Give Us Liberty? Q&A with Dick Armey & Matt Kibbe of Freedom Works

[trevorx1960]

Are the Tea Baggers saying they want corporate America . . banks, car companies, the insurance companies, to give back to the taxpayer every dollar it took to bail them out, and then go broke?

After all, if you believe in unfettered private enterprise, and personal financial responsibility you would be saying that, wouldn't you?

The Tea Baggers aren't insisting on any suc h thing. They only want 'small govt' when it doesn't affect them. Have they thought how US got into this mess? No.

[asphyxiafeeling]

Liberals advocate control of your economic freedom, Conservatives advocate control of your personal freedom. Both are Statist. Right now the Republicans are being held accountable by the Tea Party, so to me they are DEFINITELY the better choice between the two.

[LovesMassEffect]

I hate big government... 

[realrockvince]

Nick Gillespie really asked some tough questions right from the beginning. Good job guys. Don't let the big guys in DC off the hook so easy. I like it. Give them a challenging interview.

[martyyu]

Hey, guys. Tell us about the Koch brothers and how much money you guys have taken from them. Hello? Is this mic on? Hello? I want to hear it from Kibbe and Armey - "FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity are not supported by money from the Koch brothers or any of their organizations."  If this proves to be true I will listen to them. Otherwise, they are corporate puppeteers using hate and fear to manipulate a justifiably angry audience.

[saper321]

I hope that Tea Party will somehow take down Harry Reid. If they can do it, that would be a victory for all Americans.

[Crawdaddy79]

Next time, please ask Mr. Armey not to get sauced right before the interview.

[S1aptasticSquadalah]

The tea party movement had been hijacked. It's gone from a libertarian movement to a neo-con movement.

[chevydriver1123]

@S1aptasticSquadalah Exactly, you dont see much opposition to the Patriot Act or our clusterfuck foreign policy from the Palin, Beck, and Bachmann crowds. Its only from Ron Paul's faction.

[Wormtail81]

I wish Jon Stewart had not been such a bore to Mr. Armey on his show.

[studape]

fuck dick armey

[priorzola]

Politicians don't want to keep their jobs Dick Armey, they want to use the power and prestige they garner from working in Washington to get MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR LOBBYIST JOBS like you did Dick. And then they want to take that MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR ACCESS to the wealth of others and create ASTRO-TURF fake grassroots organizations to finish what you failed to do in Congress--to try to invoke a full neo-con policy platform even though those policies have proven to be continual failures. What a LIAR!

[rickinchvilleva]

I know the guy holding the "Marx Was a Moron" sign at the 2009 Taxpayer March on Washington (b-roll). That's John Munchmeyer of the Jefferson Area Libertarians! He has spoken at Tea Party rallies in Charlottesville.

[NewChristianSoldiers]

The only way to regain our Freedom and Liberty is to have our military seize control over the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank and seize their assets then return the power to print and coin interest free money back to Congress as our Founding Fathers intended.

[drewstarr71]

I reject sara palin, she is a female george w bush, just another idiot!!

[chuska8383]

@drewstarr71 Right on and amen!

[FlowerClown]

Give all money and power and tax breaks to the East India Trading Company.

Dick Armey = Rich's Army

A leaderless movement with a lot of money flowing into it.....

Hummmm follow the money find the leader.

[midwestcharm]

These clowns are trying to steal Ron Paul's thunder. They are phonies. Ask them about the Patriot Act, they will scatter like roaches.

[Francebrasil]

It is not a leaderless movement. it is a HEADLESS movement!!!

[kainniak1]

i cant wait tell all this bigoted tea bag movement is done

[lancebaxter]

Give Us Liberty awesome commercial:  watch?v=pv2_oex7vg0

[fishsama999]

I'm really skeptical of the Tea Party. Most of the time, I'm just inclined to call them Neo-Cons afraid to say they're Neo-Cons in a post-Bush world. I'm all for their less government spending stance, but the amount of them that align themselves with Christian Fundamentalists and Muslim bashing idiots seems to be a much larger group than the small problem making minority that typically is present in large political groups. It really pisses me off that Reason TV keeps supporting them like this.

[fishsama999]

@fishsama999 Actually, let me rephrase that last statement.

