Michele Bachmann lied about supporting anglers - Page 4

Fishing Reports Banner

Posts 31 through 40 for Michele Bachmann lied about supporting anglers

     

New? - Register Here!

No Obligations - Click Here for more information. Login

Main Forum Page     |     Fishing Blogs     |     Find a Fishing Partner     |     My Fishing Pals Home     |     To The Top - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies
You Are Currently Viewing - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies  
Michele Bachmann lied about supporting anglers - - - 46 messages. Showing 31 through 40. Go to page: 1  2  3  4   5 
SurfsUp
Junior Member
Joined 08/06/2007
Posts:82

SurfsUp's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 31 Posted: 09:39 PM 11/01/10 (CST)
So I take it that you conceed not only the "nanny state" point but also what the original intent of the ,"general welfare" clause of the Constitution meant. Actually the original intent of the "general welfare" clause is beyond debate... the founders clearly stated what it meant... and it was nothing like what you were trying to insinuate.

As far as Jefferson's writings on how the people might relate to the constitution over the years you have judiciously failed to include any of the context for his communications.....for example....

Jefferson stated in your quote, "They alone have a right to direct what is the concern of themselves alone, and to declare the law of that direction; and this declaration can only be made by their majority. That majority, then, has a right to depute representatives to a convention, and to make the constitution what they think will be the best for themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:43

Please note words I made bold. It was what the MAJORITY wanted in terms of a constitution.

Please recall that the American Revolution was a TAX REVOLT! Nothing more , nothing less, and virtually nothing else....the colonists were refusing to pay very marginal taxes for the garrisoning of British troops...that THEY requested to be there for their defense!

Jefferson said also that this tree of liberty would of necessity have to be refreshed with, "the blood of patriots" or it would eventually be lost. He felt it would also probably have to come to violence and bloodshed every couple of decades or liberty would altogether be taken from the people.


Now....to the election at hand. It is clear by every poll out there that the majority DO NOT want the tax burden we have, DO NOT want the Obama health care plan, DO NOT want cap and tax,DO NOT want open borders with unlawful entry into the land,DO NOT want deficit spending..and DO NOT want taxes raised to balance the budget but rather want spending cut. These are indisputable statistical facts!

According to Jefferson..and virtually all the founding fathers I can remember, and have read again and again, the imposing of the legislation upon us by the Obama administration..that we, the majority, have clearly spoken against amounts to tyranny. Nothing more-nothing less-and nothing else!

After Tuesday night the Democratic administration will have had their hineys handed to them on the political front. They are going to take a major league shellacking on election night all across the country. The majority will again have made our thoughts known. We will again have the majority of American citizens saying we DO NOT want to go down the road Obama and the Democratic administration has taken. However, to this point they do not seem to have cared what we the majority want. We have simply been told to like it or lump it... we are to simpletonian to get it. They appear to be ready to cram all kinds of things down our throat in the lame duck session after this election because they do not want to do what the majority will of the people has been revealed to be. They are the tyrants... and throwing a tantrum.

If the Democratic administration does not cease and decist its actions against the clear majority feelings on this then it is also crystal clear how the founding fathers would have responded to an Obama. They would have said it is time to lock and load.

Jefferson would have loved to square off against Obama and the nanny state tyrants.

Get The Board!

SurfsUp
Odin
Advanced Member
Joined 06/27/2007
Posts:201

Odin's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 32 Posted: 11:08 PM 11/02/10 (CST)

So I take it that you conceed not only the "nanny state" point . . .

Apparently my comparing of Jungerman embarrassing himself to those who embarrass themselves by decrying the "nanny-state" while looking to the State for help/protection was lost on you. As I said, I don't think I can simplify the point more. You either get it or you don't. There's an old saying about it being hard to persuade someone to believe something when his paycheck depends on not believing it. In my experience most conservatives suffer from the same willing suspension of belief when facts contradict their political ideology. Ayn Rand called it "blanking out" and it's always a bit disconcerting to see it in action.

