jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (80 posts)

How much is too much?

  1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
    weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago

    The Constitution says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process, meaning a trial and jury.   At what point, after having gained wealth, does the Constitution no longer apply, and they're free to be looted, their wealth taken?

    1. Alexander Pease profile image60
      Alexander Peaseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I am guessing that you are referring to taxation? If you are, taxes and tax laws are incredibly complex. The basics though, are that taxes are in place to fund government programs which the general public cannot go without. Most of these programs the general public votes on, (however indirectly it may be, ie- state representatives).

      In short, without taxes we would not have many of the amenities that this country has. Example, a military, hospitals, public schools, municipal water...

      Although, I would say that taxes are too high, and are imposed on too many items that the public buys. And that too much is taken out of income, and then sometimes not returned when income taxes are filed.

      1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
        weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        no, I'm not talking about taxation, just in general.    I asked the question, and asked exactly what I meant to ask.

        1. Alexander Pease profile image60
          Alexander Peaseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          This is the only time I will use your quote against you,
          "The Constitution says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process,"

          This I agree with and understand. This part of the post is made clear to me, and I had a general idea where you were heading with this discussion.

          "At what point, after having gained wealth, does the Constitution no longer apply"

          At this point I was starting to get a little confused but, I was still bearing with you.

          "and they're free to be looted, their wealth taken?"

          And this is where you completely lost me. What do you mean exactly by their wealth taken, and free to be looted? Do you mean going into their house at night while their are sleeping and steal it? Or are you talking about the government? Without a physical entity or situation attached to this idea of looting, I am finding it hard to grasp the concept of what you are saying or proposing.

          So, you are just generally talking about taxation, which is what my post above was about, right? (that was a rhetoric question, no need to answer).

          1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
            weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            NOpe, not talking about taxation at all.   

            I'm unsure of why you're having trouble with this...   Let me get some quotes to help you out....

            Michael Moore:  " WEALTHY AMERICAN‘S MONEY IS NOT THEIRS ITS ’OURS‘ ’A NATIONAL RESOURCE’ WE NEED TO TAKE IT FROM THEM"
            (taken from a headline, that's why it's in caps)

            Mighty Mom: "The only logical explanation is that they're holding the jobs as hostages. If we roll over and let them pass the budget they want, with the ideological cuts (PP, NPR, Medicare, more tax cuts for billionaires, etc.) they will produce jobs for Americans.
            But something tells me that even if we did give in on every point they still wouldn't cough up the jobs."

            Seems to be advocating  taking "jobs" by force.   

            Obama:  "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

            None of these people are doing anything but saying "we intend to take by force what we think we have a right to do" even though it isn't theirs.

            and, all the left side of the spectrum forum posters agree with that idea.

            So, I'm just asking... I want one of them to explain their constitutional foundation for depriving people of their wealth, not for governmental purposes, but for looting to give to someone else.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
              Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "I'm unsure of why you're having trouble with this... "
              Nobody's 'having trouble.' You're not getting the answer you want because you didn't (explicitly) ask for the information you want. You asked an open-ended question about broad concepts, when you really want a defense of specific statements by specific people. You've apparently already made up your mind that those statements are indefensible, so what's the point of trying to defend them to you? You'll just disagree with any point no matter how well-supported.

              Guy has a mind like a steel trap. Too bad someone left it out in the rain...

              1. Alexander Pease profile image60
                Alexander Peaseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Ha! Rusty trap, good one, Jeff.

                I couldn't have put it better myself. Although, I'm not sure that what you said will have an effect. As you said, it seems as though they've made up their mind about what they want to hear. I wanted to gain further information on what this forum was about but, none was given. It is sad... this forum had so much potential.

              2. weholdthesetruths profile image60
                weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Too difficult for you to answer, I see.    I have no idea how on earth it could be made simpler so you can answer it.     At what point, does a person have enough that no constitutional protections apply and you're free to loot them?

