White House Issues Draconian Sequestration Plans

J

Johnny Tremain

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
2,307
Only a rumor at this point--roiling through Washington--that Federal Offices will soon begin breaking up furniture and burning it to keep warm--watch for the particulars to come soon from the reliable and infallible craw of one Mr. Jay Carney who speaks in lock-step unison with The National Socialist Democrat Workers Party hierarchy.
 
Werbung:
What a joke these people are. Cutting their overall spending 2% doesn't even stop the automatic increase they are getting. That's like saying I'm expecting a 7% increase in my income but I'm only going to get a 4.6% increase instead.

There are billions of dollars of waste in government spending, if they would just do their jobs and clean these up, they could use that money for their pet projects or pay down the debt. But oh no, they are too busy playing politics with it to care about what they are doing to the country.
 
Cruella said:
What a joke these people are. Cutting their overall spending 2% doesn't even stop the automatic increase they are getting. That's like saying I'm expecting a 7% increase in my income but I'm only going to get a 4.6% increase instead.

There are billions of dollars of waste in government spending, if they would just do their jobs and clean these up, they could use that money for their pet projects or pay down the debt. But oh no, they are too busy playing politics with it to care about what they are doing to the country.
Click to expand...


The only solution to all this madness is a new political party.

I know a number of thoughtful people around the nation--they are all like me--the future is--

The Tea Party.

Based on the U.S. Constitution--and then go from there.
Many poo-poo this.
They will not--soon enough.

Exorcism is needed in that disgusting hell-hole reminiscent of Olden Rome--called Washington DC.
And Harry "Caligula" Reid will be sent to a mine in Nevada.
Lobbyists will be swept from the place.
Term limits galore.
Balanced budget by Amendment.
 
Good luck with a new party. Even if the "Tea Party" became a third party, they would only dilute the Republican party and you would never get the other people you would need inorder to win another election. The left would keep winnig from now on.
 
Cruella said:
Good luck with a new party. Even if the "Tea Party" became a third party, they would only dilute the Republican party and you would never get the other people you would need inorder to win another election. The left would keep winnig from now on.
Click to expand...

They will obliterate the Republican Party--which for all intents and purposes--no longer exists.
They will replace it--and lay it onto the ash heap of history--where it belongs.
Many Republicans will convert--as they should.
Many will go out to pasture--as they should.

Change is coming.
Big change.
Widespread change.
Events will happen soon to bring The Tea Party to spectacular heights.
Not unlike their first incarnation in 1773.

The greater the swing to the left--the greater the return to the right.
The pendulum had reached it's limit on the left.

Watch carefully as it all unfolds before you.
 
Johnny Tremain said:
The only solution to all this madness is a new political party.

I know a number of thoughtful people around the nation--they are all like me--the future is--

The Tea Party.

Based on the U.S. Constitution--and then go from there.
Many poo-poo this.
They will not--soon enough.

Exorcism is needed in that disgusting hell-hole reminiscent of Olden Rome--called Washington DC.
And Harry "Caligula" Reid will be sent to a mine in Nevada.
Lobbyists will be swept from the place.
Term limits galore.
Balanced budget by Amendment.
Click to expand...

While we are parading around the Constitution, let us consider....Term limits are not present in the Consitution for anyone but the President. In fact, you might bother to read the Federalist Papers since we are all about what the Founder's wanted...Federalist 53 pretty much expressly rejects term limits...the author of that pesky argument was....James Madison -- one of the Founders.

Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that term limits at the state level are unconsitutional (see U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton). I simply don't understand the obsession with term limits. The people are best equipped to decide who represents them, and they do so every election. If the same person keeps winning, then so be it.

As for Lobbyists -- I again don't get big problem. And again -- let us refer to the 1st Amendment, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The court has upheld that this is a free spech issue. If people want to get together in a common cause and petition the government, they clearly have every right to do that.

You apparently want to trample this constitutional right because you don't like what they are lobbying for.

If the Tea Party wants to build a party based on the constitution, my suggestion would be to start by reading it.
 