. . . but also what the original intent of the ,"general welfare" clause of the Constitution meant. Actually the original intent of the "general welfare" clause is beyond debate... the founders clearly stated what it meant... and it was nothing like what you were trying to insinuate.

I didn't say or imply that the use of the word "welfare" in the Constitution meant the govt programs we call 'Welfare" (AFDC, WIC, food stamps, etc.) That's so obviously true I didn't think it required comment. (In other breaking news, water flows downhill.) But those programs can reasonably be considered part of govt's constitutional mandate to "promote the general welfare" in that they're part of a societal safety net that benefits all of society, even those who don't directly benefit.

As far as Jefferson's writings on how the people might relate to the constitution over the years you have judiciously failed to include any of the context for his communications.....for example...

The context was included and obvious. Underlining passages doesn't change context.

Jefferson stated in your quote, "They alone have a right to direct what is the concern of themselves alone, and to declare the law of that direction; and this declaration can only be made by their majority. That majority, then, has a right to depute representatives to a convention, and to make the constitution what they think will be the best for themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:43

Please note words I made bold. It was what the MAJORITY wanted in terms of a constitution.


Good example of why Original Intent isn't and shouldn't be the primary consideration when applying the Constitution to modern times. The majority Jefferson mentioned didn't include the overwhelming majority of women, African-Americans, slaves, Indians, etc.. Ever read Abigail Adams' famous letter to her husband asking him to "remember the ladies" in the Constitution and his mocking reply about " the tyranny of the petticoat"?

Please recall that the American Revolution was a TAX REVOLT! Nothing more , nothing less, and virtually nothing else....the colonists were refusing to pay very marginal taxes for the garrisoning of British troops...that THEY requested to be there for their defense!

Who tells you this crap and why do you believe it? One of my problems with you know-nothing teabaggers is that so many of your beliefs are based on misconceptions and idiotic misunderstandings. Supposed "constitutional scholars" like Jason Lewis spout the stupidest nonsense and you swallow it like gospel. It sounds good to you and that's good enough for you, truth and accuracy be damned.

Didja ever hear of a document called The Declaration of Independence that Jefferson wrote and that he and some other colonists signed? I don't know how you could read it and miss the long list of grievances that take up most of it so it seems more likely you've never read it or don't remember it. You might want to consider looking it over before you make any more egregiously erroneous statements about the American Revolution.

Jefferson said also that this tree of liberty would of necessity have to be refreshed with, "the blood of patriots" or it would eventually be lost. He felt it would also probably have to come to violence and bloodshed every couple of decades or liberty would altogether be taken from the people.

Speaking of context, do you know the context of the quote? It's from a letter Jefferson wrote to William Smith in 1787 after the Shays' Rebellion. It's particularly relevant in these times of confused know-nothing teabaggers. Here's a longer excerpt -

"The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order."

I've read that Timmy McVeigh had the "blood of patriots" quote on his t-shirt when his "rebellion" murdered 168 Americans. You a big Timmy supporter? You want to see more of those kinds of rebellions? Teabaggers are big at mouthing ignorant platitudes but you don't seem too good at distinguishing between actual tyranny and the exaggerations of "tyranny" the monied elite use to manipulate you. McVeigh was supposedly pissed off about Waco and Ruby Ridge, arguably two examples of govt misusing violence and killing innocents. You teabaggers are threatening to commit violence over taxes.

Now....to the election at hand. It is clear by every poll out there that the majority DO NOT want the tax burden we have, DO NOT want the Obama health care plan, DO NOT want cap and tax,DO NOT want open borders with unlawful entry into the land,DO NOT want deficit spending..and DO NOT want taxes raised to balance the budget but rather want spending cut. These are indisputable statistical facts!

Actually, they're the kind of half-truths Micheal Medved is known for. At least one reputable poll before the HCR legislation passed found that if you added the supporters of Obamacare to those who thought the proposed legislation didn't go far enough, the sum outnumbered those who didn't want the administration to step in.

Other polls show that the majority would support raising the taxes of the wealthy. And the majority want spending cuts but they don't want less government if it means cuts in govt services and Medicare and SS, which is kinda like wanting to lose weight but not being willing to stop gorging yourself.