                1. Alexander Pease profile image60
                  Alexander Peaseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I did answer it, or have you forgotten my post above? I answered about taxation AND gave my opinion on what I thought about it.

                  You are suggesting that we should "loot" the rich? What we are trying to tell you, is that there is a broad way that you can view your question. We are trying to get a specific fix on what YOU are asking, because there are many ways that it can be answered.

                  The last time that I checked, everyone who resides within the United States, and is a US citizen, is protected by the constitution. The supreme court is part of the judicial branch, the people that are part of the supreme court are the justices. They are the ones who have the authority and power to enforce the constitution, (and ultimately interpret its meaning).

                  Once they have ruled, their decision becomes, or enforces the law of the land. It is simple as that. Taxation, is something that is decided on all parties, Legistative, Judicial, and Executive branches. As I said, tax laws are complex and are best left to the experts.

                  Taxation, or "looting", the rich is something that is always widely debated. The rich do not want to be taxed but, the poor do want them to be. What side of this are you on?

                  *breather*

      2. wilderness profile image93
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "The basics though, are that taxes are in place to fund government programs which the general public cannot go without"

        I disagree, although that is what the basics should be.  Instead they are used primarily to redistribute wealth from those that have earned it to those that have not and promote social and moral programs that will buy politicians more votes.

        1. Alexander Pease profile image60
          Alexander Peaseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Without solid evidence to back up your proposition, my statement still stands. That is what the basics are, until someone comes along and shows evidence otherwise.

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Are you asking about crime and punishment? I mean, if you mean, do you get to just take something from someone just because he has it and you want it? The answer to that is no, you don't. Not by force, not by fraud.

      Are you asking about "Should people have to pay taxes?" The answer is yes, people have to pay taxes if they want to share in the benefits of living in the country. If they like having the ability to drive on the roads, move about from place to place without let or hinderance, enjoy goods shipped from distant places, enjoy the protection of the armed services, enjoy the general security of the nation, then yes, taxes are owed.
      "Due process of law" means "due process of law." In criminal cases, it means a trial by a jury. In tax cases, it means, "Is this tax owed according to the law of the land?" If so, then you have to pay it. If not, then you don't. If you don't like it, then you can get the law changed to say that you don't have to pay any taxes, and so far, the wealthiest Americans have done a great job of deducing their tax burden closer and closer to zero (while at the same time still benefitting from living in a safe and free society with safe roads, protection, etc.).

      You think you're being all clever with your question, but really, you aren't. Your question is pretty transparent.

      1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
        weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It's a simple question, but yet, your answer is nothing but ad hominem because I dare ask, in broad daylight, daring a liberal to defend exactly what he wants government to do, and thus, he is caught between defending the illegal or the indefensible.   

        If you say "there is no too much" then you are not free to take from the rich to do x y or z.   Except that every liberal most stridently believes that at a certain point (and they dont' agree what that point is) that wealthy people's money and wealth (not always the same thing) is up for grabs to do ANYTHING they want with it, so long as they can muster the votes.   

        It is also political scapegoating.   See, when you vote to waste millions of people's dollars on PBS and NPR, even the most shameless liberal would cringe if it were pointed out that the poorest of the poor were being shook down for their pet ideological brainwashing network.    So, instead, they hide behind the "we'll take it from the rich".   The all-purpose excuse and justification for gross misfeasance with the public's money.   After all, anything is better than having the rich keep their money.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, you're setting up a question with implicit premises that are meant to be accepted as givens, but your premises aren't universally accepted. That's where the perceived 'difficulty' lies.

          This premise, for example:"Except that every liberal most stridently believes that at a certain point (and they dont' agree what that point is) that wealthy people's money and wealth (not always the same thing) is up for grabs to do ANYTHING they want with it, so long as they can muster the votes."
          is unsupported. It's a strawman; You deliberately mis-state the opposition's position in a way that makes it easy to refute, and then you refute it. Well done: you just slam-dunked on a net that's only five feet off the ground.

