SIX YEARS AGO THE TEA PARTY WAS BORN....

I liked the Tea Party Stance on some issues but I can not agree with any party or individuals when they decide that it is there right to govern morality. The next step is an Islamic State. That is what they stand for. Tell the people what they believe gods wants them to do and punishing them if they don't. Your freedom should stop where mines begin. Originally Posted by theotherguy1

Different verbiage but we are basically saying the same thing...Whirly has gotten in bed with Christian fundamentalist and calls that winning!

Be like getting in bed with a skunk because you want the world to smell like you....problem is Whirly does not understand that he now smells like a skunk! Whirly what you want to smell like and what you actually smell like are two different things.

If anyone makes a choice for you then there is no choice nor freedom.

Giving the power of choice to anyone is ludicrous.

The Federal Government should make sure that no people are enslaved to any State or Country.

That is where I disagree with many of you, you act as if Stalin is better than Hitler. A true Hobson Choice.

Let me give just one example, Abortion. The Federal Governments only role should be to see that you are free to choose. States should not be able to restrict your right to choose, nor should states make you get an abortion. This notions that states can restrict personal freedom of choice is wacky is fuck to me....yet many of you act as if it is something grand!

What should be taught is to respect others personal freedom choices and not have the government force personal choice upon you. Originally Posted by WTF

You misunderstand my point. It seems intentional. I really don't know.

I'm arguing the Constitution that we have. You are arguing theory. Do I want more freedom from any government? Hell yes but I can't even take the first step to get the State out of my business when the Feds have taken the power from the people of a State to make their own decisions.
I have to make a choice of who's ideals I want to live by. I want it to be by Texan ideals rather than an amalgamation of ideals from all over the country. Beyond that, I want it to be the ideals of the people whom I chose to associate with for the most part or my community and not the Austin Liberals. You may not even want to be that restricted, and that's fine become a hermit and you can live and die by your own code so long as you don't hurt anyone else.

Self sufficiency can have differing degrees. As with anything balance is essential, and different for all of us. Sometimes we may need or want a little help building a fence or need to borrow a neighbors shovel if ours breaks and we don't have time to build another one. It might be convenient for someone to give us a ride to the shop where our car is being repaired or have a guy to help us figure out who stole our chickens. We may just want a little companionship. It's kind of hard to do any of those things if you don't associate with others. That's where we have to find balance. That balance is easier to find if you are associating with people of like mind.

I chose to associate with for the most part or my community and not the Austin Liberals.


...That's where we have to find balance. That balance is easier to find if you are associating with people of like mind. Originally Posted by boardman

Shouldn't you have the exact same rights in say that dreaded Austin as I , if I visited you in say Jasper?

Where does where you live have to do with certain rights? Should Jasper not allow women the right to vote and Texas approve that, should the Federal Government step in or not?

I'm arguing that the theory that the Constitution is/was perfect in reality is hogwash. We twist and turn it to meet our own selfish needs by giving the State or Feds control over certain basic rights.

My argument is that we should educate people to give no government entity any control over certain personal choice items. You and Whirly act as if it is some big deal to be controlled by the state instead of the Feds.

Shouldn't you have the exact same rights in say that dreaded Austin as I , if I visited you in say Jasper?

Where does where you live have to do with certain rights? Should Jasper not allow women the right to vote and Texas approve that, should the Federal Government step in or not?

I'm arguing that the theory that the Constitution is/was perfect in reality is hogwash. We twist and turn it to meet our own selfish needs by giving the State or Feds control over certain basic rights.

My argument is that we should educate people to give no government entity any control over certain personal choice items. You and Whirly act as if it is some big deal to be controlled by the state instead of the Feds. Originally Posted by WTF

Jasper does not have the ability to allow or disallow a woman the right to vote. That has already been decided upon by the states by ratifying the 19th amendment. See how that works?

As to your comment about the Constitution being perfect...Who said the Constitution is perfect? I know, another question you won't answer.

The Constitution is what we have. It's not perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than total anarchy.

Go ahead and twist yourself up in knots again trying to find a way to disagree with me. As usual we aren't as far apart as you would like to portray we are.

As usual we aren't as far apart as you would like to portray we are. Originally Posted by boardman

We're a beer apart.

Look let me give a couple present day examples. Colorado and the subject we can not talk about. I'm with the State. Gay marriage outlawed in Texas....I'm more inclined towards the Fed's pov.

I see no reason to believe the States will be more responsive to the RIGHTS of the people than the Feds. That is basically the beer right there.

We're a beer apart.

Look let me give a couple present day examples. Colorado and the subject we can not talk about. I'm with the State. Gay marriage outlawed in Texas....I'm more inclined towards the Fed's pov.

I see no reason to believe the States will be more responsive to the RIGHTS of the people than the Feds. That is basically the beer right there. Originally Posted by WTF

I would agree. They're different items. One is a right based on equality. The other is more of a state's issue but it will eventually be legalized federally as well.

We're a beer apart.

Look let me give a couple present day examples. Colorado and the subject we can not talk about. I'm with the State. Gay marriage outlawed in Texas....I'm more inclined towards the Fed's pov.