According to Jefferson..and virtually all the founding fathers I can remember, and have read again and again, the imposing of the legislation upon us by the Obama administration..that we, the majority, have clearly spoken against amounts to tyranny. Nothing more-nothing less-and nothing else!

Good example of the "wrong" "discontented" "misconceptions" Jefferson mentioned. Aint no chains on you keeping you in America. You want to see real tyranny, go live in North Korea.

After Tuesday night the Democratic administration will have had their hineys handed to them on the political front. They are going to take a major league shellacking on election night all across the country. The majority will again have made our thoughts known. We will again have the majority of American citizens saying we DO NOT want to go down the road Obama and the Democratic administration has taken. However, to this point they do not seem to have cared what we the majority want. We have simply been told to like it or lump it... we are to simpletonian to get it. They appear to be ready to cram all kinds of things down our throat in the lame duck session after this election because they do not want to do what the majority will of the people has been revealed to be. They are the tyrants... and throwing a tantrum.

Wrong again. The majority of American citizens don't vote in midterm elections. And some of the less than 50% who do vote won't be supporting your Alice in Wonderland fantasies.

If the Democratic administration does not cease and decist its actions against the clear majority feelings on this then it is also crystal clear how the founding fathers would have responded to an Obama. They would have said it is time to lock and load.

Jefferson would have loved to square off against Obama and the nanny state tyrants.


Laughably wrong. What the hell happened to education in this country? Were you home-schooled by uneducated morons? You know you can educate yourself, right? You don't have to remain an ignorant spouter of silly slogans put into your empty head by propaganda peddlers. Learn to think for yourself and then maybe you won't go on being a useful idiot for the rich.
Logan
Full Member
Joined 10/09/2007
Posts:562

Logan's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 33 Posted: 12:33 AM 11/03/10 (CST)
You two probably have better things to do with your time. just saying...

BTW, I've never seen so many straw man arguments in such few pages of text. Or as Odin calls them "logical extensions". LOL
Odin
Advanced Member
Joined 06/27/2007
Posts:201

Odin's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 34 Posted: 09:34 AM 11/03/10 (CST)
If you're gonna make the assertion, you should actually know what a strawman argument is and be willing to cite specific examples and why you think they qualify. Just sayin'.
Bkchero
Full Member
Joined 02/10/2006
Posts:545

Bkchero's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 35 Posted: 09:55 AM 11/03/10 (CST)
Getting back to the original point of this thread, did I see correctly that Bachmann won?

Gotta make you wonder sometimes what people are thinking. Then again, in California they elected a dead lady. Now, in defense of the Democrats out there, they told their supporters to vote for the recently deceased b/c that would require a special election (at untold cost to the taxpayers), and to them that result was better than a Repub being elected. Still, gotta make you wonder . . .

Here's a link to a short little blurb about the deceased winning . . .

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/11/03/deceased-california-state-senator-reelected/ fixed link - WebDude
Logan
Full Member
Joined 10/09/2007
Posts:562

Logan's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 36 Posted: 03:53 PM 11/03/10 (CST)
Answer why you are against a limited government.

Several times the position of limited government has been brought up and advocated for. Instead of building an argument against the actual positions that were taken you argued against what you refer to as a "logical extension" of their positions. You seem to argue against things that aren't ever even stated.

Fact is that you build your argument from the misrepresentation of the original positions taken. Case in point: the "nanny state" which you continue to build arguments against without ever seeking a definition for when a state becomes a nanny state.

At one point you did give a definition that you found to be "laughable" but that definition wasn't based on any formerly stated position. Unless you were referring to and misrepresenting someone's comments so badly that I didn't recognize it.
Odin
Advanced Member
Joined 06/27/2007
Posts:201

Odin's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 37 Posted: 07:17 PM 11/03/10 (CST)
Answer why you are against a limited government.

You think I'm for unlimited govt? Is unlimited govt even possible given the laws of physics and other constraints?

Several times the position of limited government has been brought up and advocated for. Instead of building an argument against the actual positions that were taken you argued against what you refer to as a "logical extension" of their positions. You seem to argue against things that aren't ever even stated.

