Yeah, That’s Mature

30 Responses to “Yeah, That’s Mature”

1. MattCollins writes
   July 13th, 2009 2:42 pm

   Why would I want to shake the hand of someone who just stole from me, my children, and my grandchildren?

2. MattCollins writes
   July 13th, 2009 2:42 pm

   Why would I want to shake the hand of someone who just helped others steal from me, my children, and my grandchildren?

3. Brawndo the Thirst Mutilator writes
   July 13th, 2009 2:49 pm

   Because it’s good manners and makes you look like a reasonable, mature individual.

4. Sean Braisted writes
   July 13th, 2009 2:55 pm

   So does that mean you wouldn’t shake Ronald Reagan’s hand had you had the opportunity? What with his expansion of the federal debt and all.

5. TNVolunteer73 writes
   July 13th, 2009 2:59 pm

   Braisted..

   Ronald Reagan did not borrow one penny of money that is in the national debt.

   ONLY CONGRESS CAN BORROW MONEY

   Read Article 1 section 8 clause 1 and 2…

   ONLY CONGRESS CAN BORROW MONEY!!!!!

   Debt, Deficts, Surpluses are ALL ACTS OF CONGRESS not Executive Orders.

6. JohnnyC writes
   July 13th, 2009 3:05 pm

   If according to the Constitution “only congress can borrow money” how did Congressman Wamp violate the Constitution as Collins alleges?

7. MattCollins writes
   July 13th, 2009 3:13 pm

   Johnny-

   Rep Wamp violated the Constitution by voting for a bailout program which was unconstitutional. Nowhere in Art 1 Sec 8 is Congress allowed to do such actions.

8. TNVolunteer73 writes
   July 13th, 2009 3:13 pm

   Amendment 10.

   The Federal Government has not been given powers to bailout Companies.

   A bailout sould have been left to the individual states.

   Michigan should have bailed out GM…. not Federal Government.

9. Tool Alert writes
   July 13th, 2009 3:14 pm

   Wow, isn’t Matt Collins a bad ass!! He REFUSED to shake Zach Wamp’s hand because he’s stealin’ from the tax payers then bragged about it on his blog. What a man!

10. Tool Alert writes
    July 13th, 2009 3:16 pm

    “Nowhere in Art 1 Sec 8 is Congress allowed to do such actions.”

    Guess it depends on how you intepret “the general welfare” oh king of smack downs.

11. MattCollins writes
    July 13th, 2009 3:24 pm

    Tool -

    The General Welfare Clause is not a separate grant of power to the federal government. It’s actually another restriction on what the federal government can (or not) do.

    Anything the federal government does must be for the general welfare of all, as opposed to the specific welfare of a few. In other words, as an example, the federal government cannot just build a road for people of nobility, if it builds a road, it must be for everyone.

    A lot of the mass ignorance of this fact stems from the reality that unfortunately the original meaning of the GWC is lost in today’s language because of course linguistics evolve over time. But don’t take my word for it, do your own research and if you are objective you’ll arrive at the same conclusion.

12. TNVolunteer73 writes
    July 13th, 2009 3:26 pm

    General Welfare means EVERYONE….

    Did you get your 30 Billion dollar Bailout…

    If not it violated the General Welfare clause.

    gen⋅er⋅al  /ˈdʒɛnərəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [jen-er-uhl] Show IPA

    statement, principle, or fact that embraces or is applicable to the whole

13. Tom Paine writes
    July 13th, 2009 3:58 pm

    TNVolunteer73,
    Never in his eight years in office, did Ronald Reagan ever submit a balanced budget to Congress. NOT ONCE!

    You can make the argument that he didn’t contribute to the current deficit, but he sure as hell contributed to the one Clinton and the Congress erased, in fact, he created THAT one.

    He kept pissing and moaning about the budgets Congress passed, but at the end of the day, he didn’t do anything to stop them. As a result, in the words of our former vice president “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”

    That’s remained the mantra of Republican office holders ever since the Gipper took office.

14. Emily Post writes
    July 13th, 2009 4:03 pm

    How rude.

15. MattCollins writes
    July 13th, 2009 4:20 pm

    Emily -

    What’s rude is that my yet-to-be-born children are already in debt due to Rep Wamp’s violation of the Constitution.

    What’s rude is that Rep Wamp has the audacity to attempt to run for a higher office after his blatant disrespect to his oath in the current one.

    What’s rude is that elected officials do not adhere to their principles.

    What’s rude is that members of the GOP tolerate such contempt of their platform.

    I could go on…

16. JohnnyC writes
    July 13th, 2009 4:30 pm

    yet-to-be-born children

    I stopped reading there.