BigRob said:
While we are parading around the Constitution, let us consider....Term limits are not present in the Consitution for anyone but the President. In fact, you might bother to read the Federalist Papers since we are all about what the Founder's wanted...Federalist 53 pretty much expressly rejects term limits...the author of that pesky argument was....James Madison -- one of the Founders.

Further, the Supreme Court has ruled that term limits at the state level are unconsitutional (see U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton). I simply don't understand the obsession with term limits. The people are best equipped to decide who represents them, and they do so every election. If the same person keeps winning, then so be it.

As for Lobbyists -- I again don't get big problem. And again -- let us refer to the 1st Amendment, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The court has upheld that this is a free spech issue. If people want to get together in a common cause and petition the government, they clearly have every right to do that.

You apparently want to trample this constitutional rights because you don't like what they are lobbying for.

If the Tea Party wants to build a party based on the constitution, my suggestion would be to start by reading it.
Click to expand...


You have a deep and abiding fear of the Tea Party.
And--rightfully so.

All liberals do--and rightfully so.
 
Johnny Tremain said:
You have a deep and abiding fear of the Tea Party.
Click to expand...


I have no fear of the Tea Party. My experience with them is that are a group that means well, but rarely has more than a few limited talking points at their disposal. For example, in above post, you advocate for a party "based on the Constitution" that would enact term limits and end the practice of lobbying. Great, but lobbying is well protected under the 1st amendment, and term limits were basically rejected by those who actually wrote the Constitution.

You have no response to this....no one in the Tea Party ever does. It's all "back to Constitution" and what our "Founder's" wanted (as if they all agreed), but there is nothing more to that argument -- at least not that anyone seems to be able to articulate. Every time I try to engage anyone from the Tea Party, I get a rant about Obama being some Muslim socialist and who trampling all over the Constitution -- and if I ask for any clarification of what specifically they mean, I just get labeled a "liberal" who has my eyes closed.

If I disagree with any position they hold, even if it clearly conforms with the Constitution that is held in so high regard, they brush it off, call me a "liberal" and tell me I need to learn how to think -- as if that is some great response.


And--rightfully so.
Click to expand...


So I should be afraid of the Tea Party? Why is that exactly?



All liberals do--and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

Gosh -- all my points ignored and called a "liberal" -- where have I seen this before?
 
Johnny Tremain said:
You ran me off once before.
Click to expand...


I did not "run you off" -- you blatantly insulted another member and I gave you a warning. You apparently took that a cue to leave, over my comment encouraging you to stay.


Odd--given this forum only has about 15-20 participants.
I know why--do you?
Click to expand...

If having your statements challenged is this big of an issue for you, I suggest you reexamine the positions you hold. I am happy to talk issues with anyone, but there has to be an actual back and forth to accomplish that.
 
BigRob said:


I did not "run you off" -- you blatantly insulted another member and I gave you a warning. You apparently took that a cue to leave, over my comment encouraging you to stay.

I would suggest you go back and re-read the alleged "insult" to Dead Stalin--it was not an insult at all--in fact, just the opposite.



If having your statements challenged is this big of an issue for you, I suggest you reexamine the positions you hold. I am happy to talk issues with anyone, but there has to be an actual back and forth to accomplish that.
Click to expand...


I would suggest you go back and re-read the alleged "insult" to Dead Stalin--it was not an insult at all--in fact, just the opposite.
That may well have alluded you.
And--that was called to everyone's attention, as well.
Small point.

You will do just fine with Dawkins and Lalo and maybe a few others here.

Don't mess with Cruella--she is the bright spot here.
 
Werbung:
Johnny Tremain said:
I would suggest you go back and re-read the alleged "insult" to Dead Stalin--it was not an insult at all--in fact, just the opposite.
That may well have alluded you.
And--that was called to everyone's attention, as well.
Small point.

You will do just fine with Dawkins and Lalo and maybe a few others here.

Don't mess with Cruella--she is the bright spot here.
Click to expand...

I guess I am left to conclude that we won't get to discuss any of the issues I brought up.

Again, I hope you don't leave -- but that is obviously your choice.
 
Back
Top