I've never argued against limited govt. That would be inane. Fealty to the Constitution limits our govt and mostly keeps govt in check, which is a good thing, although when presidents like Reagan and W choose to ignore laws and wipe their rears with the Constitution, the checks and balances provided by the framers to limit the executive branch don't always work as well as I'd like.

Fact is that you build your argument from the misrepresentation of the original positions taken. Case in point: the "nanny state" which you continue to build arguments against without ever seeking a definition for when a state becomes a nanny state.

Ok, that may be a valid objection. Nannies help take care of children until they can take care of themselves, so I assumed the term "nanny-state" meant the State taking care of people until they can take care of themselves. If that's not what you and the original poster mean by the term, what is the definition and why is it more valid than mine? When in your opinion does the State become a nanny-state and when did we become one if you think we are one?
IronDioPriest
New User
Joined 08/11/2009
Posts:18

IronDioPriest's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 38 Posted: 08:37 PM 11/03/10 (CST)
This Odin character is just a leftist troll. I've seen his kind a million times before. Takes great pride in his ability to construct a house of cards in his own mind and pretend that he's forcing everyone else to live in it when everybody sees it never existed. Defending the indefensible, using straw men to create holes in arguments that were never made in the first place and then wriggling through them as if it makes him a deft opponent, all the while believing himself to be so very much more clever than the average intellect.

Such a pathetic display.

BTW, howdaya like Ms. Bachmann now, troll? Howdaya like your new conservative state legislature? Howdaya like the 8th district pork-barrel pig Oberstar getting his a$$ canned for the first time in a generation?
Odin
Advanced Member
Joined 06/27/2007
Posts:201

Odin's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 39 Posted: 07:30 PM 11/04/10 (CST)
It's gratifying to see I've risen in your esteem from piglet to troll. How long 'til I'm Pope?

Nixon and Ike woulda been leftists to today's Repubs. I'm a moderate who voted for Horner.

Logan seems to think I shoulda asked you to define "nanny-state." I haven't found it worthwhile to ask parrots to define their terms but there's always a first time. If you have credible definitions for the buzzwords you've picked up, this would be a good time to show you aren't just another bluff-and-fold conservative.

Logan
Full Member
Joined 10/09/2007
Posts:562

Logan's blogs, pictures and recent posts
Daily Subscription Msg 40 Posted: 12:59 AM 11/06/10 (CST)
""nanny-state" meant the State taking care of people until they can take care of themselves"

Ok... Now we are getting somewhere. see, it's not about who has a better definition. It's just about defining a few things so that when you argue it's actually meaningful. It's frustrating to watch you go in circles for so long.

Anyways, I don't think most conservatives use the term nanny state with that definition in mind. Again, something that you should have considered before.

Most conservatives probably think our state gov't has long ago breached the level of intervention which you described as a "nanny state". Our beef, at least mine, is when the gov't takes to much of a role in the life and well being of capable adults. It's when the government is actually hindering the general welfare of society through over protectionism. We can definitely debate if this is happening or not but I will not allow you to speak as though I just called for the end of society.

It's clear IronDioPriest thinks an INCREASE in our governments spending and intrusions is ill-advised and should be spoken against. But that is all he said. He didn't call for even a single welfare program that exists today to be cut. He didn't say cancel the police service. He never said cut school funding. So you can use your strawman and argue against a misrepresentation of his point or you can actually talk about the point he made and discuss if an INCREASE from our current level of government could be worth while.



Michele Bachmann lied about supporting anglers - - - 46 messages. Showing 31 through 40. Go to page: 1  2  3  4   5 
You Are Currently Viewing - Minnesota Fishing Forum - Controversies  

New? - Register Here

No Obligations - Click Here for more information. Login

Main Forum Page     |     Top of This Forum     |     My Fishing Pals Home
Members Browsing
the Forums:
    fredbb     ionosphere     JR     Lakerslayer     Noble 1     Paul Engel     Peely     primehunter     tim collier     willcfish    
Users Online:10
Guests Online:33
Total Online: 43


Terms and Conditions