quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer
National Park functions really? you're going to stand up that argument as something that small government folks are protesting against? Yeah cause we see those close the national parks signs all the time at Small Government protests. LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer
Again the government does not provide rights, rights are provided by natural force, by simple act of being born, by god........

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer
In the examples of voting rights the right existed before the law that recognized the right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer
"The Tea Party wants to abolish taxes" a lie really, the Tea Party has tax REFORM as one of their key ideas. A large part of them want the Fair Tax to be made law thus abolishing the IRS and the income tax, and replacing it with a consumption tax. Others want the Flat Tax that Forbes has long advocated. None of them really are advocating an abolishment of taxes in total, only the reform of them. The only the entire set of Tea Party groups have agreed on in this area is that the Tax System in the US needs to be reformed and simplified.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer
Social Security- the Tea Party has 3 or 4 perspectives on this, again the Fair Tax is one area that applies since he Fair Tax's consumption tax would replace this tax as well. Other parts of the movement want to kill this beast in some way because they recognize that it is not sustainable. It fits the legal definition of a ponzy scheme, and if any private group tried such a thing they would be arrested, for good reason.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer
Federal Reserve, yes alot of folks find the Federal Reserve to be a problem concept, but then again the idea of a national bank has always been an issue in our government, hell it was fought about and taken to the SC by Jackson back in the early 1800's
So yes there are lots of folks who have issue with the federal reserve, not all of them conservatives.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer
The 13th amendment????? really you've seen protests calling for the return to slavery from the Tea Party?????? cite that please

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer
17th amendment before you read this do you even know which one this is?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer
Department of Education, yep a very common item for protest. The results can speak loudly for the protesters. Since it's creation the US has fallen behind faster in areas such as math and science. Cause and effect can be debated some but the school systems functioned very well and achieved results better than we have now for decades before the creation of the Dept of Education. State, Local County and City governments could handle these issues better in many folks opinion. ANd this is certainly one of those areas where many find the Promote the General Welfare clause is abused.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Department of Education

Well there are many things that shifting to federal control has done that have in fact reduced the standards in some schools. Yes Some backwards districts and some states where the religious right controls school boards the creation as science crowd would hold sway, hopefully those folks would be ousted by people when they started to see the results as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

DomKen nice try at changing my argument to a zero tollerance zone. I never said no Tea Party folks wanted to close Interior, I said that it's a small issue item and one you see pretty rarely and only from the most textbook hardcore Libertarians. For most people it's a non starter issue, and it gets very little play. Fringe elements of the fringe elements are talking about closing Interior, the idea gets almost no mike time and I've seen not a single sign east of the Plains States. Although I have seen some signs that protest Interior enforcement of Endngered Species Act  and Wetlands Deliniation policies in Western States. But that is common in the west for citizen's property rights and government regulations to be bumping up against each other.

quote:

Again the government does not provide rights, rights are provided by natural force, by simple act of being born, by god........

You refuse to discuss the idea behind the government not being able to provide an actual right. The thing is if the government provided it then it also has the power to retract it.

In the examples of voting rights the right existed before the law that recognized the right.
Each of those rights you give reference to has a basis in the act that was passed by congress that in every case has the legal requirement to tell us what basis in law the government has the authority to make that law. So they are recognizing the right as extending to this area of life. The right existed before it was protected by law.

Womens right to vote was not created out of whole cloth, it was recognized as the natural conclusion one must reach when you see citizens as equal. it is the result of the government removing the cognative dissonance between the ideas that formed the government of this nation and the laws used to effect those ideas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

tazzy, I think the comprehension problem comes from your  idea that the government grants rights.

It is generally held that you have rights and the government either recognizes them or doesn't, but that they don't grant you rights.
(noted this is christian centric but the general idea is "endowed by their creator with inalienable rights" I seem to recall that being somewhere in those founding documents as a concept)

The idea that small government folks use government services and that somehow invalidates their claims is a strawman tactic. Small government does not mean no government, a few things that would make your position far less weak.

Remove claims about government controlled airwaves, because the news would still get out and TV would still be on the air if the government did nothing more than determine who had license in how large and area to broadcast on what frequency. That is after all the only real service they (the government) provide for radio and TV industries. The rest is all tilted towards what the government requires from them to grant them that license.

