Tea Party Movement

darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/60#post_3310251
 
What membership mantra? Go up to the Dallas area, walk into a TGI Friday's in the Farmers Branch area, sit down and ask for a beer. The first thing they will tell you is if you want to buy alcohol in their establishment, you must purchase a MEMBERSHIP that allows you to drink there, and several other restaurants in the area for a specific period of time. Do you have to buy a 'drinking license' where you live? Didn't the 21st Amendment abolish Prohibition in this country?
 
I abide by the laws relegated by the judicial systems in this country, not by the one's written in a religious book. Yes, making it a felony to kill someone without malice is contrived from the Bible, but I think humanity would've implemented that law regardless if it was stated in the Bible or not.
 
Isn't the "Me Mentality" one of the main causes of the Tea Party movement? Keep the Federal Govt. out of MY pockets? Don't allow the Federal Govt. to tell ME what to do? It will always ultimately come down to how government affects YOUR personal life. You're the one railing about how the welfare recipients suck money from YOUR taxes and hard-earned money, not me. If you actually cared for YOUR country, YOUR nation, and YOUR county, you'd have no problem helping out those entities with your fair share.
1. The 21st amendment only removed prohibition on a federal level. It turned the power back over to the states and many states have laws turning that power over to municipalities and counties.
 
2. Most "memberships" cost no money. a few places charge a small fee, yes...but as I stated, it is no more than a hunting license....which you have no problem with. What is the difference?
 
3. Thou shall not kill is still a biblical law....first and foremost. thou shall not steal as well.....though shall not covet they neighbors wife.....thou shall not become drunk with wine.........explain how these four biblical laws are bad....
 
4. The difference between you and the tea party is this...you want the fed to take care of you...they don't. You want the fed to take on more things and run them in the inefficient manor they run everything else. I dont rail about welfare recipients taking my money...I have no problem helping out people in need.....but fair share is a relative term. I know you make more money than I (based off your claims) you want the taxes raised...you are fine with this...my question is this though, how come during the past years you didn't choose to pay the higher percentage? You have the option to give the government more....they wont say no......if you are that concerned about it.....why don't you pay in what you think should be considered "fair share"?
 
fishtaco

fishtaco

Active Member
Just read the news this morning and one of the headlines was GOP in Wyoming wants to outlaw homosexuality, funny nothing to do with taxes, honest government or getting back to the constitution in that. In fact I guess as I have always suspected it takes someone other than a far-right conservative to actually believe and practice what it says in the Constitution about all men being created equal.
 
Lets see, the economy sucks, we still have two wars on and there is a secret Muslim in the White House, yet it is always good to know that you can always trust the GOP to go after fellow citizens because of what is stated in the bible. I rest my case.
 
Fishtaco.
 
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtaco http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/100#post_3310676
Just read the news this morning and one of the headlines was GOP in Wyoming wants to outlaw homosexuality, funny nothing to do with taxes, honest government or getting back to the constitution in that. In fact I guess as I have always suspected it takes someone other than a far-right conservative to actually believe and practice what it says in the Constitution about all men being created equal.
 
Lets see, the economy sucks, we still have two wars on and there is a secret Muslim in the White House, yet it is always good to know that you can always trust the GOP to go after fellow citizens because of what is stated in the bible. I rest my case.
 
Fishtaco.
 
That is the GOP...not the tea party. And when are you going to learn, the social issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and so on are not going to change...these are just topics to rally people...the politicians on either side have no intention of doing anything about these issues..they are content to let the courts handle things. same with immigration.
 
oh, and they want to ban gay marriage...not homosexuality...unless you are seeing a story I am not. Got link?
 
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
GOP want's to outlaw homosexuality which they have no shot at achieving. Democrats want to make it illegal for my Christian grandmother to refuse to rent a room to a gay person because it violates the teachings of her religion. Difference is the Democrats were successful passing a law violating the religious rights of the grandma. So you tell me, which is more dangerous?
 
Same rules with Abortion. I don't think abortion should be illegal but I'd like to see Roe v Wade overturned because it was a pitiful decision. There is no all powerful right to privacy that only applies to abortion in the constitution. Doubt it will ever happen but even if roe were overturned it would be up to the states to set abortion law and many already have the laws on the books. On the other hand the Democrats think girls under the age of 18 should be able to get an abortion without even notifying the parents first. Again, you tell me which is worse.
 
