You asked for a suggestion. You did not ask for a suggestion acceptable to you, but that is what you meant. I gave you a suggestion, but you didn't accept it. You're only doing what you so blithely accuse me of: not responding to you in a substantive manner.
I gave you substance, but you took the coward's way out. Guess you can't make an argument on its merits.
Originally Posted by charlestudor2005
The post your response above is addressed to had to do with your original post, not my follow up. You said you didn't understand the TEA party. I say you don't want to.
Your response to my question has nothing to do with your original post which my last post was a response to. You have no idea what I will or won't accept as to limiting government. . . unless of course you choose to read exactly what I would accept in another thread here. Of course there is the minor point that your only suggestion is to limit the size of federal government in the very first area for which it was
created in the first place, rather than limiting it in areas that are reserved by the Constitution for the states and the people.
I did not accuse your response of being without substance.
I do, however, point out that your original post is, if not without substance, at least without either honesty or courage. You don't like the idea of the federal government being put back into the box the Constitution drew for it, you don't like the idea that people demonstrate that they are tired of financial abuse and mismanagement, we get that. So why not just post that instead of stating that you "don't understand" when, in fact, you have no desire to understand, or you understand perfectly and do not agree. If you honestly don't understand, why don't you show an inclination to learn? If you have the courage of your convictions in opposing limited government as proposed by the TEA movement, then don't mince words, just say it.
!
