yes because the 35 and over crowd is more qualified than the 35 and under crowd!! Liberals want the lest qualified to vote vote for their welfare and magical govt. Do you understand now?
after Sanders the better world is libsocialist.
Democratic republic in name, plutocracy in practice: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
you are telling me age relates with qualification,.
Liberals, and Socialists have 2 different political philosophies,
"Surprisingly, the U.S. data on stratification makes us look worse than ancient Rome.
inequality here is caused by liberals obviously:
1) liberals destroyed the family creating millions of poor single Mom's
2) unions drove 30 million jobs off shore
3) highest liberals corporate tax rate in world drove 20 million jobs off shore
4) liberal deficits encourage China and Japan to buy our debt rather than our products with their dollars
5) Obamacare prevents businesses from hiring and growing
6) liberals schools destroyed the schools rendering many American unfit for work
Your anti-liberal prejudice is as convincing as it is accurate, which is to say not in the least.
The left went from communists spying for Stalin and giving him the bomb while he was killing 60 million people, to Democrats liberals progressives and socialists. They are the all the same and all the treasonous left and all 100% opposed to our founding principle of freedom from big liberal central govt. It is not coincidental the Hilary( a liberal) and Sanders (a socialist) and Alger Hiss( a communist) were all Democrats. This is like 1+1=2 because the brainwashing is so complete in America. Do you understand.
I'm going to hazard a guess that a hero of yours is Joe McCarthy....
The left went from communists spying for Stalin and giving him the bomb while he was killing 60 million people, to Democrats liberals progressives and socialists. They are the all the same and all the treasonous left and all 100% opposed to our founding principle of freedom from big liberal central govt. It is not coincidental the Hilary( a liberal) and Sanders (a socialist) and Alger Hiss( a communist) were all Democrats. This is like 1+1=2 because the brainwashing is so complete in America. Do you understand.
You are the reason, I loathe the under-educated conservative, you seem to have conservative points of view. You are truly the one who has been indoctrinated by extreme right wing propaganda, the Democrat party currently aligns closer to those philosophies, but they use the party as a platform to actually have a chance at getting elected. Do you not understand, Cruz is a Republican with Conservative points of view, he uses the Republican platform to get attention, just like Sanders, who has been a critic of the Democratic party at times, uses the Democratic party as his platform. though he was an independent senator.
You are the reason, I loathe the under-educated conservative,.
no idea what you point is. Care to try again?
My point is that you associate the Liberal philosophy, the Communist philosophy, the Democrat Party, and the Socialist Philosophy, as all one thing, that they are all the same.
sadly for you they are all essentially the same thing and all in theory illegal here since our Constitution created a very very limited govt. Monarchy and communism are both illegal here since they are not about limited govt. Now do you understand? The issue in world history is freedom versus government!!
Thomas Jefferson:
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
Notice that our Founders saw freedom and govt as opposites!!
Monarchy is hereditary rule, Communism is extreme government involvement to assure absolute fairness, unfortunately some end up more 'equal' than others.
"“The power of all corporations ought to be limited...".
sorry to rock your world but corporations in those days were govt monopolies!! Today just to survive they have to provide us with the best prices and products in the entire world! Making sense now??
Haha, sure the corporations were the government in the U.S, they were not owned by them, and the parties currently have corporate hands up their asses. The extreme rich had the capacity to run in the United States back then, they may as well automatically controlled the Senate, and the POTUS, and easily the majority of the House of Rep. through bribery of poll takers. We lived in the illusion of trust, the big corporations owned the government through bonds, they put them in massive debt. Madison was referring to the power of corporations, how they decided peoples lives, they were the source of their income, their food, their shelter. Without working an insanely poor low job in a huge corporation, you were screwed, there were no small companies of notable size. This is a Socialist principle to allow the people to control the corporations, we can argue some positions of the Founding Father's were socialist, the majority were Conservative. Just because an idea belongs to a certain ideology, doesn't make it wrong automatically, certain things work in certain places. "Glorious" dictatorships work under leaders that the majority love.
could you explain this further?
The clause of Due Process states that “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”.
This clearly means the legislature can deprive a person of property with due process of a law. The government was supposed to be made of representatives of the people, and in the case of the Senate representatives of the state (until the 17th), the house could originate bills that would deprive the person in question of property for the common good of everyone else. It was about forging a path forward for the community at large. Some could say this is a violation of property rights, and if the community is supposed to own everything under Socialism, they can deprive anyone of property if their representatives find it just, for their constituents. A major part of Socialism is community ownership, is this not community ownership?
Another clause we could use would be the General Welfare clause. “provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.”
This pretty much means if the government deems that it be necessary, for the betterment of the people at large, the government can spend money on it. Hamilton shared this point of view, and at the time of the ratification of the Constitution his opinion was in majority. Another part of Socialism, the betterment of most, despite the loss of a few so everyone is taken care of.
One occasionally hears, "The United States is a republic, not a democracy."
What does this statement mean?
Is it true?
Should it be true?
you you feel I'm am under educated conservative please present your best example. Thanks
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?