I make my decision based on serious policy matters, not social issues the feds shouldn't be involved with anyway.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/100#post_3310660
 
1. The 21st amendment only removed prohibition on a federal level. It turned the power back over to the states and many states have laws turning that power over to municipalities and counties.
 
2. Most "memberships" cost no money. a few places charge a small fee, yes...but as I stated, it is no more than a hunting license....which you have no problem with. What is the difference?
 
3. Thou shall not kill is still a biblical law....first and foremost. thou shall not steal as well.....though shall not covet they neighbors wife.....thou shall not become drunk with wine.........explain how these four biblical laws are bad....
 
4. The difference between you and the tea party is this...you want the fed to take care of you...they don't. You want the fed to take on more things and run them in the inefficient manor they run everything else. I dont rail about welfare recipients taking my money...I have no problem helping out people in need.....but fair share is a relative term. I know you make more money than I (based off your claims) you want the taxes raised...you are fine with this...my question is this though, how come during the past years you didn't choose to pay the higher percentage? You have the option to give the government more....they wont say no......if you are that concerned about it.....why don't you pay in what you think should be considered "fair share"?
You're missing the point. I don't care if the membership pays me. The difference is the religious sect is dictating specific laws based on their faith and beliefs. Laws should not be created based on whether 'God' says it's good or bad. What would you say that they no longer sell hunting licenses or allow the sale of guns in your city or state because the 10 Commandments say "Though Shalt Not Kill"? The 2nd Amendment protects your right to own a gun. But hey, " The 2nd amendment is on a federal level. They can turn the power back over to the states and many states have laws turning that power over to municipalities and counties." Riiight, I'm sure you'd pop a gasket over that one. OK to ban the sale of alcohol, but not your dear guns.

 
Yea, yea, now it's "Well if you don't like that law, move." Guess what? I DID. I'd never in a million years move back to that antiquated bible thumping backwoods area again. That's another reason you'd never see me go to a Cowboys game. Wouldn't give the pleasure to those loons to take my money.
 
I remember growing up when Texas had the infamous Blue Laws. The only stores or businesses that were allowed to be open on Sunday were the grocery stores. Every mall, clothing store, hardware store, and any other store that dealt with "working on the Sabbath" was closed. Made it a major pain when you wanted to work on your car, or had some form of home repair. Even in the grocery stores, they would rope off all the aisles that had hardware like hammers, screws, etc. Couldn't buy a pot or pan. Couldn't even buy a TOY (never did find where it stated in the Bible that toys were associated with work). To this day, you can't by alcohol until after Noon on a Sunday. All these laws based on faith and religion.
 
Where did I say the 10 Commandments are bad? If those statements woould have never been printed, I'd still say humanity would have found a way to enact the same laws regardless.
 
I don't want the Feds taking care of me. I just enjoy the fact that there are multiple Federal agencies out there that protect me no matter where I choose to live in this country. That's the benefit of the FCC, FDA, DOT, and FEMA. If I want to move from Texas to Nebraska, I don't have to worry whether or not my food or drugs are safe to eat and use when I get there. I don't have to worry for the most part that I can drive there without wondering if a bridge will be open, or a pothole doesn't suck my car into an abyss. With today's technology, I don't have to worry if my $300 cell phone will work in Nebraska because they decided that "cell phones are bad. God told them they are." That's the benefit of Federal Laws and standards. It gives you the freedom to roam to every one of our 50 states and know that basic needs and wants are provided and insured to be safe. That's where your taxes go.
 