Remove the idea that the roads are somehow an issue with small government folks because roadways are always one of the things that small government folks believe to be a legitimate function of government. You kight be able to get away with the public transportation, however since most of them are LOCAL GOVERNMENT that argument kinda falls flat too. Because smal;l government folks are generally less worried about local government being out of control.

National Park functions really? you're going to stand up that argument as something that small government folks are protesting against? Yeah cause we see those close the national parks signs all the time at Small Government protests. LOL

Small government doesn't mean no government most of us are not anarchists, most of us recognize that government is a necessary evil. But we don't ever want to forget that it is evil by nature. That the government will always seek to increase it's power and that power has to come from somebody elses freedoms being curtailed.


Edited to add:

Now this should not be construed to be anything like support for Beck personally. Because I find the man lacking in many ways. I actually have to change channels and radio stations when he's on. I find him an opportunist at best.

quote:

The 13th amendment????? really you've seen protests calling for the return to slavery from the Tea Party?????? cite that please

quote:

Womens right to vote was not created out of whole cloth, it was recognized as the natural conclusion one must reach when you see citizens as equal. it is the result of the government removing the cognative dissonance between the ideas that formed the government of this nation and the laws used to effect those ideas.

The rights existed they simply took too long for the government to recognize them. Much the same as when it took a war to achieve the removal of the cognative dissonance that allowed slavery in a country founded on the idea of all men being created equal.

quote:

The Tea Party wants to abolish taxes" a lie really, the Tea Party has tax REFORM as one of their key ideas. A large part of them want the Fair Tax to be made law thus abolishing the IRS and the income tax, and replacing it with a consumption tax. Others want the Flat Tax that Forbes has long advocated. None of them really are advocating an abolishment of taxes in total, only the reform of them.

quote:



On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:

“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.

We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.”

quote:

The ADA? hmm have not seen too much on that from the Tea Party, but I cna imagine it is an issue for some. The idea being that the definition of reasonable accommodations and the idea of regulation exceeding common sense have been an issue for the way the ADA is enforced.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Ah, yes the 13th amendment. I suppose it passed your notice that they are calling for the ratification of the original 13th amendment, which had nothing to do with slavery. Instead, its a call to embarass Obama over his Peace Prize award.

OK because you won't or cant or whatever cite a source to the 13th amendment thing I had to take it on myself to see what you were talking about.

You said They were against the 13th amendment and then hidden in this reply the idea comes out that you are talking about an old conspiracy theory thing with the "original 13th amendment" something about "titles of nobility and honors" a very small time idea that until I went googling had never really come to my notice, so obviously I consider it small time. In fact there were some very few who were FOR applying this obscure conspiracy level idea. So Yes I got confussed when someone cites the 13th amendment I actually look at the constitution and confirm my memory of what amendment they are talking about.


The constitution declared all men were created equal. It left no doubt that all men were simply all white men. Blacks and women had no rights. Even the right to own property, until the government gave them that right under the law.

Voting rights OK there you have a point after some reflection last night I'll concede that voting rights and other civil rights (rights that specifically deal with how the citizen relates to the government) are different from natural rights.
However th constitution of the US deals with alot of natural rights that pre existed and that the government recognized as what liberals today call Human Rights. Those rights are not granted by the government they are considered innate belonging to all human beings based only on the idea that they are humans.

Really?

Yes Really Tazzygirl, the fact that you can cite ONE politician that wants to abolish the IRS and thta has no plan to reform taxes other than that abolition does not make it a Tea Party wide issue. You will see hundreds of Fair Tax signs, you'll find articles where the Tea Party has debated if they want to officially make the Fair TAx part of their platform (they did not choosing instead to put in language that said that they were in favor of Tax Reform leaving it open for multiple ideas) They left it open in the end to avoid losing support by picking one idea over the others. Basically they kicked the can down the road a bit.

quote:



On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:

“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.

We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.”

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-15/end-the-income-tax-abolish-the-irs/


Paul was asked whether he supports the Americans with Disabilities Act, the landmark 1990 legislation that established a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability. Paul said he advocates local governments to decide whether disabled individuals deserve rights. Requiring businesses to provide access to disabled people, Paul argued, isn’t “fair to the business owner.” Later in the interview, when asked if he believes Americans have a right to use the 2nd Amendment to violently overthrow the government, a Paul staffer physically intercepted the recording and shuffled Paul away:

PAUL: You know a lot of things on employment ought to be done locally. You know, people finding out right or wrong locally. You know, some of the things, for example we can come up with common sense solutions — like for example if you have a three story building and you have someone apply for a job, you get them a job on the first floor if they’re in a wheelchair as supposed to making the person who owns the business put an elevator in, you know what I mean? So things like that aren’t fair to the business owner. [...]