          Also, an ad hominem argument is one that tries to discredit the opposing premise by saying the person supporting it is bad. I didn't say your argument was bad because you're bad. I said your question was unclear. (I also said that you weren't being as clever as you seem to think, but that is independent of the goodness or badness of your unsupported premise.)

          I also answered your question: you don't get to take someone's widget just because he has one and you don't. But me taking someone's widget is not analogous to whether people have to pay taxes or not.

          I also said, everyone who wants to live in a given country has to pay their taxes. If they don't like the taxes they pay, they're free to campaign for their taxes to be reduced. But if they want to continue to live in (and benefit from) their country, then they gotta pay.

          Maybe you don't like the answer, but that doesn't make it a bad one. Likewise, your strawman arguments don't make anyone's answer bad. They just demonstrate that you have to resort to strawman arguments to look good in a debate. (And that it doesn't really work all that well.)

          So do you want to have a productive talk about the merits and flaws of a progressive tax? Or do you want to make unsupported assertions and have nobody call you on them, set up strawmen and knock them down and have everyone cheer, and generally have your ego stroked? 'Cos mate, this is the wrong place for that. The righties won't let the lefties get away with it, and lefties won't let the righties get away with it.

          If you want to have a worthwhile discussion, go take lessons from Evan G Rodgers. He'll probably agree with you that taxes = theft, but he doesn't need to resort to unsound logic and bad rhetoric to get his point across. I often disagree with him, but he knows how to argue logically.

          1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
            weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You said: "You deliberately mis-state the opposition's position in a way that makes it easy to refute, and then you refute it. Well done: you just slam-dunked on a net that's only five feet off the ground."

            In that case, prove me wrong.    Demonstrate to me that liberals do not believe that wealthy people's money is free for the taking to do with as they wish, if they can muster enough votes.    Every one of them here argues PRECISELY that.   That rich people have too much, and that they have a right to fix (Insert myriad issues or "want" items here), with the wealthy's money.    Try denying that.   

            They don't deny it and you cant' either.   Instead, you try to hide behind "well, it's just taxes".    If you proposed  a flat tax on all, i'd accept.  But when you single out a group of people to tax differently, you have then implicitly stated that their wealth is free to be looted.   No amount of verbosity is going to alter that.

            1. Alexander Pease profile image60
              Alexander Peaseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I don't see what this big deal is with liberals. The last time I checked, we were all humans, (ie- all of the same race). I feel that labeling someone as a liberal is fine. However, discrediting their arguements and insulting them because they are liberal is not okay.

              You make it very clear that you are not okay with liberals. This is bringing a lot of negativity to this forum, and generally is causing any counterpoint that you have look bad. In either case, it is up to you whether or not you want to look like a fool, (because bagging on liberals in most of your posts is quite redundant. I was fine with reading it the first few times, but now it has gotten to become old hat. Maybe you could pull something else out of your hat besides your 'liberals are bad' basis?)

              I am generally not interested in this forum anymore, and because of this I may not respond back unless if something that is actually useful comes up, (mostly from you wehold).  I hope that you can find a different basis for your arguments and bring new life back into this forum.

            2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
              Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "Try denying that."
              I already did that, above. Your strawman doesn't stand.

              Done and done, and by your own apparent standard of rhetorical excellence I just won the argument. Ta-daaa.

              But let's pretend that the conversation is still going on, just for the sake of argument.

              "If you proposed  a flat tax on all, i'd accept. "
              You mean a flat tax on all income with no write-offs? I wouldn't be against that if we could also get rid of the various regressive taxes that disproportionally hit the poor. Like Sales tax, medicare/medicaid, and all of those ones that only apply to the first $100K or so you earn, and that you don't pay at all if you make your living off of investments (as they only apply to paychecks and not capital gains).
              I don't see a progressive income tax as at all unfair in a country where the other taxes are all very regressive.

