Stephen Chapman on the TEA Party

I think I'd agree with him. The Tea Party is, in fact, a movement united by a common cause of less federal government. Beyond that, nothing about it is anywhere remotely close to a "good" thing. Do the conservatives/libertarians/Republicans forget history so quickly? When the Southern states succeeded from the Union before the Civil War, their "government" was as out of the way as possible. Different currencies, different tax policies, different road conditions, different EVERYTHING reigned from state to state. There was absolutely no unity, and that's probably why the South lost the war. Now, I realize that the United States isn't going to go to war with itself any time soon, but it's the same basic concept, only nationally. The United States would collapse under Tea Party rule. The country would descend into anarchy, while the government sworn to protect its citizens stood by and watched without being able to do a damned thing.

But hey, if that's what you want!

:)
 
If collapse comes, it'll be from the recognized 13 Trillion in debt (+ another amount up to 50 trillion in Medicare, S.S, ect) that has piled up.
 
Not if the Tea Party gets elected into power. If that happens, we might as well throw deficit out the window. That'll be the LEAST of our problems.
 
Rob, I agree that a smaller governement is better for everyone. You are saying that the tea partiers forget history. You bring up the American Civil War. The reason that the ACW started was over the issue of states rights. The northerners wanted to prevent new states from allowing slavery. The southerners felt that each state should decide what was best for its citizens. I happen to think that the founding fathers NEVER intended for the government to get as big as it has. The dems just want to make it bigger and get everyone on the dole without any regard to common sense, economics or the will of the people.

I suggest you take some time and read "Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand"
 
Rob, I agree that a smaller governement is better for everyone. You are saying that the tea partiers forget history. You bring up the American Civil War. The reason that the ACW started was over the issue of states rights. The northerners wanted to prevent new states from allowing slavery. The southerners felt that each state should decide what was best for its citizens. I happen to think that the founding fathers NEVER intended for the government to get as big as it has. The dems just want to make it bigger and get everyone on the dole without any regard to common sense, economics or the will of the people.

I suggest you take some time and read "Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand"

So.... One question.... Would you say you are in agreement with the South's overall goal in the Civil War? Because if you are, we may as well end this discussion and any further discussions right now. You talk about common sense... Well... This is about as good a test as any to see if you have any. Do you think the North should've just minded its own business?
 
Rob, The south forced the issue of states rights by attacking Ft Sumter.

Do I agree that states can decide what is best for their citizens? Yes absoultely.

Do I think slavery should be allowed? NO. I think the south resented the federal government meddling in something that they considered a local issue.

As to the government minding it's own business, Why did Abe Lincoln suspend habeus corpus and detain the entire maryland legislature? This prevented them voting on the issue of sucession. It was thought that Maryland would have voted for sucession and Abe conducted a preemptive strike to prevent it.

You interchange North and Government and as if they are the same thing. Interesting.
 
Do I agree that states can decide what is best for their citizens? Yes absoultely.

Clearly not. Because slaves were citizens just as much as the rich, white plantation owners were. And they were certainly NOT getting what was best from their state. People, when left to their own devices, will destroy themselves. This is one of the few guarantees in life. History gives us countless examples of countries with poor government, by either having too much or too little.


George... One word. Anarchy. Imagine a country that has the highest rates of gun ownership and no federal regulation on them. Imagine a country that has the second highest motor vehicle fatality rates and then toss in varying speed limits and road laws from state to state. Imagine a country that has a very precariously balanced economy as it is, and then toss in a different currency for every state.

The military has one uniform for a reason... Uniformity. So everyone is on the same page. Everyone has the same set of rules. Everyone is on an even keel. Without federal government involvement, my bet is the United States would be surpassed by some European country as the most powerful nation on earth in a matter of years.
 
Clearly not. Because slaves were citizens just as much as the rich, white plantation owners were. And they were certainly NOT getting what was best from their state. People, when left to their own devices, will destroy themselves. This is one of the few guarantees in life. History gives us countless examples of countries with poor government, by either having too much or too little.
Rob, Rob, Rob.
You sound like you (or the government) knows what is better for me than I do.

Lets drop the slavery issue here. That issue was settled by the 13th Ammendment. The core issue here is states rights. People in the states are better positioned to decide what is best, not some bloated government bureaucracy. The federal government will NEVER be able to decide what is best for individual states as they have to try to accomodate all 50 states. Which usually results in benefit for no one.
 
Rob, Rob, Rob.
You sound like you (or the government) knows what is better for me than I do.

