreme. Holy Cow
The fact that the Tea Party movement is grass roots makes it impossible to make a definitive statement saying, "This is what all tea partiers believe." There is no official platform. Therefore, you can project all of your dearest wishes or your greatest fears onto it and be at least a little right either way. I think we can tell which way you lean by how you describe it. Call them "Teabaggers" definitely means you have assigned your greatest fears to this group.
I think the fact of the Tea Party's existence just points to the general dissatisfaction with the current state of government. Yes, it was too big and too active under Bush, but Obama grew it even more and moved it in the wrong direction (over 60% of Americans feel we are moving in the wrong direction).
So, ignore the Tea Party at your peril, especially if they ever DO get organized and become an actual political party with an official plank that a majority of Americans agree with. (But I agree with whomever suggested they should steer clear of social issues)
I think the issue is not the 16th amendment, it is the matter of taxation with regard to provisions in the Constitution. Most people who believe in small government, Constitutionalists, would argue that federal taxation was intended to fund the following: defense, courts, and police. The main greivance, I believe, with regard to the Tea Party, is how large in scope the federal government has become incrementally, and departments that have been created for which the Constitution had never intended providing for. In 1789, we had the department of Defense, the department of the Interior. We've slowly added several departments that have nothing to do with Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, to "provide for the defense" to collect duties, imposts. We now have such departments as Health and Human Services, whose umbrella includes medicare, medicaid, Head Start, faith-based initiatives, etc. Or, HUD, (Department of Housing and Urban Development), which is nothing more than a "Great Society" program. Social Security, another transfer of power to the federal government. These are examples, (and there are so many others) of programs that the founding fathers never EVER intended our federal government have intended to possess. These are the base objections the TEA party has, when it comes to taxation. The funding of THESE programs. Most of them have been enacted through the auspices of the commerce clause. In my estimation, this amounts to a perversion of the Constitution. The founding fathers envisioned that these matters be left to the states and local governments. The power of Washington D.C. as of today, and the ability to collect taxes to fund departments that have no earthly business being legitimate are the objections the tea party has, if I were to speak for them, and to articulate more effectively their central argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I hope you're not trying to justify what I said by saying "well the left does it too"