It's a de facto support. Nick is really good about bringing up those issues within the Tea Party movement. However, it doesn't feel like it's being pressed hard enough.

[strongbadXCP]

@fishsama999 Its hard to press something that isn't clearly defined. I think Reason is still feeling out the Tea Party, which is good, since most "liberal media" just jumps to conclusions that they are a bunch of reactionary cavemen instead of giving them a chance to talk.

[whoo689]

Otherwise, the tea party will be TOO diverse in its acceptance. It'll simply say, "If you hate big spending, you're in, no matter what your views on everything else are." BUT EVERYONE HATES DEFICITS AND NATIONAL DEBT. You can't formulate a movement based on such a wide goal. Eventually the "tea party" (funny how they don't call it 'movement' anymore) is gonna have to narrow its base a little and start coming up with an actual set of substantive goals. Or it will crumble.

[kev3d]

@whoo689 Well the actual tea party of 1773 worked out alright in the end. The Revolution, after all, was essentially a tax revolt. The founding fathers, for all their wisdom were often in vicious disagreement about everything else. Slaves, Tariffs, the Banking and Monetary System, the need (or lack) of an Army, Indian relations, the breadth and scope of the federal government...etc. But they still had that core belief about self-determinism vis-a-vis taxation.

[takerdust]

I have zero faith on the mainstream tea party effectiveness, and even their sincerity.

We will only have changes after we have a real collapse, like Greece.

[whoo689]

If you ask me, the "tea party" is simply the best of a bad situation. Partisan Republicans, as well as disillusioned Dems and Indies who are VERY conservative, haven't really formulated an actual platform or coherent set of ideas. I mean, remember the Americans for Prosperity dumbass rallies with pictures of bloodstained hands? WTF is that all about!? Or tea partiers holding the dumbest signs ever or saying the dumbest crap? There's gotta be a coherent, non-demagogue leader sooner or later.

[whoo689]

Does FreedomWorks advocate ending drug prohibition, the war on drugs, repealing the patriot act, letting gays marry, and so many other freedoms? Or are they just hypocrites hiding behind the "freedom" banner like typical conservatives do?

[MrMarinegold]

@whoo689 We should allow polygamy if gay marriage is legalized right?

[whoo689]

If it's completely consensual, sure! Why not? I certainly don't subscribe to the "Christian" view that it's only moral if you have one spouse, as if loving more than one person at the same time is "bad." I'm all for consensual contracts between individuals, and when those arrangements start violating rights, then they're as good as null. My view on this probably doesn't hold for the majority of pro-gay folks, but that's how I feel.

[whoo689]

@whoo689 When someone in the media says "this guy was endorsed by the tea party", wtf does that tell you? That he was endorsed by people who SUPPOSEDLY hate big spending and bailouts? It doesn't tell you WHO was actually endorsing him, esp. at the top. It doesn't tell you whether or not the guy actually got a majority of support from the overall voters. I'm not gonna endorse someone just b/c "the tea party" favors him. If he supports real liberty and libertarian values, then I'll endorse.

[whoo689]

@whoo689 My biggest fear is that the tea party will go back into hiding once Obama is replaced by a Republican president (or whenever our next GOP president is). That it truly was a partisan anti-Obama and anti-Democrat movement disguised, if not subconsciously, as an "anti-incumbent" and "anti-spending across the board" movement. Is it REALLY a coincidence that all these "tea partiers" just suddenly "woke up" in 2009 after former Republicans like Dick Armey told them to, with a Dem pres?

[CubsFan2006]

@whoo689 I have to agree with you, and I'm a hardcore libertarian. George W. Bush was spending us into oblivion, and they didn't do anything. Also, the majority of Tea Parties are Republicans.

[whoo689]

@whoo689 Lastly, I'm not too keen on GOP rhetoric in terms of "freedom." Yes, lower taxes increase your wallet freedom, but most people who would have to endure federal regulations are big and small businessmen. I have nothing against them, but most Americans do not own businesses, esp. big business. They would not be affected by a lot of these regulations. And electorally, I don't think most Americans buy into that "reducing the welfare state always equals freedom" crap. It's too narrow.

[CubsFan2006]

@whoo689 Regulations go beyond business.