Q: Do you think Americans, based on the 2nd Amendment, do you think they have a Constitutional right to violently overthrow the government?

PAUL STAFFER: Alright, we’ll have to stop recording.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/17/rand-paul-ada/

Video included.

Now, while i agree it should be handled at the local level... its rediculous that we even need a federal law protecting our disabled. But, guess what, we cant trust people on the local level to take care of anyone but themselves. A big enough business greasing enough local palms and they are in for a free ride... at the expense of our disabled americans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

DomYngBlk, if you want to take me to tasks for a post then do so, but drawing me into your desire to shift the issue is not appreciated.

I make plenty of very specific idea posts that you choose to ignore.
All you can hear out of the Tea Party is that mantra because anything other than that mantra you choose to ignore.

Out of the Tea Party you have 2 specific Tax reform ideas that have a large support base, The Fair Tax and The Flat Tax. Oh wait I made that point before in this post and it is very specific and addresses your question about taxes, so maybe I'm seeing luckydog's point here, YOU DON'T READ OR LISTEN. So why bother
Since you bothered....Flat tax and thats it? Taxes on Capital, etc? Do away with the tax credit on Home Mortgage Interest? No Pretax advantages for investing in a 401k?  So you are against the resumption of the Bush Tax cuts?

The Tea Party holds a very protectionist perspective when it comes to jobs, stop shipping them overseas, penalties for companies that move, etc. Personally I disagree with that idea and say so some times, although not often because it doesn't get listened to by people either. Tell folks that protectionism and NAFTA and all that stuff isn't the root cause of outsourcing and they will fight you tooth and nail saying it is. No room for any actual discussion there so I avoid it most of the time.
A very populist stance that probably would find more favor with Dems than republicans....but we can leave this one

Debt, Across the board spending cuts and I mean cuts reductions not reductions in the increases planned for, in all discretionary spending is the first place to start. and then lets see what else can be cut.
All cuts then? Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Welfare payments? Cut back Military spending as well? Not even going to ask how granny is going to be able to stay in the Nursing home with Alzheimhers if you cut her payments....

Education, well it;s an old story here again for me, made a specific answer but didn't go into huge detail because it wasn't the real topic.
Return to State and local control of Education, I wouldn't go with the full drop the Dept of Education at the Fed level entirely, but I would cut them down and reduce their roll from policy setting to policy review and some standards setting.  Vouchers sound good to me and oddly enough this is one area where the liberals don't want to follow suit of the English and the conservatives do. In England the parents choose the school and the government sends the money to that school based on the children that enroll there. In the US the Local Government draws lines and says If you live inside this area your child WILL go to THIS school and the federal money will go there.
At the end of the day you are still going to have schools full of kids. kids in affluent areas will always have an advantage on poorer kids. This recipe would increase the differences rather than shorten them. Is that what you are for?

So there is your start DomYngBlk all points I have specifically raised multiple times before in various posts and several of them I have put forth specifically in THIS thread, but that you choose to ignore.

Want more specifics then show a willingness to discuss the specifics instead of dismissing them without any study.

quote:

OK because you won't or cant or whatever cite a source to the 13th amendment thing I had to take it on myself to see what you were talking about.

You said They were against the 13th amendment and then hidden in this reply the idea comes out that you are talking about an old conspiracy theory thing with the "original 13th amendment" something about "titles of nobility and honors" a very small time idea that until I went googling had never really come to my notice, so obviously I consider it small time. In fact there were some very few who were FOR applying this obscure conspiracy level idea. So Yes I got confussed when someone cites the 13th amendment I actually look at the constitution and confirm my memory of what amendment they are talking about.

quote:

Yes Really Tazzygirl, the fact that you can cite ONE politician that wants to abolish the IRS and thta has no plan to reform taxes other than that abolition does not make it a Tea Party wide issue. You will see hundreds of Fair Tax signs, you'll find articles where the Tea Party has debated if they want to officially make the Fair TAx part of their platform (they did not choosing instead to put in language that said that they were in favor of Tax Reform leaving it open for multiple ideas) They left it open in the end to avoid losing support by picking one idea over the others. Basically they kicked the can down the road a bit.