I see no reason to believe the States will be more responsive to the RIGHTS of the people than the Feds. That is basically the beer right there. Originally Posted by WTF

So you only want the Feds interfering on those issues where you agree they should interfere?

I'll ask you again. Who said the Constitution is perfect?

So you only want the Feds interfering on those issues where you agree they should interfere? Originally Posted by boardman

Is that what you took from what I wrote.

I want neither the State or the Fed's to have power over personal choice.

Twist that how ever you may.

I'll ask you again. Who said the Constitution is perfect? Originally Posted by boardman

Certainly wasn't Henry David Thoreau!

Thoreau asserts that because governments are typically more harmful than helpful, they therefore cannot be justified. Democracy is no cure for this, as majorities simply by virtue of being majorities do not also gain the virtues of wisdom and justice[I]. The judgment of an individual's conscience is not necessarily inferior to the decisions of a political body or majority, and so "t is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.... Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice."

We're a beer apart.

Look let me give a couple present day examples. Colorado and the subject we can not talk about. I'm with the State. Gay marriage outlawed in Texas....I'm more inclined towards the Fed's pov.

I see no reason to believe the States will be more responsive to the RIGHTS of the people than the Feds. That is basically the beer right there. Originally Posted by WTF

So you only want the Feds interfering on those issues where you agree they should interfere?

I'll ask you again. Who said the Constitution is perfect? Originally Posted by boardman

Is that what you took from what I wrote. Well,....Yeah.

I want neither the State or the Fed's to have power over personal choice.

Twist that how ever you may.





Certainly wasn't Henry David Thoreau!

Thoreau asserts that because governments are typically more harmful than helpful, they therefore cannot be justified. Democracy is no cure for this, as majorities simply by virtue of being majorities do not also gain the virtues of wisdom and justice[I]. The judgment of an individual's conscience is not necessarily inferior to the decisions of a political body or majority, and so "t is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.... Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice." Originally Posted by WTF

Then who was it?

Then who was it? Originally Posted by boardman

In the Colorado case...I'm inclined with the State protecting personal freedom, in the Texas case, I'm inclined with the Fed's. That is why I used those two examples.

I hate to have to think that I have to spell it out for you yet once again but I am not for giving any government entity any power over personal choice that does not infringe on others.

In the Colorado case...I'm inclined with the State protecting personal freedom, in the Texas case, I'm inclined with the Fed's. That is why I used those two examples.

I hate to have to think that I have to spell it out for you yet once again but I am not for giving any government entity any power over personal choice that does not infringe on others. Originally Posted by WTF

You made this statement earlier...

Shouldn't you have the exact same rights in say that dreaded Austin as I , if I visited you in say Jasper?

Where does where you live have to do with certain rights? Should Jasper not allow women the right to vote and Texas approve that, should the Federal Government step in or not?

I'm arguing that the theory that the Constitution is/was perfect in reality is hogwash. We twist and turn it to meet our own selfish needs by giving the State or Feds control over certain basic rights.

My argument is that we should educate people to give no government entity any control over certain personal choice items. You and Whirly act as if it is some big deal to be controlled by the state instead of the Feds. Originally Posted by WTF

I'm asking you who has presented a theory that the Constitution is perfect?

You made this statement earlier...



I'm asking you who has presented a theory that the Constitution is perfect? Originally Posted by boardman

So called Constitutionalist are the ones that seem most to hold that view. Let me highlight my main point, not yours.



Originally Posted by WTF


I'm arguing that the theory that the Constitution is/was perfect in reality is hogwash. We twist and turn it to meet our own selfish needs by giving the State or Feds control over certain basic rights.

So called Constitutionalist are the ones that seem most to hold that view. Let me highlight my main point, not yours.



Originally Posted by WTF


I'm arguing that the theory that the Constitution is/was perfect in reality is hogwash. We twist and turn it to meet our own selfish needs by giving the State or Feds control over certain basic rights. Originally Posted by WTF

Just back up the statement that there is a theory that the Constitution is perfect and we'll get to the rest of it. Otherwise it's hard to take anything else you say seriously.

Just back up the statement that there is a theory that the Constitution is perfect and we'll get to the rest of it. Otherwise it's hard to take anything else you say seriously. Originally Posted by boardman

You have to know , I take about as much of what you sat seriously as you do I. So while not implicitly stating it's perfectness, you're standing right next to that proclamation.

Populist constitutionalism is the surest and clearest path to saving our republic. Thank God (and I mean that literally) for that dedicated woman who asked me if she had brought enough copies of the Constitution to the Tea Party gathering. I will close by answering her as I should have when we were standing at that table: "As far as the Constitution goes, you can never have enough copies...and we should never stop learning as much as we can about the greatest political document ever written."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/artic...#ixzz3SmF8kdzT
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

You have to know , I take about as much of what you sat seriously as you do I. So while not implicitly stating it's perfectness, you're standing right next to that proclamation.
Originally Posted by WTF

Wrong!
You made a definitive statement in an attempt to paint people with a certain color that doesn't even exist.
Now, show me where anyone has claimed the Constitution is perfect or admit you lied.