Don't Tread on Me?

Seems like Obama , pelosi and Harry Reid did the same.

It's precisely why after bush2 promised limited govt in 2000 but delivered the opposite that many left the pubs.

How do you reconcile believing the opposite on those issues with the obama results... or the hillary candidacy?

Hillary is probably more closely tied to wall st, huge corps, and special interests than any of the pub candidates.

othershoe1030 wrote:Isn't the GOP the champion of big business, corporations, the extraction industries, the MIC, unregulated financial markets? Aren't they basically very anti union, anti worker's rights, pro tax breaks for upper earners, non-supporters of raising the cap on paying social security taxes? You all know the rest of their list of favorite causes.

They champion all things big and rich. They band together to elect Congressmen and women who support these ends and yet appeal to the "Don't Tread on Me" crowd who say they would rather die than have their freedom taken away when it is the very group they are waving the yellow flags for that are repressing the progress of the middle class and stealing it blind.

It would seem to require a special type of selective blindness to be able to ignore all of these well known time honored positions of the GOP while only focusing on limited social issues that might appeal to this group, things like being anti marriage equality, anti gun safety, anti women's choice, etc. But I guess that is what is going on?

If you want to talk about pressing supposedly enlightened progressive liberal social issues then let's do so.....

Which of them shall we talk about first?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-e2bptjUOc

First... people with half a brain that truly support freedom and independence don't support either party.

Second... it's not the job of the govt to support the middle class or any group. It's job is that of a fair impartial arbiter.

If govt were limited in power as intended to simply doing that job it couldn't be so easily corrupted by monied interest

When we cede all these powers like "social justice" and subjective rights or protections... it opens the door to abuse.

Ever notice how each govt overreach is introduced by a noble intent? That's no accident comrade.

Second... it's not the job of the govt to support the middle class or any group. It's job is that of a fair impartial arbiter.

Bull chit.....our founding fathers gave congress the power to legislate and promote the general welfare of our citizens....general does not go to 1%, and any percentage over 50% would qualify for that promotion which at one time our middle class did occupy......you just make up stuff as you go.....impartial arbiter.......nonsense, that is not the role of congress.....they are representatives of the people and the general welfare of those citizens does not have to be impartial.....it can be as partial as the limits of our democracy allow and within the confines of the equal protection guidelines of our constitution. Your ad hoc paradigm ends where the clear language of our constitution begins.

General welfare isn't a license to create a safety net... it refers to an endeavor that benefits all... equally.

Our congress was intended to be representative citizen legislators... that intent has been bastardized by ceded powers.

Even today we see obama... and the media... push his budget that offers bureaucracy as a middle class solution.

Over time govt gives itself increasing controls and powers... can you seriously deny that?

it refers to an endeavor that benefits all... equally.


Absolutely and utterly wrong, and devoid of any cursory or elementary understanding and application of the equal protection clause of the constitution. You need to read and understand before you create these illusions or ideals of what you think the constitution is. The Supreme court has been crystal clear that the legislation requires only a rational basis and unless there is an unlawful classification as defined in case law, Congress has the power to do exactly what you think they cannot do. It is hard to have an intelligent conversation when you so utterly do not understand how the constitution works and how the supreme court has interpreted the same, which I must say is POLAR opposite your suppositions.

2seaoat wrote:it refers to an endeavor that benefits all... equally.


Absolutely and utterly wrong, and devoid of any cursory or elementary understanding and application of the equal protection clause of the constitution. You need to read and understand before you create these illusions or ideals of what you think the constitution is. The Supreme court has been crystal clear that the legislation requires only a rational basis and unless there is an unlawful classification as defined in case law, Congress has the power to do exactly what you think they cannot do. It is hard to have an intelligent conversation when you so utterly do not understand how the constitution works and how the supreme court has interpreted the same, which I must say is POLAR opposite your suppositions.

Lol... I can't help you understand elementary terminology of the times that the constitution was created.

You would already know it if you had studied it as you claim. Therefore... you must be ignoring that context.

Lol... I can't help you understand elementary terminology of the times that the constitution was created.

You would already know it if you had studied it as you claim. Therefore... you must be ignoring that context.


You really do not get it......you deny amendments to the constitution(14th amendment), and you deny who interprets the constitution. Like climate scientist or Supreme Court justices opinions, random guy on the internet thinks when the constitution was created is controlling, and a warming period in the middle ages.......Sorry, if this is all you got.....please start reading.

I deny the fourteenth amendment? I do lament the fourteenth amendment. Try to make a cogent point please.

You have so utterly missed the powers of congress and what legislation is constitutional that you have the nerve to ask that I be cogent.  Sorry, you got this thread totally wrong.  You do not understand the constitution.  At least you have the honesty to admit your real agenda.......and no ......you do not understand the equal protection clause......which by golly you have already informed me is not to your liking(I wonder why)......random internet guy rewrites the constitution, and becomes a supreme court justice.......everything has to be equal......utter idiocy....and I am being polite.

General welfare isn't a license to create a safety net... it refers to an endeavor that benefits all... equally.


You said it...you own it.

othershoe1030 wrote:I'm talking about the groups that the GOP backs and wondering how, in light of that (their support of big banks, corporations etc.) their grass roots supporters can also be such Don't Tread on Me Types. I mean this is not a new phenomenon, the GOP has been represented in cartoons on editorial pages in newspapers as the little rich guy in the top hat. This is their thing, this is who they are.

Now, explain why this is the party that the tea party and yellow flag folks support.

Granted, the involvement of big business has always been so pervasive that no one president can turn things around. It is like the Queen Mary, movement must be done incrementally but why the constant support from people who would be better served by a government with more policies and tax laws that would give them hope that their children's lives would be better than theirs?

In a nutshell: why do people who claim to treasure their freedom and independence from government control support the party that helps the government work against their own best interests?

I mean, the government is not going anywhere. We have to deal with it so why not have one that supports middle class people instead of one that keeps corporate welfare running so smoothly?

Standard progressive liberal lines that belie the hypocrisy of the very party you support. It was a Democratic Congress that came up with the bailouts for the 'to big to fail' banks. After which they needed even more money to bailout the car industries. Then they also mandated that people shovel even more money into the largest industry that the country has all in the name of general welfare for the people.

How many billions of dollars lined the pockets of that top 1% you complain about because your Democratic party needed to bankrupt our grandchildren all for the common good, instead of letting those companies go bankrupt so the entrepreneurs could buy them up for pennies on the dollar like capitalism should work?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8EszHsZgBQ

2seaoat wrote:You have so utterly missed the powers of congress and what legislation is constitutional that you have the nerve to ask that I be cogent.  Sorry, you got this thread totally wrong.  You do not understand the constitution.  At least you have the honesty to admit your real agenda.......and no ......you do not understand the equal protection clause......which by golly you have already informed me is not to your liking(I wonder why)......random internet guy rewrites the constitution, and becomes a supreme court justice.......everything has to be equal......utter idiocy....and I am being polite.

General welfare isn't a license to create a safety net... it refers to an endeavor that benefits all... equally.


You said it...you own it.

Well if there's no need for everything to be equal... utter idiocy is how you refer to it... then there's no need for the government to mandate health care for all now is there?

Hey! While we're at it that means that there's no need for the 14th or 19th Amendments either because not everything needs to be equal.

You said it...you own it.

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diOuUYcenW0

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC2tlNmz4ao

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7lmAc3LKWM

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yIaelSVhyM