Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would never vote for a guy who insists I have a wand stuck up my cooter. No matter what his positions were on the economy, etc.

Planned Parenthood and other safe abortiom clinics require ultrasound for abortion

Not because a politician said so. It's a medical issue and not one politicians should be dictating.

Yes, it's a medical issue. Bad clinics are not using them as they should. Which was the point of regulation. Congrats. Women just voted for unsafe abortion ala Gosnell.

And politicians created Obamacare. The regulations are political. But that's ok?

Anonymous wrote:I think the main problem Republicans have is that they put up listing RINOs like Cucinnelli. If a TRUE Republican were on the ticket thinks would have been different.

??? Are you being sarcastic?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the main problem Republicans have is that they put up listing RINOs like Cucinnelli. If a TRUE Republican were on the ticket thinks would have been different.

Could be. Would you mind posting some of the positions that Cucinelli supported that you believe made him a RINO and the position a "TRUE Republican" would've taken?

I think your sarcasm detection radar might be faltering there, pp.

Anonymous wrote:I think the main problem Republicans have is that they put up listing RINOs like Cucinnelli. If a TRUE Republican were on the ticket thinks would have been different.

Could be. Would you mind posting some of the positions that Cucinelli supported that you believe made him a RINO and the position a "TRUE Republican" would've taken?

I think the main problem Republicans have is that they put up listing RINOs like Cucinnelli. If a TRUE Republican were on the ticket thinks would have been different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try the Constitution re: #6. Lol

Can't think of a more succinct TP "argument". Rather than acutally marshalling facts, we get "READ TEH CONSTITUTION" in every case.

Here's a fucking clue: we have a branch of government whose sole purpose is reading and interpreting the constitution. It's comprised of our nation's greatest constitutional scholars. It's called the Supreme Court. Look it up.

"Constitutional" does not mean "fits my gut-level prejudices and personal policy preferences". Just so you know.

With the exception of Clarance Thomas.

Actually I find Thomas to be very consistent in his method of interpretation, although I disagree with his interpretation. Scalia on the other hand just finds a logic that fits the outcome he wants.

Consistent =/= "greatest constitutional scholars"

No argument there.

This is almost too blatantly obvious and I'm puzzled as to why the Republican party hasn't been able to figure it out yet. Many, many people now identify as "fiscally conservative" but "socially liberal" - to speak in broad brush terms - and a candidate who acknowledges this fact would win by a landslide in now-purple Virginia.

Because the Republican party sold its soul to the Religious Right a while back. Wedge social issues motivate the hard core religious base, and those people turn out for primaries.

It's easy to get people to be passionate about "values" issues, and when those people vote as a block any Republican candidate who wants to get out of the primary has to pander to them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try the Constitution re: #6. Lol

Can't think of a more succinct TP "argument". Rather than acutally marshalling facts, we get "READ TEH CONSTITUTION" in every case.

Here's a fucking clue: we have a branch of government whose sole purpose is reading and interpreting the constitution. It's comprised of our nation's greatest constitutional scholars. It's called the Supreme Court. Look it up.

"Constitutional" does not mean "fits my gut-level prejudices and personal policy preferences". Just so you know.

With the exception of Clarance Thomas.

Actually I find Thomas to be very consistent in his method of interpretation, although I disagree with his interpretation. Scalia on the other hand just finds a logic that fits the outcome he wants.

Consistent =/= "greatest constitutional scholars"

Correct. This is almost too blatantly obvious and I'm puzzled as to why the Republican party hasn't been able to figure it out yet. Many, many people now identify as "fiscally conservative" but "socially liberal" - to speak in broad brush terms - and a candidate who acknowledges this fact would win by a landslide in now-purple Virginia.

I usually vote Democrat but I would happily consider a Republican if a reasonable one were presented. I'm glad McAuliffe was able to pull this one out, but the entire campaign was a national joke and completely painful to witness.

Hello friend! Feel exactly the same!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try the Constitution re: #6. Lol

Can't think of a more succinct TP "argument". Rather than acutally marshalling facts, we get "READ TEH CONSTITUTION" in every case.

Here's a fucking clue: we have a branch of government whose sole purpose is reading and interpreting the constitution. It's comprised of our nation's greatest constitutional scholars. It's called the Supreme Court. Look it up.

"Constitutional" does not mean "fits my gut-level prejudices and personal policy preferences". Just so you know.

With the exception of Clarance Thomas.