17. vandyfan writes
    July 13th, 2009 4:43 pm

    Rep Wamp has been a good Congressman overall. Compared to others, he has an excellent conservative record on the issues of guns, life, taxes, etc. If we had more Congressmen like him, our nation would be in much better shape. Its tough to be an elected official. No matter how you vote, there will always be people on the other side of a given issue who hate you for it. Matt Collins apparently is one of those people who chooses to hate Rep Wamp over 1 issue. He fails to realize that Wamp is about as conservative of a Congressman as we are going to get. If he would not shake Wamp’s hand, I would hate to imagine what he would do to a liberal Democrat from California. What is unfortunate to me is that this guy is the vice-chairman of the Davidson County GOP. Compared to the GOP parties of other counties, Davidson is sorely lacking. Perhaps it needs new leadership? People who are a little more welcoming? People who atleast respect the elected officials who have worked to establish such a healthy GOP statewide compared to most other states. Mr. Collins, show some respect next time please.

18. MattCollins writes
    July 13th, 2009 5:06 pm

    VF -

    The irony is that here you are telling me to “show some respect” and then in the other thread about Haslam you call me “crazy”. Hypocrite often?

    The “one issue” is real simple: Rep Wamp BROKE HIS OATH AND VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION!

    Regardless of everything else good or conservative he may have ever done the fact that he cannot keep his word and cannot obey the highest law in the land is paramount!

    Why are you so willing to compromise principle? Why should we welcome elected officials who vote against the Constitution? Why should we refuse to hold our own Party accountable? Why should we allow Republicans to vote for bigger more intrusive government?

19. Paul writes
    July 13th, 2009 5:19 pm

    Good for you Matt!
    Wamp signed term limits contract and was supposed to be gone in 02. I don’t trust him at all. He doesn’t keep his word.

20. Steve writes
    July 13th, 2009 5:21 pm

    *Paul*

    Are you sure he signed the Term Limits pledge, I have never heard that before?

21. Greg writes
    July 13th, 2009 5:35 pm

    Cong. Wamp never signed any pledge and never was for term limits stop with the Haslem/Ramsey lies.

22. JohnnyC writes
    July 13th, 2009 5:41 pm

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-12-term-limits_x.htm

23. vandyfan writes
    July 13th, 2009 5:55 pm

    Thanks Johnny for that link. Wamp has went on the record as saying it was a mistake to limit himself. Personally, I don’t care that he broke that pledge. He has been a good Congressman, I think he should quit his quest for governor and stay in Congress as long as he can. Matt, I’m not sacrificing any principles. I have lots of them, and by and large, Wamp and I agree on most things. By your standards, we’ve never had a single good politician. They all make mistakes. They all make votes they regret in hindsight. You act like he should be thrown in jail though. Come on man. Show all the truly conservative Congressmen a little love! There aren’t many of them left.

24. MattCollins writes
    July 13th, 2009 8:27 pm

    VF-

    If Rep Wamp is conservative then why did he vote for an unconstitutional bailout?

25. JohnnyC writes
    July 13th, 2009 8:35 pm

    Because he serves people not an ideology.

26. MattCollins writes
    July 13th, 2009 8:44 pm

    No, Johnny…

    His oath is to uphold and defend the US Constitution. When he voted for the bailout he failed to do that.

27. JohnnyC writes
    July 13th, 2009 9:05 pm

    That’s your opinion as opposed to a fact, Matt. And unless you are a member of the federal judicial system, I’m sorry but your opinion is one among millions. Because legally, only the court system of the United States can, with any certainty, declare a law unconstitutional. And they have for centuries. The government has been bailing out companies for generations. The federal reserve has been monitoring and overseeing the banking system in the U.S. for generations. If you truly want it deemed unconstitutional, hire a lawyer and sue. Because otherwise, all you have really done is be rude to a man that your organization invited to an event. And quite frankly, I find that the exact opposite of “principle before politics.” Though I expect what you mean by the phrase is even more ideological rigidity. I’ll admit- I could be wrong.

28. MattCollins writes
    July 13th, 2009 9:43 pm

    JC -

    No, actually it IS fact. We do not need courts to decide if something is unconstitutional, most of the time it’s self-evident.

    Just because the judicial system approves of something doesn’t make it Constitutional. A study of slavery in this country should be a prime example of that.

29. Donna Locke writes
    July 13th, 2009 11:00 pm

    I’d shake Zach’s hand and thank him for his A+ grade on immigration enforcement/demagnetization, and then I’d toss a drink in his face for the bailout and some other stuff.

30. Mike Samoose writes
    July 14th, 2009 7:39 am

    The bailout vote was pretty bad when he made it. Now eight months later it looks real bad. Somebody ask the Wampster if he regrets that vote along with all the other’s cited in this thread. If so we may have a man running for governor lacking the appropriate skills in decision making.