[whoo689]

@whoo689 I mean, I'm all for reducing the size of gov't and ending the welfare state, at least in theory, but I also realize that a welfare program for someone who's out of work and is lookign for a job does NOT in any substantive way "reduce" my freedom. Some may argue that redistributive budgeting is anti-freedom, but that's bit of a stretch in logic and rhetoric if you ask me. Only a few big programs where you're forced into it like SS or medicare apply in that regard.

[whoo689]

@whoo689 We should make more substantive arguments against the welfare state like efficiency and ending programs that don't work. Putting it in terms of "freedom" doesn't seem to work in most voters' eyes, and we look like the biggest pricks when we say that shit. How does ending a program that, at least in theory, helps a poor person move up the ladder increase my or your freedom, esp. if we ourselves are lower or middle class? It's a silly way to frame the debate.

[kev3d]

@whoo689 Creating a dependency on government is a form of abuse, for one thing. And of course it goes against freedom to have men demand "Give us X amount of your money so we can give it to what we want, otherwise men with guns will take you away."

So the argument for freedom is two-fold, the freedom of the taxpayer and the freedom of the recipient, who would have more options and better, more efficient results without the government near monopoly of welfare.

[MrMarinegold]

@whoo689 Sir, I appreciate your intellectual honesty. 

[CubsFan2006]

@MrMarinegold I don't have a problem with that.

[OmNamoSiddhanam]

Neocon co-opters of a libertarian movement for their own partisan ends. They're just big government advocates under an elephant banner. Shame on Reason for promoting them.

[OmNamoSiddhanam]

@MrMarinegold It's a one party system with two wings advocating big government and imperialism. I have grown up; I just disagree with the established order.

[MrMarinegold]

@OmNamoSiddhanam We will have to agree to disagree. There is a clear marked difference between the parties.

[averagejoe040]

Armey was great. Never really heard him interviewed before. Love these guys.

[megagagnon1]

These two are republicans, with a little libertarian rhetoric sprinkled in. They aren't libertarians, and they avoided really talking about the biggest waste of money - war and the defense department. They want to herd the tea party movement back into the republican fold, so they talk like fiscal conservatives, but it's all crap. These two money grubbing power lusting neocons in sheeps clothing are a waste of time.

[megagagnon1]

FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity both originated from a campaign called Citizens for a Sound Economy, which split in two in 2004. CSE was set up by businessman David Koch, who has also promoted liberty and research organizations (Cato Institute and Reason Foundation).FreedomWorks is closely tied to its founder, corporate lobbyist and former Republican Congressman Dick Armey, whose former lobbying firm DLA Piper that he resigned in August 2009, represents Bristol Myers Squibb

[PUGS1688]

You don't need to be a liberal, a conservative, a marxist, a communist, or a libertarian to understand what a deficit is. Spending money you don't have is spending money you don't have...end of discussion.

[corenothing]

...because those were disgusting... Thumbs Up

[MsWanderer1]

The T-party is a collection of Americans that are fed up with government representatives that believe they were elected to RULE rather than uphold our constitution and our freedoms.  Politicians are doing their jobs according to their party agenda and NOT according to their electorate!

[SomethingSea1]

I'm surprised. What with fringeelements distancing himself from the tea party, the tea party sounds rather like the anti-statists you find on YouTube.

[kamikazee55]

If the constitution was inspired by God, then it just goes to show how imperfect God is. So I would drop that dumb fucking argument.

[tydy91]

i think i need to crank out a couple tea party books and make a couple million dollars, this shit is crazy

but good video, keep it up

[bigc028282]

Who actual believes that the "tea party" wasn't hijacked by the RepubliCON party. LOL

The only real "change" will come from We the People that purchased enough weapons in one year alone to create the worlds 4th largest army.

NO TYRANNICAL Oligarchy government has ever stepped down.

[libertyfizz]

@bigc028282 The CONs have co-opted the Tea Party movement.

[jjmdirector]

Kibbe needs to kill those chops. he looks rediculous

[Guest655321]

A frightened and confused rabble being led by a lot of unscrupulous opportunists?

How could I lose?! =D

[occupiedusa]

The number one item spent for the Federal Government is inertest on the national debt. These guys don’t even talk about this. What fakes? The government should not be allowed to go into debt

[matcotech]

Why are teabaggers permitted to be on "reason tv." Tea Party Repubs are insane. Anyone who advocates for Palin needs to have their head checked.