Actually I find Thomas to be very consistent in his method of interpretation, although I disagree with his interpretation. Scalia on the other hand just finds a logic that fits the outcome he wants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try the Constitution re: #6. Lol

Can't think of a more succinct TP "argument". Rather than acutally marshalling facts, we get "READ TEH CONSTITUTION" in every case.

Here's a fucking clue: we have a branch of government whose sole purpose is reading and interpreting the constitution. It's comprised of our nation's greatest constitutional scholars. It's called the Supreme Court. Look it up.

"Constitutional" does not mean "fits my gut-level prejudices and personal policy preferences". Just so you know.

With the exception of Clarance Thomas.

Seems like "common defense" was only one of the things they had in mind.

I said the MAIN job..... Unfortunately, our government has become a vehicle to "take care" of individuals instead of individuals learning to take care of themselves.

Is your assertion that the "MAIN job" of our government is defense your personal opinion, or is it based on some research? If it's based on research, please provide a cite.

All you need to do is look through the newspapers for the past year and see the ridiculous spending and lack of accountability. Social Security being paid to dead people. Food stamp fraud. "Grants" being used to study online dating or the connection between cocaine and the mating habits of quail.

It's easy to point to instances of fraud and programs that you consider wasteful. Others would point to things that might've benefitted you and your husband and argue that those are wasteful.

As they say, the plural of anecdote is not data. Just because there are stories of fraud, that doesn't mean that eliminating all fraud would make a significant difference.

In 2012, 22 percent of the budget, or $773 billion, paid for Social Security. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

I couldn't actually find any estimates of the SS fraud rate online through a quick search, so if you've got some reasonable data on the quantity of fraud, I'd love to see it.

But let's assume a fraud rate of 10%, which seems high to me, but I could be wrong. That's about 2% of Federal spending. To investigate fraud requires resources, so there's a cost to such investigation and recovery. It's also impossible to eliminate all fraud, because at some point you reach the level of diminishing returns.

Let's say it's cost effective to recovery half the estimated fraud. That's 1% of the Federal budget. Certainly nothing to sneeze at, but not the kind of thing that will balance the budget.

There are several departments that could be closed or greatly reduced. All of these things are using OUR tax funds.

While I doubt "several," here I do agree with you to some extent - the creation of DHS was a huge waste of money and all of those functions could be performed by other agencies. But, the functions still need to be performed. So the savings from eliminating DHS will not be 100% of the DHS budget - it would actually only be the number of staff that could actually be eliminated rather than being folded into other agencies. And some of those people would end up seeking unemployment, so that cost is just being shifted within the government, rather than being eliminated.

Anonymous wrote:Try the Constitution re: #6. Lol

Can't think of a more succinct TP "argument". Rather than acutally marshalling facts, we get "READ TEH CONSTITUTION" in every case.

Here's a fucking clue: we have a branch of government whose sole purpose is reading and interpreting the constitution. It's comprised of our nation's greatest constitutional scholars. It's called the Supreme Court. Look it up.

"Constitutional" does not mean "fits my gut-level prejudices and personal policy preferences". Just so you know.

Anonymous wrote:I am a very conservative Republican who is not concerned with the social issues. The Tea Party is a good thing, but the liberals have painted them with a broad brush and made their issues social--when the Tea Party issues are fiscal.

Utter nonsense. The "Tea Party issues" are every bit as social as fiscal. Possibly more so.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/10/05/130353765/new-poll-tea-party-overwhelmingly-christian-and-socially-conservative

They're your garden-variety variety social conservative wingnuts only dressed up in a tri-corner hat--pretending to be sane.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So, with which ones do you have a problem? I have to say, these are pretty reasonable to me.

How do you reconcile 3 with 10 & 11. How will you pay for this strong military without taxes. How do you reconcile 3 with 6. DOD makes up almost 50% of goernment spending. DOD was the hardest hit agency during sequestration because of its sheer size.

We can have a strong military and still have reduced taxes. There is so much waste in the federal government. The main job of our government is national defense. But, it has become everything to everyone - much of what they do could be better left to the states. So, this explains both of your questions....
In response to a previous poster, the TP has NEVER said NO taxes. They also believe that taxes are essential to provide for a national defense. But, it is ludicrous how our taxes have increased, our government has increased, and it has become less and less efficient. And, by the way, I am a spouse of a government employee.

We can have a reduced military and still have a strong military. What we spend is crazy, and most of it is not for true defense.