BF2S Forums 'Tea party' Candidates win

Waiting to hear how they're going to fund those puppies.

So the Mexicans are paying for the puppies and getting a fence in return?
OK, I understand now.

They want to uninvent the birth control pill?
That'll be a vote winner.

pauline hanson

Dilbert_X wrote:

Well the Tea Party does seem to be composed exclusively of ignorant crackas, what else are they going to do?

Then there’s another way. Kill by laughter. Laughter is an instrument of human joy. Learn to use it as a weapon of destruction. Turn it into a sneer. It’s simple. Tell them to laugh at everything. Tell them that a sense of humour is an unlimited virtue. Don't let anything remain sacred in a man’s soul – and his soul won’t be sacred to him. Kill reverence and you’ve killed the hero in man. One doesn’t reverence with a giggle. He’ll obey and he’ll set no limits to obedience – anything goes – nothing is too serious.

eleven bravo wrote:

dude, its not the koran

Didn't say it was, was just fresh in my mind and it fit. Sure, in large part the Tea Party has been co-opted by Fox News but not all of it. There are still candidates like Rand Paul and Pat Toomey among others. Painting them all with the broad brush of social conservatism is just fucking ignorant. Hell, I will vote for the guy that won here in New York, Paladino, proudly.

The whole RINO thing that harmor spouts is the root of the problem. Not that there are RINOs, but that people like him denounce anyone that doesn't vote the party line on every single issue. He rants about toppling the ruling class in one breath and wishes for it to be installed in the next. Conformity has turned them into a faceless voting bloc. Is there any wonder there isn't a single viable candidate for President among the lot of them?

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-15 06:51:09)

Harmor wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I heard about that primary. They say the ''Rino'' would have won in the general election and this bitch hasn't got a chance.

I wonder what the people at N.O.W. say about that comment.

nothing - you'd have to say that about a C.L.A.M. to irk those 3 ladies at N.O.W.

eleven bravo wrote:

Rand Paul would have been against the civil rights act of 1964.  I dont care how unracist this guy from kentucky says he is.  I dont care for the position people take saying that is it unconstitutional too.

Yeah, and you didn't understand his point. Not surprising.

eleven bravo wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

Rand Paul would have been against the civil rights act of 1964.  I dont care how unracist this guy from kentucky says he is.  I dont care for the position people take saying that is it unconstitutional too.

Yeah, and you didn't understand his point. Not surprising.

lol.  I hazard a guess and say I know about the constitution than you do galt, please dont make assumptions on what i understand and dont.  Because i dont agree with his position, Im ignorant of the fucks.  no, fuck you though.

Then please explain why you feel his position is wrong.

eleven bravo wrote:

I would but im in the middle of writing a paper thats due in 2 hours so Im just here to troll you fucks

Ahh, ok.

Anyway, his point was that it's not the governments job to step in and tell a business how it should run itself. If a business wishes to deny its business to a certain segment of the population it should be allowed to do so. The only thing that it is hurting is its own bottom line. If I set up a restaurant in my town that said "No Asians Allowed" I would quickly go out of business. Ignorance and hatred usually correct themselves (though not always, not when they are as deep seated as the South was, but I feel that would've changed over time, especially when the government was forced to take the lead on equality). Paul wasn't suggesting going back to 1954 with Coloreds Only water fountains. He firmly believes in the 'equal protection under the law' clause which bans the government from engaging in any sort of discrimination. He just believes that people should have as much control over their own life as possible and that means that private life stays private without government intrusion. No racial quotas, no hate laws etc. All that stuff does is entrench racism anyway.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-15 07:04:51)

eleven bravo wrote:

dont like the commerce clause much do we

How does the commerce clause have any bearing on what a local business does? Commerce clause is meant to prevent tariffs and other restrictions on trade between states.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-15 07:10:06)

eleven bravo wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

dont like the commerce clause much do we

How does the commerce clause have any bearing on what a local business does? Commerce clause is meant to prevent tariffs and other restrictions on trade between states.

dude, look it up.  lots of stuff about the commerce clause you apparently dont know about.

You mean all the stuff that's been tacked onto it over the past 200 years?

eleven bravo wrote:

if by 200 years you mean McCulloch V Maryland (1819) or Ogden v Gibbons (1824) where the governments power to regulate is firmly established then ok.

The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland.

Right, as I said, tariffs and other bars to free trade between the states.

The acts of the Legislature of the State of New-York granted to Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton  the exclusive navigation of all the waters within the jurisdiction of that State, with boats moved by fire or steam, for a term of years. Thomas Gibbons operated a competing steamboat service between Elizabethtown, New Jersey and New York City that had been licensed by the United States Congress in regulating the coasting trade.

Again, the monopoly inhibited other states from competing on an equal playing field.

The two cases you listed deal strictly with free trade between the states. You're helping my case, not hurting it... The Federal government has no right to regulate business within a state, only between states.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-15 07:20:36)