Texas is still at it

There were threats against the President and Congressmen and offices and homes were vandalized. Since this is the third round that you refuse to condemn these actions I will assume that you condone violence as a means of political expression. So, I'm fast loosing respect for you.

If true, these are wrong; violence is never the answer, except in self-defense. I think the incident at the polls was shown to be a lie about the Black Panthers.

Why can't you just answer the question? Are some people allowed to use violence in your opinion? Would you like to see another civil war? How much violence do you think should be allowed and by whom?

I guess I've had a few courses in "psych" since I have a Masters in Psychology with a Minor in Sociology. Ideology can be taught, but whether or not one believes it cannot be taught. It would be like teaching someone to like spinach.

I would....

.

 

I'm glad to see people like you who are going to refuse to take S.S. payments, Medicare and unemployment; that leaves more for the rest of us.

.

 

This amuses me.

The word teabaggers was used by tea party members openly, it was only later that people who know how to internet started loling at them and they eventually figured out what it meant, and started saying it was childish or whatever.

Another example of the tea party being oblivious, and hypocritical to boot.

 

It says "Promote" NOT "Provide" the general welfare. Police and fire departments are totally unrelated to health care.

 

Nope, try again, they all promote the general welfare of the populace and country as a whole.

 

Like you, I would say the same, If true it would be wrong.

I have seen video of it, perhaps they were just there to assist old ladies? But the beating of the black man and biting the finger incidents? Another lie?

The only real violence I've seen occur has been from the left. Wars sometimes are a necessity. Will it come to that? I'll wait and see how the government responds to the demands of the people. It's not a question of how much violence should be allowed, but instead "should violence be allowed", and when government continues to allow one side to use violence, it may not be long before the other side begins to respond in kind. If government fails to protect one group simply because they are in opposition to the government, then the people will eventually have to protect themselves.

Sometimes people ignore their true beliefs in order to protect themselves.

Feel free, but it should probably be a new thread as we're so far off subject in this one already.

Go get em, Rick Perry. (Attempt to maintain some relevance to the OP)

 

:smilielol5:

You provide health care to promote health. It's quite impossible to provide health in it's entirety.

 

Why would I refuse to take something I had paid for? Actually, in just 7 more years I will break even on S.S. If the left is so intent on bankrupting country, why shouldn't I assist? Although I have to admit, I've never taken unemployment, and I don't make use of Medicare so you're welcome to it.

 

The difference is that you and others intend it in a derogatory way. Words sometimes have multiple meanings, and the context in which they are used makes obvious the meaning intended.

 

Well yes.... It shows how out of touch with current happenings and culture the tea party are, is all.

 

Ignorance is bliss.

 

Courts will not interpret the Preamble to give the government powers that are not articulated elsewhere in the Constitution.

 

The power for congress to provide health care is more than provided in the power to tax and the commerce clause. The preamble adds moral authority to the argument that the constitution is a living document relative to its time.

 

But it wouldn't be a tax it would be a fine...

 

If that were true, the power to tax could be applied to providing for every desire of the entire population.
While the preamble is a moral basis for what the Constitution contains, it is not a source of authority for government to do as it wishes. Who started this "living document" absurdity? The document stands as it was written with the addition of the amendments that have been applied over time. Rules and Laws become meaningless if they are open to reinterpretation to achieve some goal which they are intended to prevent.

 

And they could if they wanted to. In fact their using your money to try to get every household connected to broadband internet and raise the speed of it around the county. Heck no one is even arguing internet is a right like health care, but it's a realization in 2010 a high tech broadband infrastructure and a population with access to it gives your country the advantage and "promotes the general welfare"

The constitution is vague for a reason, it doesn't set forth domestic policy, it just says what powers congress has. See, legally, for a government to work and laws to be passed, it needs a basis for its powers, especially in a federal system. The founding fathers didn't write the constitution to direct domestic policy 225 years later except for protecting certain rights guaranteed. As you recall, or you may not, there was severe opposition to the bill of rights at the time of its creation as people feared those would be the only rights we would have. The bill of rights doesn't list the only rights the government is supposed to protect and grant, it lists those deemed universally through time important enough that it had to be specifically said they can not be violated.

Apparently now the bill of rights is becoming useless in the fact the people who opposed it are now becoming right. People like you are arguing those are the only rights the government is here to protect and enforce. Sorry bub, the entire world minus 1/2 the United States now sees health care as a human right in 2010.

 

It's simply redistribution of wealth, sort of like the poor guy who walks into the bank and says "I've got a gun, just for my own protection of course, and I'd like you to fill my bag with money...Thank you."
Theft is theft, regardless of who commits it, government or the individual.
We were set up for this when the progressive tax system was created, and it was the wealthy who created it. If taxes were seen as equally burdening to all, we would not have many of the problems we face today, and government would have it's spending much more greatly controlled by the people as a whole.
The most relevant facts are usually found hidden in the finest details, which only the most diligent appear capable of finding.

Not intending to detract from, but only to add to your post.

 

I think the irony of this reply relative to what you where quoting is lost on you. Unless you're quite the subtle pro-obama troll...

 

I don't know what video you are talking about.

And what would that be? Since the radical groups of the 60s and 70s faded out I don't recall any violence from the left. However, I do recall health care clinics being bombed and doctors killed by the anti-abortion people. How about this Fred Phelps guy, isn't he on the right? Oh, let's see, a few gay men beaten and/or killed, and, of course, the recent threats and vandalism by the TeaBaggers (it's just such a catchy word).

.

 

Because, to take from the social programs you rail against would be hypocritical.

.