              There, I've refuted your strawman and also explained that the rest of the taxes (not the income tax) we pay are in fact disproportionally levied on poor and middle-income citizens and not at all on the wealthy.
              That being the case, a progressive income tax is fair. Fix one in the name of fairness and you have to also fix the other, or you're not being fair at all.

    3. lovemychris profile image81
      lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      When I become pregnant. Then my liberty is gone, and my womb becomes property of the state.....if the TP has their way, that is.
      Should I happen to be gay,and want to marry---same applies. My liberty is ignored, and I am deprived of marrying the person of my choice. If the TP has their way, that is.
      If I lose my job, and cannot pay my bills, then my property becomes property of the state, depriving me of it. Since forever.
      If I committ a crime, the state can lock me up, depriving me of my life. Uhm, hello!
      I am not at liberty to throw a bomb, steal a car, break into your home, I can think of a lot I can't do.

      But the worst is when you butt into my private life, which has absolutely nothing to do with you. That is the biggest intrusion of them all. And THAT will happen if the TP has their way!

      1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
        weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You lie.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Mmm. I do love a snappy come back.

          Shame you haven't got any.

          1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
            weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I'm just being factual.

            1. Cagsil profile image61
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Factual backed by delusion maybe. Nothing more. hmm

              1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
                weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Actually, my thoughts on the matter are far more intelligent and coherent than yours.

                1. Cagsil profile image61
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Delusion would only make you think so. lol

                  1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
                    weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Funny how you're so certain...   And so incredibly wrong.

                2. PrettyPanther profile image83
                  PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  http://lh6.ggpht.com/_5XvBYfxU_dM/StlIOS9XgfI/AAAAAAAADr0/iqlIITIatgs/Stephen%20Colbert%20-%20Truthiness%5B3%5D.png

                  Truthiness:  a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.

                  1. Alexander Pease profile image60
                    Alexander Peaseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm sorry, but there is nothing truthful about telling someone that they're lying. It seems like a poor way to conduct a conversation. And a disregard to facts seems to the easy way out. If I disregard facts, I could easily say that the moon IS made of cheese, and argue this point until I'm blue in the face.

                    Although, since you posted a picture of Stephen Colbert, I am curious to know if you are actually serious...

            2. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You mean you really are at liberty to  throw a bomb, steal a car, break into your home!

              1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
                weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I didn't say any such thing.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes you did, you accused LMC of lying.

                  1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
                    weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Since she did, yeah.   I stated a fact.

    4. Maembe profile image60
      Maembeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Do you have evidence of this happening without people being prosecuted?  If you know of any thefts you should report them to your local police department immediately.

    5. prettydarkhorse profile image65
      prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The Constitution can't analyze, people apply the Constitution - too much is subjective!

  2. wilderness profile image93
    wildernessposted 5 years ago

    As soon as a handful of politicians decide they want it.

    Nor is that point very high; if you use a motel room, smoke a cigarette, have a drink of liquor or rent a car those very high specialty taxes are levied and go straight into general funds to help support the lifestyles of those that have decided they have a right to your property.

    It's all about taking all that is possible while protecting and hiding one's own pocketbook.

    1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
      weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Don't give cover to the socialists who are scared to death of answering this.   They know they stand on untenable ground in every way....    I'm just wondering if any of them have the guts to try...

      1. wilderness profile image93
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Those that feel it is right and proper to steal vast sums of money or property from those that have spent a lifetime accumulating their (usually) meager wealth won't change their minds; it would mean less for them.

        On the other hand, waking the ordinary average citizen to what is being done just might.  What percentage of, say, an American earning $50,000 a year goes to taxes?  Income, sales, real property, liquor, personal property, gasoline, cell phone, cigarette, motel, irrigation, auto registration, FICA, gun registration and on and on and on?  Nearly every dollar that comes into your hand is taxed at least 4 times and often more.