[Illumified]

@matcotech Ill be your teabagger if youll be my teabaggie, Open Wide Prick

[sniper6081]

Lots of liberal trolls on here.

[MrMarinegold]

@sniper6081 They all over youtube. Most channels should just turn off comments. They do nothing but spew their venom...I mean liberal love and tolerance. :)

[hahahaspam]

@sniper6081 They aren't trolls. These idiots actually believe what they're saying.

[Steve83B]

Nice Chops Matt

[Mastikator]

Is it just me or does it look like two dudes and Nick are taped on different occasions and it's simply cut together? I don't mean to rag on ReasonTV, but why does it look so fake?

[godsfool713]

for the future of our children iam serious thinking of changing to the GREEN PARTY

[XCritonX]

Defense needs to be readjusted, not so much cut. The focus should be on protecting Americans and their property. First on American soil, then on international waters (see Barbary wars).

Protection of "American Interests" is far too nebulous to be of any use in a national defense situation.

[OhMyGoog]

Fuck these guys. They clearly have no other strategy besides being uppity pricks. Hold politicians accountable? Cut spending? Start with welfare cases? This is watered down partisan bullshit. Making childish remarks about the intelligence of liberals is not going to influence anyone who doesn't already agree with you.

Google voluntaryism.

[kamikazee55]

@OhMyGoog Completely agree.

[squirreljester2]

8:36 Leader Army?

[DuaneEH]

NOBODY is going to give up their government goodies willingly. How do you get around that? And EVERY cut will have unintended unpleasant consequences. How do you sell that?

[schmij8]

@DuaneEH Very true.

[jpinkard]

Cut the shit out of Defense

[residentzombie]

Don't trust Paul Ryan. I have a strong gut feeling he is controlled opposition. He double speaks all the time.

watch?v=557tFUQoqEI

[uche007us]

WTF is Dick Armey doing there?

[truefictions]

Ron Paul was the spark that ignited the tea party.

Peace

[mamaway]

"rights come from other people..." oh my god. Who taught you that garbage? Over my dead body do you have a right to the fruits of my labor, you commie.

[uffdamega52]

She was also responsible for killing the Bridge to Nowhere. She supported the idea of a bridge back before it became clear that it wasn't going to be worth it.

[mmsayre]

legendary chops

[yougiberishtube]

thumbs up

[xkeltoix]

rights come from other people looking for the best possible society.

Defense needs to be cut, education needs more money, and so does healthcare

[sleedolfine15]

@xkeltoix Everything needs to be cut. Defense needs to be limited to defending the nation and not the world and government,esp. the federal government should have no role in either healthcare or education.

[Trenaway]

@xkeltoix it is something, that you want to cut the ONLY thing that is Constitutional. Education and Healthcare spending by the government is Unconstitutional. On the other hand, the Constitution MANDATES a standing Army and Navy. 

[xkeltoix]

@Trenaway what is your point?

I never claimed the constitution is perfect. We can also ammend it, which we should.

Many conservatives want to get rid of the 14th amendment which would require the same process. So dont give me that holier than thou shit in regards to an imperfect document thats amended fairly frequently

[Trenaway]

@xkeltoix No the original documents that were written by our founding fathers ARE perfect, if followed. They were inspired by GOD himself. No I just want to amend the 14th amendment a little and get rid of the 19th amendment. The part in the 14th that changed the original thought about citizenship and revert it back. If you are here illegally how can your kids be citizens, even if they were born here. The original intent was for the kids of American citizens to automatically be citizens.

[kamikazee55]

@Trenaway You stupid fuck. The constitution is far from perfect. Our whole system is far from perfect. If God inspired it, then how the fuck are we where we are at today? The very fact that we can make amendments to the constitution makes it flawed, and I haven't even gotten into the issues such as the commerce clause.

America sucks. It had a good run for about 100 years. Now it sucks. Deal with it. God isn't going to save you.

[newyorkairsoft]

@kamikazee55 If God ain't gonna save us, then we should make sure liberals and communists aren't gonna be there to get us. And the Constitution, inspired by God or not, is the best weapon against these zombies.