Lets drop the slavery issue here. That issue was settled by the 13th Ammendment. The core issue here is states rights. People in the states are better positioned to decide what is best, not some bloated government bureaucracy. The federal government will NEVER be able to decide what is best for individual states as they have to try to accomodate all 50 states. Which usually results in benefit for no one.


People keep saying that the states know better, but their isn't much evidence to support this. How can we say that the states know best when most of them are running huge deficits and are heavily (and in some cases solely) dependent on Federal Funding to balance their budgets? Not to mention all the aid that some states receive. Do you know Alaska receives $5 in Federal aid for every $1 it pays in taxes? Do do you think such states could survive with the Federal tit to suck on.

Its the states that are dependent on the federal government...not the other way around.
 
Last edited:
Rob, Rob, Rob.
You sound like you (or the government) knows what is better for me than I do.

Lets drop the slavery issue here. That issue was settled by the 13th Ammendment. The core issue here is states rights. People in the states are better positioned to decide what is best, not some bloated government bureaucracy. The federal government will NEVER be able to decide what is best for individual states as they have to try to accomodate all 50 states. Which usually results in benefit for no one.
No. I will NOT drop the slavery issue because it is one of, if not THE largest example of the states NOT being able to govern themselves. Without the federal government's interference, we might still have slaves today!

The "core issue" is the fact that while YOU may think states know what is best for their population, history shows otherwise.
 
No. I will NOT drop the slavery issue because it is one of, if not THE largest example of the states NOT being able to govern themselves. Without the federal government's interference, we might still have slaves today!

The "core issue" is the fact that while YOU may think states know what is best for their population, history shows otherwise.

People keep saying that the states know better, but their isn't much evidence to support this. How can we say that the states know best when most of them are running huge deficits and are heavily (and in some cases solely) dependent on Federal Funding to balance their budgets? Not to mention all the aid that some states receive. Do you know Alaska receives $5 in Federal aid for every $1 it pays in taxes? Do do you think such states could survive with the Federal tit to suck on.

Its the states that are dependent on the federal government...not the other way around.

Rob, Rob, Rob.
You sound like you (or the government) knows what is better for me than I do.

Lets drop the slavery issue here. That issue was settled by the 13th Ammendment. The core issue here is states rights. People in the states are better positioned to decide what is best, not some bloated government bureaucracy. The federal government will NEVER be able to decide what is best for individual states as they have to try to accomodate all 50 states. Which usually results in benefit for no one.

Clearly not. Because slaves were citizens just as much as the rich, white plantation owners were. And they were certainly NOT getting what was best from their state. People, when left to their own devices, will destroy themselves. This is one of the few guarantees in life. History gives us countless examples of countries with poor government, by either having too much or too little.


George... One word. Anarchy. Imagine a country that has the highest rates of gun ownership and no federal regulation on them. Imagine a country that has the second highest motor vehicle fatality rates and then toss in varying speed limits and road laws from state to state. Imagine a country that has a very precariously balanced economy as it is, and then toss in a different currency for every state.

The military has one uniform for a reason... Uniformity. So everyone is on the same page. Everyone has the same set of rules. Everyone is on an even keel. Without federal government involvement, my bet is the United States would be surpassed by some European country as the most powerful nation on earth in a matter of years.
Fisrt off, Slavery is a dead issue, unless Moslem extremeists take advantage of our religious freedoms to gain enough membership to gain control of the US & as they have said they'll do, repeal the Constitution & impose Sharia Law. Then they would relegalize slavery, according to thier comments. By the way, Slaves were property, not Citizens.
There were virtually no Federal gun Laws from the founding untill the 1930s, & the '68 Law was reportedly based on Nazi era German Laws, an association Liberals tend to abhore instead of embrace. The move to relax gun Laws, supported by a growing number of Liberals recently, predates the TEA Party Movement. As far as anachy is concerned, there thousands & thousands of State & local gun Laws(Federal, State & Local add up to over 20,000!)
The TEA Party is about over spending & over taxing by the Federal Govt, perhaps because of over reach & over expansion & the belief by some that it is/should be the end all do all entity. The Fed. Govt was set up to haqndle things of national importance. Look @ the original Cabinet, Dept of State, Defence(War & Navy @ the time), Treasury & Post Office(to assure communications) They recognized the State & local govt should handle lesser problems. These days you have Congress telling Cities how big the letters on street signs shouls be, enough already.
Traffic Laws are set by State & local Govt, except for road tax blackmail about the limits on the Interstates. You seem worried about anarchy. A town in Ca. took down all of the stop signs & replaced them with yield signs. Accidents dropped 1/3 over the next year.
 
No. I will NOT drop the slavery issue because it is one of, if not THE largest example of the states NOT being able to govern themselves. Without the federal government's interference, we might still have slaves today!