Come on Darth, I may make quite a bit of money, and I do give generously to charities and such, but I do work to enjoy a comfortable life. I have no problem giving my fair share. But i do have my limits.
Are you a religious person? Do you attend a particular church? That's what comical about these Tea Partyers and their religious doctrines. They rail the Democrats and Washington about "taxing us to death and taking our money", yet they have no qualms about 'tithing' 10% or even 20% of their income to their local church. And please don't tell me it's always your choice to give to your church. I have a co-worker that goes to one of the largest Catholic churches in the city. They actually do Automatic Payroll Deductions from his paycheck on a monthly basis with the percentage taken based on his income. He doesn't have a choice to pay it. Oh wait, I forgot, if he doesn't like being charged to go that church, he's free to move to another. Unfortunately, they require tithing at every other Catholic church in this city.
 
spanko

spanko

Active Member
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/100#post_3310704
You're missing the point. I don't care if the membership pays me. The difference is the religious sect is dictating specific laws based on their faith and beliefs. Laws should not be created based on whether 'God' says it's good or bad. What would you say that they no longer sell hunting licenses or allow the sale of guns in your city or state because the 10 Commandments say "Though Shalt Not Kill"? The 2nd Amendment protects your right to own a gun. But hey, " The 2nd amendment is on a federal level. They can turn the power back over to the states and many states have laws turning that power over to municipalities and counties." Riiight, I'm sure you'd pop a gasket over that one. OK to ban the sale of alcohol, but not your dear guns.
Freedom is a wonderful thing. It allows us to vote for who we wish to have represent us. The states are an experiment. What works in one may not in another. That is the beauty of the system.Look at how many millionaires have moved out of New Jersey recently because of the outrageous taxation there.
 
Yea, yea, now it's "Well if you don't like that law, move." Guess what? I DID. I'd never in a million years move back to that antiquated bible thumping backwoods area again. That's another reason you'd never see me go to a Cowboys game. Wouldn't give the pleasure to those loons to take my money. Freedom is a wonderful thing.
 
I remember growing up when Texas had the infamous Blue Laws. The only stores or businesses that were allowed to be open on Sunday were the grocery stores. Every mall, clothing store, hardware store, and any other store that dealt with "working on the Sabbath" was closed. Made it a major pain when you wanted to work on your car, or had some form of home repair. Even in the grocery stores, they would rope off all the aisles that had hardware like hammers, screws, etc. Couldn't buy a pot or pan. Couldn't even buy a TOY (never did find where it stated in the Bible that toys were associated with work). To this day, you can't by alcohol until after Noon on a Sunday. All these laws based on faith and religion.
 
Where did I say the 10 Commandments are bad? If those statements would have never been printed, I'd still say humanity would have found a way to enact the same laws regardless.
 
I don't want the Feds taking care of me. I just enjoy the fact that there are multiple Federal agencies out there that protect me no matter where I choose to live in this country. That's the benefit of the FCC, FDA, DOT, and FEMA. If I want to move from Texas to Nebraska, I don't have to worry whether or not my food or drugs are safe to eat and use when I get there. I don't have to worry for the most part that I can drive there without wondering if a bridge will be open, or a pothole doesn't suck my car into an abyss. With today's technology, I don't have to worry if my $300 cell phone will work in Nebraska because they decided that "cell phones are bad. God told them they are." That's the benefit of Federal Laws and standards. It gives you the freedom to roam to every one of our 50 states and know that basic needs and wants are provided and insured to be safe. That's where your taxes go. Hmmmmm.......so where are the other peoples freedoms then, everyone must conform to what it is you wish the individual states be?
 
Come on Darth, I may make quite a bit of money, and I do give generously to charities and such, but I do work to enjoy a comfortable life. I have no problem giving my fair share. But i do have my limits. Then why let the feds take your money and decide for you where it should go?
Are you a religious person? Do you attend a particular church? That's what comical about these Tea Partyers and their religious doctrines. They rail the Democrats and Washington about "taxing us to death and taking our money", yet they have no qualms about 'tithing' 10% or even 20% of their income to their local church. And please don't tell me it's always your choice to give to your church. I have a co-worker that goes to one of the largest Catholic churches in the city. They actually do Automatic Payroll Deductions from his paycheck on a monthly basis with the percentage taken based on his income. He doesn't have a choice to pay it. Oh wait, I forgot, if he doesn't like being charged to go that church, he's free to move to another. Unfortunately, they require tithing at every other Catholic church in this city. Is this not the freedom to choose your own religious beliefs?
 
Seems to me everything you are discussing here is about individual freedom, but you want the feds to dictate what you believe is right and damn the other folks. I am sorry but to live in a free society you have to respect everyones freedoms.