        I would be very surprised if the total wasn't 1/2 of their income, and they aren't of the "rich".  Indeed what percentage of the GDP goes to government taxation or fees in one form or another?

  3. Moderndayslave profile image59
    Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago

    Brief History of IRS:

    1862—President Lincoln signed into law a revenue-
    raising measure to help pay for Civil War
    expenses. The measure created a Commissioner
    of Internal Revenue and the nation’s first income
    tax. It levied a three-percent tax on incomes between
    $600 and $10,000 and a five-percent tax
    on incomes of more than $10,000.
    1867—Heeding public opposition to the income
    tax, Congress cut the tax rate. From 1868 until
    1913, 90 percent of all revenue came from taxes
    on liquor, beer, wine and tobacco.
    1872—Income tax repealed.
    1894—The Wilson Tariff Act revived the income
    tax, and an Income Tax Division within the Bureau
    of Internal Revenue was created.
    1895—The Supreme Court ruled the new income
    tax unconstitutional on the grounds that it was a
    direct tax, and not apportioned among the states
    on the basis of population. The Income Tax Division
    was disbanded.
    1909—President Taft recommended Congress
    propose a constitutional amendment that would
    give the
    government the power to tax incomes,
    without apportioning the burden among the states
    in line with population. Congress also levied a
    one-percent tax on
    net corporate incomes of
    more than $5,000.
    1913—As the threat of war loomed, Wyoming
    became the 36th, and last, state needed to ratify
    the 16th Amendment. The Amendment stated,
    “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect
    taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived,
    without apportionment among the several states,
    and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
    Later, Congress adopted a one-percent tax
    on net personal income of more than $3,000 with
    a surtax of 6 percent on incomes of more than
    $500,000. It also repealed the 1909 corporate income
    tax. The first Form 1040 was introduced!
    1918—The Revenue Act of 1918 raised even
    greater sums for the World War I effort. It codified
    all existing tax laws and imposed a progressive
    income-tax rate structure of up to 77 percent.
    1919—The states ratified the 18th Amendment,
    barring the manufacture, sale or transport of
    intoxicating beverages (“Prohibition”). Congress
    passed the Volstead Act, which gave the
    Commissioner of Internal Revenue the primary
    responsibility for enforcement of Prohibition.
    Eleven years later, the Department of Justice assumed
    primary prohibition enforcement duties.
    1931—The IRS Intelligence Unit used an undercover
    agent to gather evidence against gangster
    Al Capone. Capone was convicted of tax evasion
    and sentenced to 11 years.
    1933—Prohibition repealed. IRS again assumed
    responsibility for alcohol taxation the following
    year and for administering the National Firearms
    Act. Later, tobacco tax enforcement was added.
    1942—The Revenue Act of 1942, hailed by
    President Roosevelt as “the greatest tax bill in
    American history,” passed Congress. It increased
    taxes and the number of Americans subject to the
    income tax. It also created deductions for medical
    and investment expenses.
    1943—Congress passed the Current Tax Payment
    Act, which required employers to withhold
    taxes from employees’ wages and remit them
    quarterly.
    1944—Congress passed the Individual Income
    Tax Act, which created the standard deductions
    on Form 1040.
    1952—President Truman proposed his Reorganization
    Plan No. 1, which replaced the patronage
    system at the IRS with a career civil service system.
    It also decentralized service to taxpayers
    and sought to restore public confidence in the
    agency.
    1953—President Eisenhower endorsed Truman’s
    reorganization plan and changed the name of the
    agency from the Bureau of Internal Revenue to
    the Internal Revenue Service.
    1954—The filing deadline for individual tax returns
    changed from March 15 to April 15.
    1961—The Computer Age began at IRS with the
    dedication of the National Computer Center at
    Martinsburg, W.Va.
    1965—The IRS instituted its first toll-free telephone
    site.
    1972—The Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
    Division separated from the IRS to become the
    independent Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
    Firearms.
    1974—Congress passed the Employee Retirement
    and Income Security Act, which gave regulatory
    responsibilities for employee benefit plans to the IRS.

