The Tea Party

[ub3rman123]

Nobody is ignoring the Constitution, the only laws that are passed are those that are Constitutional. That's why we have a Judiciary Branch as well.

 

Also: Where did the administration say they were taking away guns? I'll just quote one of my teachers..

 

"A lot of people were scared when Clinton took office, that he was gonna take their guns away and make bullets expensive and illegal. But that never happened. I actually have more guns now after the administration than before it. The government can't do that. They could levy taxes, but not make them illegal."

 

Also, I kind of like having representatives. If the American people had to vote on every single thing, nothing whatsoever would get done. Think it's bad going to go vote a couple of times a year? Without us just electing someone to do the deciding for us, we'd have to vote on every stinking thing out there.

[ginnyfizz]

*Palms face* ub3rman123, have you tried actually clicking some of those links that I posted earlier? There would seem to be a growing concern that Obama is driving a coach and horses through at least the First Amendment. His administration is constantly being slapped by the judiciary (as detailed in at least one of those links) for unconstitutional behaviours and lack of accountability.

 

And do you really think a Government cannot ban private gun ownership? Come over here to Britain, young sir, where we once had gun laws that made yours look strict, but where nowadays only police and miltary officers, and licensed slaughterers under certain circumstances, can carry sidearms ,and rifles and shotguns are heavily regulated. Our World and Olympic shooting teams can't train at home, they have to go to France. It happened here...

[Kendo 2]

The SEC can now levy duties and fees without apportionment back to individuals. That's a taxation without legislation and that's unconstitutional.

 

The government controls the internet and all means of modern communication. So much for freedom of the press or freedom of speech.

 

The Supreme Court recently heard an argument concerning the rights of civil and state governments to control gun ownership. Four Liberal Justices agreed that U.S. citizens have no legal interest in gun ownership. THAT is going against the Constitution.

 

And a Representative Republic is what we have right now, if Congress and the Senate would enforce it.

[Retribution]

You people have to understand something. The government, when given enough freedom, can do what ever they want to. They've been doing that for a while now.

[Kendo 2]

You people have to understand something. The government, when given enough freedom, can do what ever they want to. They've been doing that for a while now.

 

Yeah, but the Tea Party is the real threat. :wallbash:

[ginnyfizz]

I know, Retribution,we had that problem in Britain when the previous administration was in power, unchallenged, for years. And you're getting it now in the US. Notwithstanding Obama previously getting a slap from some of the more independent justices, as Kendo has pointed out, there are also those Liberal Justices who are only too pleased to do his bidding. As William Pitt The Elder, one of our UK statesmen once said

 

"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it"

 

Now the original Boston Tea Party was all about "no taxation without representation" and a well merited thrashing being given to us Brits for throwing our weight about (we had plenty of muscle to flex in those days). It seems to me that these days you are also getting taxation (and a whole lot else) without representation. So along come the Tea Party, and not a moment too soon.

[evilneko]

I can't really take the Tea Party seriously because of their leaders. As I see it though, the Tea Party movement is pretty much the future replacement for the Republican party, which has long been on a path to self-destruction. The values expressed, at least in their "Contract for America" are decent and at first blush, don't sound too extreme (although item number 1 would lead to such a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution that it would do more harm than good, and I think most moderate conservatives would agree, as well, extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich? Gimme a break.). Give 'em a few years to straighten out and weed out the extremists and I think they'll be viable as a full-fledged party, which is good, because we'll be needing a new one when the GOP disintegrates.

 

 

As to gun ownership, no, I don't believe a ban would ever pass (let alone survive if it did). Politics in this country would have to make such an extreme shift as to make the current left wing essentially the right. Otherwise, it would be political suicide for a large majority of politicians supporting such a ban.

[Sinophile]

Read the 'Manifesto of the Communist Party' by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Read Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'. That is why Socialism has a huge stink on it.

Hitler very specifically stated he hated Communism in his book, and considered communism as much of a threat as Zionism. Engels plainly stated that a forcible revolution was needed to enact socialism,However, revolutions are never peaceful. I could compare and contrast anything Adam Smith wrote to something Hitler or Mussolini wrote, but that doesn't really prove anything. Both Nazis and communists liked to wear shoes, is everyone who wears shoes an evil fascist?

My question still remains, what does Hitler or Marx have to do with Obama?

 

 

There isn't any viable form of Socialism-lite. Mitterand's France and the Keynesian downturn proved that. And NO, Canada and Western European Countries don't qualify because they rely on external markets and a global economy to sustain their own economies, so don't bother with that tact. Greece's crash and the IMF bailout proved that. It takes blood in the streets for Socialism to be fully functional, either in the global aspect of Communism or the Nationalist realm of Fascism.

Socialism doesn't neccesarily involve having a self-contained economy, nor is a global economy a mark of capitalism. Likewise, just as you can point to Greece, Turkey, France, Russia, and about a dozen other countries and say that socialism is a failed system, you are forgetting that there is one very big country that owns quite a large portion of our National debt. As far as the,"it takes blood in the streets" comment goes, one can hardly say Capitalism inspires peace. Look at all the puppet governments in the Middle East and South America that were set up to provide oil to capitalist countries? Why do some jewelry stores advertise that their diamonds are "conflict-free"? Do you know where Tantalum comes from?

 

 

 

Break the backs of the Imperialist dogs and their free economy and the rest will fall into place. That is straight out of Marx's playbook.

Neither of them said that, and 19th century Germany was a bit different than 21st century America, at least from an Economic standpoint.

 

 

And Godwin's Law only comes into play when guys like me have the guts to point out when Leftists slip and blurt their ideology on internet forums. If the jackboot fits, wear it.

Yeah, you must have some brass balls, saying whatever you want in an internet forum. Only real men have the guts to compare people they don't agree with to Hitler.

 

The Supreme Court recently heard an argument concerning the rights of civil and state governments to control gun ownership. Four Liberal Justices agreed that U.S. citizens have no legal interest in gun ownership. THAT is going against the Constitution.

The Second Amendment IMHO is almost moot at this point. Back in 1791, the average citizen could afford to buy the same armaments the government used(cannons and muskets). Even during the civil war, many of the Union soldiers brought their own guns to war, some of which were even technologically superior to what was provided by the military( muskets vs. breech-loading rifles). Most citizens today cannot afford a tank, a stealth fighter, or a nuclear missile.

[Kendo 2]

[EDIT]

 

Nope, not me. Not here at Nexus.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Kendo 2

[ginnyfizz]

@Sinophile - is there really any need to get personal and abusive when someone disagrees with you?

 

"gǒutuǐzi (狗腿子) / gǒutuǐ (狗腿) = variant of zǒugǒu (走狗) (lit. "running dog" or "dog legs"; this term was often used in the 20th century by communists to refer to client states of the United States and other capitalist powers) "

 

That term has been tossed about by spokespersons for the various Communist regimes. And you ask what Marx, Hitler et al have to do with Obama? Err...try the fact that they have a tendency to totalitarianism in common - try some of my links - bullying of weaker states, labelling anyone who disagrees with them as enemies of the people, or in Obama's case, playing the racist card, and bending the rule of law to suit their own ends.