Your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
I am not against the hunting licenses or owner registration...I see the good in this...I am just showing you that your drinking license is no different than the other two. The constitution does not grant the right to drink alcohol...never have I read those words....the amendment prevents the fed from banning its sale and consumption..but it does not grant the right. So calm down and rest assured I am not stating something you think I am. Just pointing out how you don't complain over some licenses but are adamant about the alcohol license...If it wasn't religious based would you have a problem with an alcohol license requirement? What if it was used to prevent the sale of alcohol to those convicted of dwi in the last year? what makes purchasing an alcohol license a bad idea...but the othger licenses we have to get a good idea?
 
 
No, I do not attend a church, I am versed in religion. I believe in god...but for many of the reason you state I do not participate in any one church. There is a church I will periodically attend (my wife and kids love it) but the tithing is private and hidden, no one knows how much you tithe and there is no "requirement". catholic churches sure...but then again, the vatican has been a business for centuries. I always notice, it seems just one religion has to put a bad taste in someones mouth and the write off all others as bad and crazy. But if you ate a bad peach, would stop eating all fruit completely?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/100#post_3310714
I am not against the hunting licenses or owner registration...I see the good in this...I am just showing you that your drinking license is no different than the other two. The constitution does not grant the right to drink alcohol...never have I read those words....the amendment prevents the fed from banning its sale and consumption..but it does not grant the right. So calm down and rest assured I am not stating something you think I am. Just pointing out how you don't complain over some licenses but are adamant about the alcohol license...If it wasn't religious based would you have a problem with an alcohol license requirement? What if it was used to prevent the sale of alcohol to those convicted of dwi in the last year? what makes purchasing an alcohol license a bad idea...but the othger licenses we have to get a good idea?
 
 
No, I do not attend a church, I am versed in religion. I believe in god...but for many of the reason you state I do not participate in any one church. There is a church I will periodically attend (my wife and kids love it) but the tithing is private and hidden, no one knows how much you tithe and there is no "requirement". catholic churches sure...but then again, the vatican has been a business for centuries. I always notice, it seems just one religion has to put a bad taste in someones mouth and the write off all others as bad and crazy. But if you ate a bad peach, would stop eating all fruit completely?
You still don't get it. I don't care who initiates the law, the Pope, the Baptist bible thumper, a Democrat, a Republican, etc. You are infringing on my rights to do something I can legally do almost ANYWHERE else in the world. But the bottom line is, the only reason this 'law' is in affect in that area is because of religious beliefs. Believe me, this isn't an 'individual' freedom. This affects MILLIONS of individuals who live in that area. First it's in a city, then the individual states, next the nation. I'll turn it back on you. The bible thumpers are the one's deciding this. So where are the other peoples freedoms then (the one's who want to drink), everyone must conform to what it is you (the religious person) wish the individual states be?
 
Perfect way to circumvent your Constitution. Don't like the 2nd Amendment? States rights says I can abolish guns if I want. So why do you cry about gun restrictions in Washington D.C. and Chicago? The people in those cities VOTED unanimously to outlaw wepons in their city limits. You cry they're violating the 2nd Amendment rights. But as you say, States rights take precendence. Sorry, that's sounds like that's YOUR indiviidual freedom.
 
 
 
I'll take your statement and do a little modification:
 
Seems to me everything you are discussing here is about individual freedom, but you want the religious sects to dictate what you believe is right and damn the other folks. I am sorry but to live in a free society you have to respect everyones freedoms/span>
 
The religious sect is not respecting MY freedoms. They are taking the Dictatorship approach and making laws based on THEIR beliefs.
 