It is not an example of states not being able to govern themselves.

The states were doing just fine. The Federal government had not been able to enforce it's original mandate that "all men are created equal" from ratification.

Just because the federal government disagreed with how states operated did not mean the federal government was better able to govern than a state. Since the citizens of those states joined the fight against BIG federal government, it would seem that the citizens agreed with their state government.

The "core issue" is the fact that while YOU may think states know what is best for their population, history shows otherwise.

By your reasoning, you agree with the Federal ban on homosexual marriage and think states that have approved homosexual marriage should have that right revoked?

So how is your college education working out for you? Or, are you going to classes?:lol:
 
So how is your college education working out for you? Or, are you going to classes?:lol:

Why are you so curious about Rob's education? Do I detect a faint hint of jealously? People whose sole contributions are snide comments are usually covering up for something.
 
Last edited:
People keep saying that the states know better, but their isn't much evidence to support this. How can we say that the states know best when most of them are running huge deficits and are heavily (and in some cases solely) dependent on Federal Funding to balance their budgets? Not to mention all the aid that some states receive. Do you know Alaska receives $5 in Federal aid for every $1 it pays in taxes? Do do you think such states could survive with the Federal tit to suck on.

Its the states that are dependent on the federal government...not the other way around.

Lets go completely the other way then. Get rid of the states, counties and localities and all of the laws and taxes imposed by them and have just the federal government. Let the federal government pay for everything.

In addition to the example that Chuckpike pointed out what about the abortion issue? What about gun rights? Drivers licenses?


Rob Henderson said:
No. I will NOT drop the slavery issue because it is one of, if not THE largest example of the states NOT being able to govern themselves. Without the federal government's interference, we might still have slaves today!
There is no evidence that supports this inflammatory opinion. You and I can speculate all day long about this but in the end it does not matter. Whats done is done and nothing will change that.

I suggest you form your own party then Rob. Call it the "I hand my freedom to the government" party. Then you can let some bureaucrat decide what is best for you. You have clearly indicated that some distant politician is better able to make decisions for you than either you or a local politican. Might as well give them all your money too.
 
Lets go completely the other way then. Get rid of the states, counties and localities and all of the laws and taxes imposed by them and have just the federal government. Let the federal government pay for everything.

In addition to the example that Chuckpike pointed out what about the abortion issue? What about gun rights? Drivers licenses?

We tried the strong state-weak Fed solution before, it was called the Articles of Confederation. It lasted about 6 years before the entire system collapsed around us simply because of the lack of a strong federal government. The states started only working in their own self-interests with little regard for the nation as a whole. We really don't want to back there..trust me.

What about the issues? I think it works fine the way it is. Abortion+Guns are legal and constitutionally protected. No need to revisit either topic.

Drivers licenses...funny you should mention that. Specifically because US drivers licenses are run by the State and not by the Federal Government I just shelled out close to $2000 (its its not over yet I am still paying)) to get a French Drivers license because France (and many other countries) wont recognize US STATE drivers licenses of American residents due to the fact that states laws on driving are different from one another, in other words no central system. So now that I am 2Gs lighter in the wallet thanks to the fact we have 50 drivers licenses instead of 1, well...I think you can figure out my sentiments on that.

I would point out that abortion and guns are constitutionally protected rights whereas a drivers license is a privilege. So its really not the something.
 
Last edited:
We tried the strong state-weak Fed solution before, it was called the Articles of Confederation. It lasted about 6 years before the entire system collapsed around us simply because of the lack of a strong federal government. The states started only working in their own self-interests with little regard for the nation as a whole. We really don't want to back there..trust me.
B******t!
How you love to distort history without supplying any supportive documentation.

It was necessary to change the Articles of Confederation because it did not define or give enough authority to raise funds to operate a Federal Government.

The US Constitution that replaced the Articles of Confederation would not have been ratified if the original 10 amendments were not included, because without them the states felt the Federal government would be to strong.

Through the amendment process, it is the states that can limit the Federal government, not the other way around. In fact through the amendment process the states could dissolve the Federal government.

Drivers licenses...funny you should mention that. Specifically because US drivers licenses are run by the State and not by the Federal Government I just shelled out close to $2000 (its its not over yet I am still paying)) to get a French Drivers license because France (and many other countries) wont recognize US STATE drivers licenses of American residents due to the fact that states laws on driving are different from one another, in other words no central system. So now that I am 2Gs lighter in the wallet thanks to the fact we have 50 drivers licenses instead of 1, well...I think you can figure out my sentiments on that.

"France (and many other countries) wont recognize US STATE drivers licenses."mmarsh

Completely not true!