    This is what I found about them taking the money.Where it goes is another story.

    1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
      weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Do you have any opinion on the topic, or do you just randomly post cut and paste to fill space and run up your post count?

  4. Moderndayslave profile image59
    Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago

    Actually I would favor a flat tax for everyone including corporations since you asked. What are you upset I replied to your first post with facts?

    1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
      weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So, you have no opinion on the subject.   Why didn't you just say so?

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      He deals in opinions, not facts. Tis'n taint.

  5. Moderndayslave profile image59
    Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago

    The Constitution? Article 1 section 7  and 8. As far as how much? My Opinion was "Flat Tax rate" 3 dollars or 3 million. Either someone pays you to post or you seem like another Republican crying "MY Money, My Money" you want the benefits of this country but you don't want to contribute. That's my opinion, so How do you like them apples?

    1. Alexander Pease profile image60
      Alexander Peaseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Then again, when posting to a forum, I was not aware that an opinion was required. Although, an explanation to what you are posting is helpful in understanding what is being said. Great information by the way. smile

    2. weholdthesetruths profile image60
      weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You have no point.    You're not even on topic, nor responsive in any way to the question asked.

      1. Alexander Pease profile image60
        Alexander Peaseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I was engaging in a conversation with another hubber. I didn't know that was a crime?

  6. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    " At what point, does a person have enough that no constitutional protections apply and you're free to loot them?" Apparently anyone deemed a criminal for one will do.

    1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
      weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Can you read?

      1. Alexander Pease profile image60
        Alexander Peaseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I am guessing that was a rhetorical question but, I am pretty sure that they can seeing as how they wrote their response. Anymore personal attacks of this nature and I will be reporting this forum.

        Also, you should adhere to your own words. I am quoting you, and breaking my promise,

        "You're not even on topic, nor responsive in any way to the question asked."

        You must expect that people are going to respond to this forum in their own way. If you cannot deal with that, then don't create forums.

        1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
          weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I asked if the poster could read, simply because HOW a criminal got his rights taken was by criminal conviction.   However, the answer was pure demagoguery, instead of substance.

          1. Alexander Pease profile image60
            Alexander Peaseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Then you should have said that instead. What you said was a pure insult from my point-of-view. It is all about perspective, which is what you have yet to learn. Not everyone can see the brilliance that you call civility.

  7. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    "With each new bill, newly elected tea party lawmakers are offering Montanans a vision of the future.

    "Their state would be a place where officials can ignore US laws, force FBI agents to get a sheriff's OK before arresting anyone, ban abortions, limit sex education in schools and create armed citizen militias. It's the tea party world." Matt Gouras, Associated Press, quoted in The Washington Spectator April 15, 2011."

    Did you catch the BAN ABORTIONS part?
    Maybe the AP reporter is lying.
    Or maybe the Tea-Party is pro-choice?
    Or maybe pigs will fly.

    1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
      weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Once created, a human has the right to live.   You ahve no right to kill another human, just for your convenience or emotional whim.

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        roll

      2. Maembe profile image60
        Maembeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Let me guess, you support the death penalty?

        1. Cagsil profile image61
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol lol lol

        2. DTR0005 profile image85
          DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Did you have to ask? lolll

      3. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        unless of course they are born on the wrong side of the tracks, then they can just go to hell.

  8. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    And what is the TP stand on gay marriage?

    1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
      weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      it isn't possible.   Marriage is between a man and woman.   

      If two people of the same gender want to marry, it's impossible, they're not a man and woman.   

      If they want some kind of ceremony, then they can make up their own.

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        How nice? And, who said?

        1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
          weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The people who created marriage.   Duhhh.