[kamikazee55]

@newyorkairsoft No. It is not. A perfect constitution wouldn't have allowed the U.S. to be where it is today. Communists use the constitution as their weapon. The constitution is a complete piece of shit. They had to make 10 fucking amendments to it basically right after it was written. Completely stupid.

[newyorkairsoft]

@kamikazee55 I ain't calling it a perfect Constitution, but it's the best weapon there is, and it works, and it ain't shit.

The commies are not using the Constitution, they are using the same old jealousy and democracy to undermine the Republic. USA is a republic, so even if some states failed, some will thrive. It's meant to be that way in a true republic.

You will never find a perfect law on earth. Only a flawed law that allows the hope of an option can give people the energy to carry on.

[kamikazee55]

@newyorkairsoft No. It is not a good weapon. It is extremely flawed.

The commies do use the constitution. Such as the general welfare clause, and the commerce clause.

No perfect law? That's not true. Perfect law can absolutely exist. Example: Murder is murder. Theft is theft. So the argument that we should rely on flawed laws is bullshit.

[newyorkairsoft]

@kamikazee55 why don't you try to write a law then. Unless you can write a perfect law, don't call the Constitution BS. It's the best I've seen.

Even with a perfect law, it won't work because what the Founding Fathers understood is: PEOPLE are never perfect, and will find ways to bend a perfect law to their will. IE. 2A, it can't get more perfect, it shall not be infringed. But both sides find ways to infringe it.

A perfect law is just as flawed when the people exercising it is imperfect.

[kamikazee55]

@newyorkairsoft Here is a law that people can't bend. I'll write one on the spot write here....Ready?

Do not take the life of another human.

What is wrong with this law? Nothing. You are trying to argue that the constitution is perfect, while at the same time it has a number of parts to it that allow the communists to still say that they are 'for the constitution'

[newyorkairsoft]

@kamikazee55 Oh, really, what if it's for self defense? Is it ok for the criminal to beat the living crap out of you, and if you kill him for self defense, should you put in prison because you took the life of another human?

Now, if you wish to carry on a conversation, can you keep the Fucks and Shits to yourself?

If not, then good day to you and your little quest to create a perfect society.

[kamikazee55]

@newyorkairsoft If it is for self defense then it wouldn't be murder. Make FUCKING sense? Grow a pair. This is the internet. Swear words wont hurt you.

Here is a better example of perfect law that I was talking about. Do not steal. There.

[newyorkairsoft]

@kamikazee55 You didn't say "murder."

You said, and I quote, "Do not take the life of another human. What is wrong with this law? Nothing."

And you contradicted yourself there by saying "If it is for self defense then it wouldn't be murder."

But you still took a human life, and supposedly under your first proposition, there's shouldn't be any gray spot in this law.

Until you disagreed with yourself. Does that make FUCKING sense to you?

[kamikazee55]

@newyorkairsoft You are right. That was not a perfect law. However the 'do not steal' one was.

My point is that perfect law can exist. You can't justify having stupid laws by saying that there is no such thing as a perfect law.

[newyorkairsoft]

@kamikazee55 Like I said, I am not disagreeing with you on a lot of issues. I grew up in a communist state, and I am100 percent against it.

Like I said, I agree with do not steal or murder. But a "law" can get complicated.

If human is not perfect, how can we create a perfect law? Add a group of imperfection will just create more of the same. And the Founding Fathers understood that, hence they said, "to form a more perfect Union." It's not perfect, but they tried.

[kamikazee55]

@newyorkairsoft Humans being imperfect doesn't mean that law has to be imperfect too.

For example. A man might think it is wrong to steal, but steal anyway. That doesn't make stealing okay, it just means that someone chose not to follow it.

We were definitely closer to being perfect than Britain was. As far as our laws go. But it is very clear what is right to do, yet we choose to make our laws something different.

[newyorkairsoft]

@kamikazee55 you can write a lot of morality propositions out there, and I'll agree with you. Do not steal, do not murder, etc.

But "law" is more complicated: how do you ENFORCE it? What if someone stole? Do you punish him by taking back that amount? Or MORE? If less, that opens up incentives to steal. If you take back more, is that stealing in return? You also open up possibilities of abuse.