The International Driver Document or International Driver’s License is an official translation of a national or domestic driver's license, which allows motorist to drive in different territories without experiencing difficulties with various language barriers. This International Driver’s License, however, is valid only with the original driver's license, which must be currently valid and not suspended or expired. The International Drivers License also indicates that you are a holder of a valid drivers license from your home country, fulfilling the right for a person to drive in another country when accompanied by an original and valid driver's license.

The authorization for the International Driver License has its basis in the United Nations conventions on Road Traffic and Safety held in 1923, 1943, 1949 and 1968, which established standards for the International Driving permit.

Cost $35.00 You can go to any AAA autoclub and get one. (you don't even have to be a member).

http://www.idlservice.com/

You may be required to get a French drivers license because you are a resident of France. If not for that reason, you got took to the cleaners or you do not have a valid license from your home state.

You should not make false statements like the above as they completely destroy your credibility.

The federal government uses extortion to get states to go along with the Feds desires.

In the case of driving laws, the federal government has worked to "standardize" a majority of state laws. How? By threatening to not supply federal matching road funds. The federal matching funds for roads come from taxes that might otherwise belong to the states in the first place.

Rememeber the Federal government is charged with promoting interstate travel, Ever wonder why there is a US Federal Interstate highway in Hawaii?
 
Chukpike

And you need to read your US History again. You might recall that Big states like Massachusetts and Virginia in huge land grabs during that time, and with no federal government to stop it. This was the complaint of smaller states who were getting muscled out. The lack of defined state lines was one of many crisis of the time that led to the constitutional convention. Google is your friend. Well maybe not your friend...you have no friends.


Its hilarious to be called a liar from a someone sitting on their couch in California who has never lived in a foreign country and yet thinks he knows what he is talking about. And Reading comprehension is clearly not one of your strong suites is it? You need to stop knocking Robs education and get one of your own before posting here.

My exact quote:

"France (and many other countries) wont recognize US STATE drivers licenses of AMERICAN RESIDENTS" Read you own post, You even underlined and bolded it yourself but didnt actually read it. Just how stupid are you?. :smile:
What part of "American Resident" did you not understand? Was it the words "Resident" or "American". I can send you a dictionary to help you out. You clearly need it.

Why is that important?

First of all, the international drivers license is NOT required for France, its optional. You can use a regular US Drivers license up to a year without it. But you knew that right? Of course you DIDN'T.

And of course you didnt read your Google search carefully enough because the International Drivers license is ONLY GOOD FOR 90 DAYS in France! All the IDL does is translate the US license into French in order to help the local authorities. If you are living longer than a year in France you need to get a French Drivers license. I have been here 12 years, ergo I have to get a French Drivers License. I don't give a damn what you say next...Thats the LAW here, and I know it FAR better than you think you do.

All This information is available on the US embassy in Paris website. Check it out YOURSELF. before posting here again.

Its not me me making false statements, its you talking out of your rear about something you know ABSOLUTELY ZERO about, and your so nasty and arrogant to admit your wrong which happens far more often than you want to believe. And thats EXACTLY why I don't waste my time with you anymore.
 
Last edited:
Drivers licenses...funny you should mention that. Specifically because US drivers licenses are run by the State and not by the Federal Government I just shelled out close to $2000 (its its not over yet I am still paying)) to get a French Drivers license because France (and many other countries) wont recognize US STATE drivers licenses of American residents due to the fact that states laws on driving are different from one another, in other words no central system. So now that I am 2Gs lighter in the wallet thanks to the fact we have 50 drivers licenses instead of 1, well...I think you can figure out my sentiments on that.

Above mmarsh orginal statement

Chukpike

Its hilarious to be called a liar from a someone sitting on their couch in California who has never lived in a foreign country and yet thinks he knows what he is talking about. And Reading comprehension is clearly not one of your strong suites is it? You need to stop knocking Robs education and get one of your own before posting here.

My exact quote:

"France (and many other countries) wont recognize US STATE drivers licenses of AMERICAN RESIDENTS" Read you own post, You even underlined and bolded it yourself but didnt actually read it. Just how stupid are you?. :smile:

If you are living longer than a year in France you need to get a French Drivers license. I have been here 12 years, ergo I have to get a French Drivers License.

No, it is not your exact quote. As posted from your original quote, your reason for spending $2Gs was, "2Gs lighter in the wallet thanks to the fact we have 50 drivers licenses instead of 1."

Not that you have lived in France for 12 years!

You totally lack credibility! Do you believe everyone on this forum is as stupid as you think I am. I believe they can read for themselves and determine who is being truthful here.
 
Back
Top