 
You're sitting here telling me I'm selfish because I want things the way I like them, yet your entire argument reeks of individualism. You want 50 INDIVIDUAL states to determine their INDIVIDUAL rights. I have no problem with States rights. There are many laws in each respective state that are there because they only pertain to certain conditions for that state. It's highly unlikely Nebraska would have to spend money on border security to keep illegal immigrants from sneaking across. That's not the case for Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. So why do you rail Obama about securing the borders? It shouldn't be the Feds problem. HOWEVER, illegals crossing the border can ultimately have an adverse affect on jobs and other benefits in Nebraska if a slew of Mexicans were to immigrate there. That's why ALL of our taxes goes towards securing those borders. There are times when standardization is a must. There's always a situation where having a law that pertains to everyone needs to be in place. It's a type of blanket protection. It has nothing to do with violating anyone's freedom. It's called common sense.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
What if the bible thumpers take over the federal government? Under your ideal system they would have to power to impose their view of the law on the whole country. Under the Federal system it's up to each state to decide.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/100#post_3310737
What if the bible thumpers take over the federal government? Under your ideal system they would have to power to impose their view of the law on the whole country. Under the Federal system it's up to each state to decide.
That's what I'm afraid of.
 
So I guess the Republican Party in Montana wanting to make homosexuality illegal isn't motivated by religion?
 
http://www.ksat.com/politics/25065296/detail.html
 
First Montana, then the world. PRAISE THE LORD! CAN I GET AN AMEN BROTHER!
 
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/100#post_3310741
That's what I'm afraid of.
 
So I guess the Republican Party in Montana wanting to make homosexuality illegal isn't motivated by religion?
 
http://www.ksat.com/politics/25065296/detail.html
 
First Montana, then the world. PRAISE THE LORD! CAN I GET AN AMEN BROTHER!
 
lol, yeah I'm going to write an article that all democrats support the draft...http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901100.html
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/100#post_3310741
That's what I'm afraid of.
 
So I guess the Republican Party in Montana wanting to make homosexuality illegal isn't motivated by religion?
 
http://www.ksat.com/politics/25065296/detail.html
 
First Montana, then the world. PRAISE THE LORD! CAN I GET AN AMEN BROTHER!
 
You seem to have a bit of a problem staying on issue. The Tea Party isn't the Republican party but the article makes my point. They reaffirmed their belief that their should be a law against homosexuality but there is zero chance they can ever enact such a law because the US constitution forbids it according to case law. Those dead old white guys knew what they were doing when they formed our government. The role of the feds was to insure our basic rights were protected and to provide a federal court system, post office, military and monetary system while allowing the states to maintain their own customs and traditions as long as they didn't conflict with the US constitution.
 
fishtaco

fishtaco

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/100#post_3310806
 
You seem to have a bit of a problem staying on issue. The Tea Party isn't the Republican party but the article makes my point. They reaffirmed their belief that their should be a law against homosexuality but there is zero chance they can ever enact such a law because the US constitution forbids it according to case law. Those dead old white guys knew what they were doing when they formed our government. The role of the feds was to insure our basic rights were protected and to provide a federal court system, post office, military and monetary system while allowing the states to maintain their own customs and traditions as long as they didn't conflict with the US constitution.
Reef, I am a bit confused, but are not most of these Tea Party people running on the GOP platform? Beck and Palin are both major movers and shakers within the Tea Party, but the religious rally they headlined that had a bunch of Tea Party people at it had nothing to do with the Tea Party? Is Bachman no longer a Rebublican either? O'Donnell who is the latest Tea Party superstar was at the Value Voters Summit along side Newtie, Huck and Mit and is sponsored by the Family Reseach Council, now was that a Tea Party event or a GOP event. LOL
 
Until the Tea Party forms a 3rd party they are the same as the GOP like it or not. I would have got back sooner, but I had to watch some football this afternoon.
 
Fishtaco
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishtaco http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/100#post_3310854
Reef, I am a bit confused, but are not most of these Tea Party people running on the GOP platform? Beck and Palin are both major movers and shakers within the Tea Party, but the religious rally they headlined that had a bunch of Tea Party people at it had nothing to do with the Tea Party? Is Bachman no longer a Rebublican either? O'Donnell who is the latest Tea Party superstar was at the Value Voters Summit along side Newtie, Huck and Mit and is sponsored by the Family Reseach Council, now was that a Tea Party event or a GOP event. LOL
 
Until the Tea Party forms a 3rd party they are the same as the GOP like it or not. I would have got back sooner, but I had to watch some football this afternoon.
 
