Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually it was Parliament that was responsible for the taxes and other acts prior to the Revolution, not King George.
And the demands of Parliament were not that unreasonable. Not at all. In the words of the history teacher I had in high school (who was as conservative and patriotic as they come, mind you), "The colonists were a bunch of crybabies."
So the 1770's weren't that bad.
Agreed, what we went to war over in the 1700s was nothing compared to the federal tyranny we have to live under today. You can trace it all back to the early 1900s, when the progs used the federal government to start taking away our rights and freedom and replace it with federal tyranny.
The U.S. is no more a police state under Obama than it was under Bush, except that conservatives didn't complain about it under Bush.
No more a police state? LMAO open your eyes it's gone from bad to worse. Hint - drone use, spying on Americans without warrants to name a couple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
On strict constitutionalism, the conservative supreme court decided that corporations have the rights that individuals have, even though the concept of corporations didn't exist when the constitution was written. Conservatives are no more strict to the Constitution, they just believe what they want is protected and what liberals want is not. It was evident when conservatives tried to yank jurisdiction from Florida to the federal government during the Terry Schiavo case.
Conservatives DO want to take us back to a previous era -- an era that didn't have civil rights protections, labor protections, environmental protections, consumer protections, a social safety net, etc. Essentially, that's taking us back to the late 1800s -- a time when companies can distribute tainted canned food; dangerous or ineffective drugs; can exploit their workers and subject them to hazards.
The conservatives will argue that the constitution doesn't allow these but many Supreme Court decisions disagree. It is within the boundaries of Congress' power.
Personally, I like the fact that the government inspects my food, prevents companies from dumping into the air and water and that drug companies must pass rigorous testing before they can market a new drug. Senior citizens, who previous lived in poverty without access to medical insurance, love Social Security and Medicare. I also like the idea that my bank deposits are insured by the FDIC.
And you want to go back to a much older form of government that has always failed because sooner or later people tire of being slaves to a tyrannical government.
Whatever you do, continue to NOT research and by all means do NOT make an informed decision, instead rely on big government. Eat your Monsanto and pink slime and bow down to your overloads.
Lolz. Yea sure. You do realize our founding fathers were progressive during their time.
They were liberals, as in wanting to liberate people from government control, as opposed to modern progressives, who want government to take more and more progressive roll in controlling the lives of the people.
Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Yes, that's why the vice presidential nominee in 2008 was a woman and the favorite Tea Party candidate for the 2012 race was a black main. And today one of the Republican front runners for 2016 is hispanic.
I'm at a point where I don't think even most people like you really believe that crap anymore. I think you just realize that it's effective propaganda for John Q Public who doesn't take the time to look into things. For someone today who is actually interested in politics to honestly believe in their heart that conservatives are racist and sexist en masse they would have to be complete bonehead. And while I disagree with liberals politically, I don't question their intelligence. So I have to conclude they are using race as a political tactic.
Another piece that goes to support this is how liberals denigrate any and all evidence of conservatives not being racists. If they were sincere in their beliefs, then logic dictates they would welcome something like Nikki Haley - a woman and a minority - being in the Republican party and being elected governor of a southern state. But they don't. It really gives the lie to liberals who claim to want the advancement of minorities. They just want the advancement of themselves and want minorities to be their issue. They thrive on identity politics.
Sorry but you're wrong.
Democrats are a bunch of nazis/fascists and Republicans are a bunch of religious nuts/racists.
If you support either party then you clearly can't see what is going on.
Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
It is time to take back this nation.
Agreed, the ruling elites in the federal will fight tooth and nail to keep their power, but we need to take it back from them none the less
Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
It is time to take back this nation.
Since several states were out of session at the time of the vote on the 17th Amendment, have they been deprived of equal Suffrage in the U.S. Senate because they did not participate in the ratification of this amendment? Is fraud (non ratification) enough to allow a state to declare it null and void in their state?
Ask yourself why any State would deprive themselves of power granted them by the Constitution to elect and to hold responsible the Senators from their State? They would not. It would represent a voilation of the seperation of State which the government was founded on.
The Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was "declared ratified" by Secretary of State Bryan. It in reality was not leagally ratified.
Actually it was Parliament that was responsible for the taxes and other acts prior to the Revolution, not King George.
And the demands of Parliament were not that unreasonable. Not at all. In the words of the history teacher I had in high school (who was as conservative and patriotic as they come, mind you), "The colonists were a bunch of crybabies."
So the 1770's weren't that bad.
By 1770, England had been protecting the settlers for 150 years. They financed soldiers to guard against, Indians, the French and to some extent the Spaniards. Once they levied a tax, a very small one, the egg hit the fan. Never saw that in my High School History books.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right On
