Posted on 02/27/2011 3:51:37 AM PST by RogerFGay
A clear example of our problem is the Health insurance bill. Years of government policy failure led to big problems. The solution. 2,000 pages new rules and regulations. In the 2,000 pages there is nothing but new layers of complexity. The next bill to correct the problems caused by this bill will require 4,000 pages of regulations and 4 times as many new government employees to write the regulations and try to enforce them. All this in an attempt to insure the uninsurable.
That giant sucking sound we'd hear is the millions of leeches being pulled off government's tit.
Sure. The CO2 problem. They are fixing a problem that never existed. They created the problem out of “thin air”. I think the only hope is for 34 states to call a con-con and eliminate the agencies that are causing so much trouble. Washington DC is like Humpty Dumpty.
>>Federal, state and local! Cut off their endless demands for our money and limit the time they need to show up for “work.”
Hell, yeah!
Right and the worst part is that government policy creates the Leeches. But they are even worse than a Leech. They never get full and fall off the host. Once attached they stay attached and breed more Leeches.
He’s on the Letterman show, and you’re unhappy because he didn’t start lecturing on the Constitution? Aren’t you splitting hairs here? I think you’re making something out of nothing.
We can’t be blowing a gasket every time our Senator / Congressman utters a sentence without the word “Constitution” in it.
And why not???!?!?!?!?!?!
Senator Paul - "Can you hold on a Constitution minute? I need to go to the Constitution bathroom."
(j/k)
You have to listen / read a bunch ... you’ll notice repeated “talking points.” Talking points are just something one guy said in some particular context. It’s “party line” stuff. When you’ve identified “talking points,” you know what team a politician (or talking head) is on when they use them. Defining new Tea Party Republicans as fiscal conservatives is a talking point that ties them to the old Republican TEA (taxed enough already) Party - the ones that happily helped get us all this screwed up to begin with; with decades of smiling bipartisanship to “get things done.”
And tell us how this is such a bad thing, given the horrific state of federal finances nowadays?
One can be both a fiscal conservative and a social conservative. In that regard, I find common ground with Rand Paul on fiscal issues. I won't bad-mouth him the way you have here - your way is how alliances are trashed instead of nutured - and it takes alliances to overcome the progressive agenda, one group alone cannot muster the numbers to do such.
And as another poster noted, what are you expecting? Him to launch into a detailed discussion of Constitutional policy on LETTERMAN? Jeez, maybe, just maybe, do you think a simplified statement of his positions is a better approach in that venue?
Switch to decaf, dude.
The thought train in that sentence originates with Rand Paul’s words in the interview.
One of many
See also, post #26
Apparently, you’re quite happy with the road to ruin we’ve been on for at least the past three decades. The alliance between fiscal and social conservatives contributed greatly to the collapse of Constitutional rule and completely out of control government. It’s not an alliance that I have any interest in nurturing. If they’re not willing to play by the fundamental rules, then they’re just as bad as the other bad guys.
Now St. Rand is called RINO. Such irony.
Is there any Senator who hasn’t been labeled as such at some point by someone? Even “RINO Demint” has google hits.
Case in point why the DIABLO tag is necessary.
They’re different like George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush...right?
Not a dime’s worth of difference.
That is complete bullcrap.
Maybe you could give us your definition of Constitutional rule so we know what the heck you are yammering about here.
What is the most fundamental rule of the Constitution?
Limiting the size and scope of the federal government.
By definition, that is what fiscal conservatives seek to do - if you limit spending, you by defintion seek to limit what the fedgov is doing.
So please, tell us how fiscal conservatism is not playing by the fundemental rules.
This should be entertaining.
I’ve written dozens of articles on the topic over the years. Have another cup of coffee and try re-reading the article. It’s pretty straight-forward. If you’ve no idea that the US is running outside Constitutional boundaries at this point, I doubt I could educate you myself with a few forum posts. If you’re interested in politics, you need to focus some study on the subject.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.