Then a perfect law quickly becomes very flawed.

[kamikazee55]

@newyorkairsoft I think this is getting messy.

For a law to be perfect, it just has to be based on a moral principle. It doesn't matter if people break that law. That doesn't change whether the law is perfect, it only makes the individual imperfect for breaking it. Whether the law is perfect or not isn't changed by whether it can be enforced either. The law stands by itself.

The problem today is that most laws aren't based on moral principles.

[newyorkairsoft]

@kamikazee55 It's not getting messy, it's getting clearer. Like I said, I am agreeing with a lot of what you said.

I agree 100% morality is what laws should be based on, and that's what we lack today.

Human is not perfect and incapable of creating or executing perfection. Human will find ways to abuse a law.

The USA is founded as a Republic, so if ONE state screws itself 10x over, other states do not have to follow. When all states said "screw it," then we are truly screwed.

[kamikazee55]

@newyorkairsoft I agree with everything you just said. What you have to consider though is that maybe the precious constitution wasn't based on total moral principles. Or at least that it contradicted itself at certain points.

[newyorkairsoft]

@kamikazee55 Yes I think the Constitution does leave a lot to be desired, the Fathers believed that sooner or later, people will find abuses in all laws, so they can try their best to allow balance of power, even if sometimes it doesn't allow morality [say, freedom to sin as long as it doesn't harm others].

The Fathers armed us with the Cons; most "civilized" nations do not believe in personal liberty. They do not have a way to fight back to the rulers or socialists alike. They just follow.

[priorzola]

@newyorkairsoft That's funny, because between the purchase of the Lousiana Purchase and their invoking of WE THE PEOPLE (as in the COLLECTIVE) the Founding Fathers knew their way around socialism and the good that it can do for a nation to maintain it's unity. The only people expressly given personal liberty in the beginning of our nation were white males over 21 who owned property. All other gained the access to PERSONAL LIBERTY usually on the back of PROGRESSIVE & SOCIALIST INSPIRED movement.

[newyorkairsoft]

@priorzola That's funny, I know many gained liberty and personal freedom and certain extend of the law by SUING the big-fat government using the Constitution as their weapon and won.

I don't remember any socialist inspired or progressive movements until communists started claiming EVERYTHING to their credit.

It's a good idea to bring back the "property for vote" thing. Too many sleazy communists are using democracy to undermine the Republic, raised taxes, and ran the country into a shit hole.

[Thebboss]

@priorzola Socialist how? So abolitionists are now socialists too?

[priorzola]

@newyorkairsoft there is no such thing as 100% morality. That is a Judeo-Christian fallacy based on the false concept of absolutes. There is nothing that 100% MORAL for everyone at every moment. There was nothing MORAL about slavery or the perpetuation of third world de facto slavery (done in the name of capitalism and profit) to this day. Stop hiding your failed ideology behind implacable symbols of morality or patriotism. All the symbols in the world won't disguise libertarianisms failures.

[kamikazee55]

@newyorkairsoft Oh and BTW don't try to act like you know shit about communism and their attempted utopia.

The reason it failed wasn't because of a flaw in human nature, it was because the philosophy was flawed. It believed that men were not an end in themselves, but were an end in everyone else.

There is nothing wrong with a 'utopia'. I think a new country should be formed that actually believes in liberty and justice. Fuck America. You stupid fucks masturbating over the constitution.

[newyorkairsoft]

@kamikazee55 Oh, wow, I shouldn't act like I know shit about communism? Because why? You lived in a communist country before? I came from one, and it ain't nice. The idea is flawed, and people are flawed. It doesn't work.

[newyorkairsoft]

@kamikazee55 trying to have the "perfect law" and perfect society were exactly what give commies, and people like Karl Marx and Mao Zedong so much followers: they personally believe a progressive ideal and "make things more perfect" will lead to a utopia. And they believe in order to get there it's ok to destroy and trampled on others imperfect ideals.

They usually failed, because they were usually the most flawed element in the equation.

[kamikazee55]

@newyorkairsoft There is nothing wrong with trying to create a perfect society. America was(for the most part) perfect during the 1800s.

Are you aware that the constitution gives the government the authority to regulate basically everything to do with economics? Even more than that, it allows states to create laws of basically anything it can think of? The constitution is an extreme piece of shit.

