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.
I would have to say that the revered Founding Fathers were in the same position as today's political leaders and were afraid of the common man having too much power.
So let's see...will those mouthy conservatives who always want to hearken back to the Founding Fathers still do so?
This has to be one of the funniest posts I've read this month. The idea that the founders were afraid of the citizens having too much power is beyond ridiculous. Oh my.
I would have to say that the revered Founding Fathers were in the same position as today's political leaders and were afraid of the common man having too much power.
So let's see...will those mouthy conservatives who always want to hearken back to the Founding Fathers still do so?
Liberals never get anything right, do they? The founding fathers weren't worried about the common man they were concerned with GOVERNMENT having too much power, did you fail high school history? The founding fathers would have supported breaking up the EU and giving people control over their own country, that's exactly what they did, you'd know that if you had even an inkling what the revolutionary war was about.
Did the Constitution provide for the direct election of the President by the people? No.
Did the Constitution provide for the direct election of the Senate by the people? No.
The idea behind the electoral college is to keep populace states from having too much power over the others.
The idea that the that the state's house members select their state's senators is sound and should be reinstated. It works in a similar way that the electoral college works and keeps cities from having too large an influence over the rural areas.
Regarding some of the economic arguments in this thread:
The trouble with economics is that everything that is considered economically bad is also considered economically good -- and vice versa -- depending on your point of view.
The other trouble with economics is that it tries and fails to predict the future based on economic laws, but the future is really determined in smoke filled back rooms.
When the fed started its "quantitative easing," economic logic said that the dollar should go down in value and inflation should take off on a massive scale. Didn't happen.
Now we are in an age where we are told that so many jobs are obsolete or about to become obsolete, but at the same time that we are failing if we don't have jobs.
If globalization means that there is no more industry in advanced western countries, fewer services in advanced western countries, and no need even to grow food in advanced western countries, then what exactly are people supposed to do?
The peasants have been voting against their own interests for awhile now esp.here in Australia they care more about maintaining the traditional culture and identity,lessening immigration etc than they do about their wages,corporates,the big man upstairs etc etc,Its quite noble.
Last edited by Katiethegreat; 07-02-2016 at 03:46 AM..
"Even despots accept the excellence of liberty. The simple truth is that they wish to keep it for themselves and promote the idea that no one else is at all worthy of it. Thus, our opinion of liberty does not reveal our differences but the relative value which we place on our fellow man. We can state with conviction, therefore, that a man's support for absolute government is in direct proportion to the contempt he feels for his country." - Alexis De Tocqueville
Haha, the elitists cannot even see when they are being laughed at! They cling so deeply to their Divinity among mere mortals that they cannot comprehend how foolish they appear to those that understand that they are no better than anyone else.
Well said.
There was a time when aristocracy and "the elite" meant something. But that time is long past. All being "the elite" means is that you have a lot of money or are a tool of those with a lot of money. It doesn't mean that you are talented, good looking, athletic, intelligent, educated, decent, personable, or possessed of good taste and judgment.
Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerburg, George Soros, Obama, the Clintons, etc. They are parvenu arriviste trash -- "idiots savants" at best. I wouldn't give any of them the time of day. A conversation with any one of them would only be bearable after five shots of Jameson.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrose
Well, apparently you elites have done a rather $$hitty job governing us mindlessly-angry-ignorants, as 70% of Americans think we are on the wrong track thanks to the "leadership" of you elites....
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
In all honesty, I'm more terrified of the so-called "educated" than I am the uneducated.
There is a simple test for the educated (in the good sense of the word): Do they read good books for pleasure? Are they interesting and provocative conversationalists who know what they are talking about? Preferably with a sense of humor and a taste for irreverence?
You don't need a college degree or even a high school degree to qualify.
And most "scholars" and professionals fail miserably on both counts.
They are mere functionaries, technicians, and stooges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
The so-called "left", who are nothing but extreme right-wing authoritarians, have no agenda other than to enslave everyone to the fictional collective that only they define. They believe only in human slavery to the State and nothing more.
Well said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
Really?
Did the Constitution provide for the direct election of the President by the people? No.
Did the Constitution provide for the direct election of the Senate by the people? No.
So what?
The Constitution was based on a voluntary association of independent states (originally colonies), which were to elect the president and members of the Senate through their legislatures -- which in turn, were elected by the people of those states.
I would be interested to know how liberals justify states having their own legislatures, governors and supreme courts....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakon
Liberals never get anything right, do they? The founding fathers weren't worried about the common man they were concerned with GOVERNMENT having too much power, did you fail high school history? The founding fathers would have supported breaking up the EU and giving people control over their own country, that's exactly what they did, you'd know that if you had even an inkling what the revolutionary war was about.
Exactly.
Liberals are the very "New World Order" fascists that they constantly rail against.
But for them, it's okay, because it's a "New Third World Order."
LOL
Last edited by dechatelet; 07-02-2016 at 05:09 AM..
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.
