Freedom of speech and assembly?

I haven't seen the R's sniffing many fiscal roses lately even. they talk a good show, but when their time comes they spend just as much as the D's, just on different stuff. I'm sick of it. voting L might be pissin in the wind, but it's better then supporting another hypocrite who sweet talks you, then kicks you out of bed thenext morning. I had more then enough of that with Bush. i keep waiting for the R's to put forward a fiscal conservative.






Still waiting.

chickaree wrote: I haven't seen the R's sniffing many fiscal roses lately even. they talk a good show, but when their time comes they spend just as much as the D's, just on different stuff. I'm sick of it. voting L might be pissin in the wind, but it's better then supporting another hypocrite who sweet talks you, then kicks you out of bed thenext morning. I had more then enough of that with Bush. i keep waiting for the R's to put forward a fiscal conservative.
Still waiting.

True, that is why we need to BAD DOG them.

neptunechimney wrote:

MsMAM wrote: [Then give up? The founding fathers did not like the party system (or at least some of them). You can't reform some of these folks. They are just mean. And as long as you are part of the republican party - then you will get no support from me and a lot of folks.

I mean - look at the rhetoric above from heartless. You want to lump yourself in with THAT, Bob?

Crap, a serious discussion and I am out of beer.

Parties evolve, sometimes they turn upside down. A libertarian vote is just pisisng in the wind. I hope we are at a cusp when the r's can be slam dunked into the 21'st century.

I think that is a better bet than thinking that the d's will wake up and smell the fiscal roses.

I am not giving up, just not optimistic.

You're not out of beer. You live close to me. I always have beer. help yourself.

So, consider this - I would contemplate the tea party if it WOULD distance itself from the Republicans and, of course, Sarah Palin.

And if GW was a fiscal conservative, I'll kiss your buns.

Quick people, the positions are filling fast. So far we have a self appointed judge of real conservatives, a self appointed judge of humor and someone that answers questions with other questions.
Do you know the difference between teasing the Left and teasing puppies?













Puppies are way smarter.

neptunechimney wrote:

chickaree wrote: I haven't seen the R's sniffing many fiscal roses lately even. they talk a good show, but when their time comes they spend just as much as the D's, just on different stuff. I'm sick of it. voting L might be pissin in the wind, but it's better then supporting another hypocrite who sweet talks you, then kicks you out of bed thenext morning. I had more then enough of that with Bush. i keep waiting for the R's to put forward a fiscal conservative.
Still waiting.

True, that is why we need to BAD DOG them.

Tell'in ya Herman Cain IS A BIG BAD DAWG!

MsMAM wrote: [

So, consider this - I would contemplate the tea party if it WOULD distance itself from the Republicans and, of course, Sarah Palin.

And if GW was a fiscal conservative

I know no one who thinks that of GW. Still his annual deficit was around 1/4 trillion $. Now it is around 1 3/4 trillion dollars. Where is the lie in those #'s?

While the establishment r's hope to use the tp, it is also true that they fear the tp almost as much as the d's do. The tp is what the people involved make it. Pay your nickel and place your bet.

I agree. I think they all suck. Flat out suck. And I don't know that I think the president is the one that runs up the debt on their own. I am sick to death of high taxes, and I certainly don't want to pass all of this debt on to the kids either. I am always amazed at how much SS I pay too.

As I said - I am OK with the tea party for a movement in bucking the current establishment except for some of their affiliations.

Except that taxes aren't as high as the teabaggers would like to have you believe:

Taxes at Lowest Level Since 1950
May 11, 2010

USA Today: "Federal, state and local taxes -- including income, property, sales and other taxes -- consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010."

Yikes! Tell me it ain't so, Batman!!

MsMAM wrote: I can't really say I know what you are driving too, PS. I, as well, want smaller government, and I am certainly not a tea bagger.

What I am getting at Mam is that the only way to get that smaller government is to reverse the consolidation of power that the general government has been engaged in, power usurped from the coordinate state governments, for the last 90 years under the sophistry of "general welfare". As popular as the programs created under that sophistry may be, they are leading us to a point where the general government is limitless in its powers, just as the government of King George was, and bankrupting the nation as a result; just as every other government without limits to its power has done in the past.

Look at what is happening around us right now. Arizona is seeking to regain control of its sovereignty and its borders. Montana has enacted a law regarding arms manufactured in its state that never leave its state. Georgia has enacted its own definition of what constitutes a machine gun. Colorado is leading the charge on enacting its own illicit drug laws and Boulder has already adopted its own foreign policy. Nearly everywhere you look, the states are starting to push against federal intrusion. What happens when the general government decides to push back? What happens the first time the federal agents enter a Colorado dispensary and arrest the owners and patrons for violating federal drug laws? What happens when they arrest a Georgia citizen for violating federal firearm laws when he is in compliance with the laws of his state? What do you think will happen if Colorado is successful in removing marijuana from the list of illegal drugs and allows it to be sold alongside tobacco?

Perhaps more pressing, what happens when the federal fiscal policy results in a collapse of the nation's currency? The debt right now is so high we can't address it, our only way out is devaluation of our currency or to allow another decade of inflation like we did in the 1970's and early 1980's when our currency was removed from any ties to specie. How happy do you think the nations that hold our debt are going to be when we try to inflate away their investment? Do you think our currency will remain the reserve currency after that is attempted?

There are many reasons you are hearing more talk of revolution Mam - these are merely the surface ones. The last time some of the states tried to voluntarily withdraw peacefully from the union they were not allowed to do so, and I don't think Obama or any other executive of the general government will do anything different today. As Jefferson said in his letter, when the only choices left are submission to a government with no limits to its power or dissolution of the union with that government, there can be no hesitation. To avoid that eventuality what has to happen is a return to having a general government that is limited in its power as intended by the Constitution. The federal government will have to give up its sophistry and return to being a coordinate power alongside the governments of the independent and sovereign states that belong to the union. I don't see that happening, do you?

My personal opinion......nothing will bring this country to it's knees faster than 50 states with 50 different sets of laws that are contradictory and cause intertstate commerce to grind to a halt, along with the mobility of people and corporations. It would be a nightmare. Yes there are states rights, but there should also be strong federal laws that govern the nation as a whole and make it possible for this nation to speak with one voice.