[renegade2142]

@kamikazee55 You speak of "to regulate interstate commerce" right? Well, for this we have the 9th and 10th amendments. The states have to still be in compliance with the constitution, so they cannot pass laws that are incongruous with it. I agree, the framers should have defined what they really meant by "to regulate interstate commerce" which was "to make regular." The second amendment needs to be corrected as well, but the constitution is not "a piece of shit".

[renegade2142]

@kamikazee55 Also, by writing the statement "the constitution is a piece of shit" you alienate many freedom advocates. I understand and accept that the constitution is flawed in that it does not explain itself, but it is probably one of the best tools that can be used to fight for freedom without the use of force which I consider abhorrent barring self defense.

[kamikazee55]

@renegade2142 Hmm. I'd prefer force....You have to consider the completely sick things that are considered moral today. I don't think arguing over a flawed piece of paper will get liberty. I think every cop should be killed. That would send a message.

[Metalloveica]

@kamikazee55 If you are implying that the commerce clause gives the federal government total economic power, then I would have to disagree with you. The congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes." As Judge Napolitano points out, "to regulate" meant "to make regular," meaning that one state could not impose different tariffs on different states, etc. Of course, as language changes, so does the interpretation.

[renegade2142]

@Metalloveica We also have the 9th amendment which many forget says that the powers of the federal government can't be used to "disparage" those retained by the people. So that means that the interstate commerce clause can't be used to take rights away from the people or states. But, this is all academic unless the a great many Americans can come together and force their representatives to uphold their oaths to the constitution by voting out all of them who have voted against it.

[kamikazee55]

@Metalloveica "To make regular" is in the eyes of the beholder. So yes, it gives the federal government that power.

[Illumified]

@kamikazee55 Not perfect huh, Well nothing is and just because something isnt perrfect doesnt mean it isnt good. The Constitution allowed the Us, in less than a few 100 yrs to become king of the hill. And arguably the further we move from those original ideas, the more problems arise. Individual liberty is what it gave us and that has allowed us to do more in less time than any other group in history and now we are abandoning those ideas. and for what??

[kamikazee55]

@Illumified Perfection does exist. The constitution was not that. The constitution wasn't what made this country, it was individual ingenuity. Now, that same constitution is used against these individuals.

[Illumified]

@kamikazee55 Where does perfection exist?? your imagination. Our constitution was what gave us out individual liberties which allowed us to harness our ingenuity. The constitution isnt being used against us, it is being intentionally misrepresented, manipulated and ignored. "Murder is murder. Theft is theft" yeah duh no one who believes in the constitution believes these ideas arent supported by it.

[bigc028282]

@Illumified The Constitution didn't GIVE "us out individual liberties..", it guaranteed them.

Criminals have hijacked the Constitution and Bill of Rights. 911 was a coup, and the economy is dead, we just don't know it yet; at least some of us.

The "tea party" was hijacked by the RepubliCONS, and there's no difference betwen parties when it comes to the criminal agenda's.

[Illumified]

@bigc028282 guaranteed, Give youre just splitting hairs, Of course I understand that the constitution was intended to insure my liberties but if the constitution is so badly maimed to be meaningless then the government is the own who will come in order to claim those liberties.

[bigc028282]

@Illumified "Who will claim", I think that was part of my post as well.

Wait till the monthly checks stop going out. The greatest depression may be in the wings, but it will include the great house cleaning.

The government couldn't even run a whore house in Nevada. Look it up.

[xkeltoix]

@Trenaway the constitution was not perfect, hence all the debate around what they meant when they wrote it. It cant be inspired by god for several reasons

1)many of the founders did not believe in the christian god

2)the bible does not mention natural law as the founders understood it. The bible does not grant us the rights that the const. does

also, the constitution gave way to amendments which would lead to imperfections (14th as you see it)thus the og. documents couldnt be perfect. RESP 1/2

[xkeltoix]

@Trenaway Also, your god probably isnt even real. You cant even verify him so theres no point in defending him, when YOU dont even know that hes real.

Get your fucking head out of the sand. Jesus would have hated the constitution, and jesus would have been communist(assuming he was real in the first place, which NOBODY knows). His contempt for rich people proves this.