Fishtaco
Beck and Palin are popular in the tea party crowd but they are not officers or anything. If it were about religion Beck wouldn't be popular as he is a Mormon. Most other sects of the Christian religion consider Mormonism a cult. They also support Sharon Angle who I believe is a member of the church of scientology, another "cult". Like I said, contrary to what you hear from certain elements of the mainstream media this is about big government, not big religion.
 
spanko

spanko

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/100#post_3310735
You still don't get it. I don't care who initiates the law, the Pope, the Baptist bible thumper, a Democrat, a Republican, etc. You are infringing on my rights to do something I can legally do almost ANYWHERE else in the world. But the bottom line is, the only reason this 'law' is in affect in that area is because of religious beliefs. Believe me, this isn't an 'individual' freedom. This affects MILLIONS of individuals who live in that area. First it's in a city, then the individual states, next the nation. I'll turn it back on you. The bible thumpers are the one's deciding this. So where are the other peoples freedoms then (the one's who want to drink), everyone must conform to what it is you (the religious person) wish the individual states be?
 
Perfect way to circumvent your Constitution. Don't like the 2nd Amendment? States rights says I can abolish guns if I want. So why do you cry about gun restrictions in Washington D.C. and Chicago? The people in those cities VOTED unanimously to outlaw wepons in their city limits. You cry they're violating the 2nd Amendment rights. But as you say, States rights take precendence. Sorry, that's sounds like that's YOUR indiviidual freedom.
 
 
 
I'll take your statement and do a little modification:
 
Seems to me everything you are discussing here is about individual freedom, but you want the religious sects to dictate what you believe is right and damn the other folks. I am sorry but to live in a free society you have to respect everyones freedoms
 
The religious sect is not respecting MY freedoms. They are taking the Dictatorship approach and making laws based on THEIR beliefs.
 
 
You're sitting here telling me I'm selfish because I want things the way I like them, yet your entire argument reeks of individualism. You want 50 INDIVIDUAL states to determine their INDIVIDUAL rights. I have no problem with States rights. There are many laws in each respective state that are there because they only pertain to certain conditions for that state. It's highly unlikely Nebraska would have to spend money on border security to keep illegal immigrants from sneaking across. That's not the case for Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California. So why do you rail Obama about securing the borders? It shouldn't be the Feds problem. HOWEVER, illegals crossing the border can ultimately have an adverse affect on jobs and other benefits in Nebraska if a slew of Mexicans were to immigrate there. That's why ALL of our taxes goes towards securing those borders. There are times when standardization is a must. There's always a situation where having a law that pertains to everyone needs to be in place. It's a type of blanket protection. It has nothing to do with violating anyone's freedom. It's called common sense.
 
It is the job of the federal government to protect the borders. get off the Obama kick with me friend. There hasn't been a president that has secured our borders from illegal immigrants IMO.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
 
You also seem to have a real aversion to religion.
You cannot take their rights away to say that your thoughts are the only correct ones. You just cannot do it in a free society.
 
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by spanko http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/100#post_3310871
 
It is the job of the federal government to protect the borders. get off the Obama kick with me friend. There hasn't been a president that has secured our borders from illegal immigrants IMO.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
 
You also seem to have a real aversion to religion.
You cannot take their rights away to say that your thoughts are the only correct ones. You just cannot do it in a free society.
 
You are absolutely corect. "But at the same token, they cannot take my rights away to say their thoughts are the only correct ones. You just can't do it in a free society." See how that works?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///forum/thread/380296/tea-party-movement/100#post_3310806
 
You seem to have a bit of a problem staying on issue. The Tea Party isn't the Republican party but the article makes my point. They reaffirmed their belief that their should be a law against homosexuality but there is zero chance they can ever enact such a law because the US constitution forbids it according to case law. Those dead old white guys knew what they were doing when they formed our government. The role of the feds was to insure our basic rights were protected and to provide a federal court system, post office, military and monetary system while allowing the states to maintain their own customs and traditions as long as they didn't conflict with the US constitution.
Now wait a minute. You keep reiterating States rights. What's the difference between the 1st Amendment and the 21st Amendment? It's OK for Dallas to semi-ban alcohol in their area because States rights afford them that privilege, yet it's not OK for Montana to make homosexuality illegal because it violates the 1st Amendment? So exactly how does one conflict, and the other one doesn't?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top