  9. Mark Ewbie profile image82
    Mark Ewbieposted 5 years ago

    Hi. Newbie here.  I don't go into Politics much, all that talking - sheesh.  Is it a question about taxtion or immigration?

    Whichever it is I don't mind telling you that I don't have much of a view on this - because my wife does most of our voting.

    It's called a single transferable vote I think, and it means I still get my tea.

    I hope this helped.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image83
      PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      cool

      1. Alexander Pease profile image60
        Alexander Peaseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I am glad I am not the only one who has no clue what wehold is asking.

  10. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    So, in other words;

    "But the worst is when you butt into my private life, which has absolutely nothing to do with you. That is the biggest intrusion of them all. And THAT will happen if the TP has their way!"

    I told the truth.

    1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
      weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You NEVER tell truth.  Ever.    Nor have you ever been even slightly civil.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Where as you are constantly civil. I bet you're really a diplomat.

        lol

        1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
          weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Please find my claims to being the model of civility.   Oh, wait.  I didn't.   You lied again.

          1. lovemychris profile image81
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Errrr, you called my ideas stupid nonsense....
            Called me a liar, several times......

            You have a strange idea of civility.
            You are of the Glenn Beckian variety.

          2. DTR0005 profile image85
            DTR0005posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Just a friendly bit of advice - I would watch the "you lie" commentary. You have used that one about half a dozen times today. That's likely enough to get you banned.

          3. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That is entirely my point, you don't have a civil bone in your body and yet you constantly accuse others of incivility!

      2. lovemychris profile image81
        lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What does my being pregnant by a man that is not you, or me loving another woman, have anything to do with you?
        Nothing.
        You want to make it your business and tell me I must stay pregnant on your orders, and I cannot marry the woman I love.

        (wow--I'm quite the bi-polar one huh? ahahaha)

        Therefore, you DO want to stick your nose where it doesn't belong. Therefore, I told the truth about you.

        You and your cult are dangerous to freedom.

        We do not govern by religious ideology and pernicious values.

        1. weholdthesetruths profile image60
          weholdthesetruthsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You do not get the power to appropriate the tradition of others and tell them they must change them.   There is NO right to marry and never has been.   The state limits who can marry, and does so because it defines what is marriage... that being a man and woman who are not related to each other. 

          And you have NO right to kill another human being, once you create it.   It possesses the right to live once created.    Nobody's doing anything to you, except prohibiting you from taking someone else's right to live. 

          If you want some kind of commemorative event to broadcast your emotional state to the world, then freaking make one up, but do NOT call it "marriage" because that's wrong.   It isn't marriage and cannot be.

          1. lovemychris profile image81
            lovemychrisposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            This is your ideology, is agreeable to 12% of the population, and has no business being the ruling force of a country in the 21st century.
            We are not the Taliban here.
            And 88% of us reject that theory/belief/religious conviction.

            Oh, and fyi--I have EVERY right to decide what is and isn't created in my body, and I have EVERY right to marry just like you do. I pay taxes, vote and buy things from your repub friends.
            Sorry, if you think you can treat me as second class because of who I am.


            geeezus...I'm starting to think I AM gay!!

  11. lovemychris profile image81
    lovemychrisposted 5 years ago

    Here's another bit of civility form truth-out there:

    "is the most idiotic nonsense ever dreamed up.    Not even children are that stupid."

    My god!! With civility like that, who needs anger management???

  12. 4closurefraud32 profile image61
    4closurefraud32posted 5 years ago

    personally i believe the constitution was put in place to protect our civil rights and that no situation should deprive us of them. our forefathers fought through wars and our parents marched for them and that should not be taken lightly.

    i also believe that if someone feels the law is not being followed properly that you should contest it. case by case, even up to the supreme court level decisions are made all of the time regarding heated, civil matters. that is the arena to resolve them.

    civil rights and freedom are what set apart our country from countless others. that is not something that i would take lightly.
    just my thoughts.

 
working