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.
Have you guys forgotten, or are you too young to remember and didn't pay attention in history class, that we had a price freeze here in the U.S., imposed by a conservative Republican president?
Wage/Price controls followed by the "Whip Inflation Now" ( WIN) thing. Both were disasters.
It's slow and I probably will, I just don't see the point of this thread to begin with so I was trying to figure out the point...my guess it is just another thin excuse to blame liberals for something pointless and random.
Pretty much.
Cuz you can best believe that the OP doesn't give a damn about the price of apples in Argentina. I really can't figure out what the point of this thread is.
Of course, he forgot (if he knew it at all) that the last president in THIS country that instituted price controls was a right-wing,, conservative Republican.
So the whole "leftist" b.s. was a rotten premise to start the thread on in the first place.
Reagan was the conservative wing of the GOP. He lost to Nixon at the GOP Convention.
Absolutely true.
But then now that we're easily able to poke holes in Reagan's conservative bonafides, now conservatives are saying that even Reagan wasn't a conservative. And of course, looking at his tenure, one can see why many say that.
So again, when are we gonna see the Republican Party nominate a true conservative? Because I wanna see what one looks like.
The Bankers are more than willing to keep the free money coming our government and their cronies print and they are anything but political. Which they call "Quantitative Easing" lol
Sorry, they are apolitical.
It would not matter to them if a LEFT or RIGHT puppet was in power so this has nothing to do with left or right.
Except the government in Argentina has no policies which are remotely like the left in the US, Canada, Australia, the EU, or really any major western country. In short, you either don't know what a leftist in those countries stand for or you are deliberately trying to mischaracterize them.
George W. Bush is following in the footsteps of his predecessors, but may have left more tracks. For starters, invading another country on false pretenses is grounds for impeachment. Also, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution essentially says that the people have the right to be secure against unreasonable government searches and seizures and that no search warrants shall be issued without probable cause that a crime has been committed. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requires that warrants for national security wiretaps be authorized by the secret FISA court. The law says that it is a crime for government officials to conduct electronic surveillance outside the exclusive purviews of that law or the criminal wiretap statute. President Bush’s authorization of the monitoring of Americans’ e-mails and phone calls by the National Security Agency (NSA) without even the minimal protection of FISA court warrants is clearly unconstitutional and illegal. Executive searches without judicial review violate the unique checks and balances that the nation’s founders created in the U.S. government and are a considerable threat to American liberty. Furthermore, surveillance of Americans by the NSA, an intelligence service rather than a law enforcement agency, is a regression to the practices of the Vietnam-era, when intelligence agencies were misused to spy on anti-war protesters—another impeachable violation of peoples’ constitutional rights by LBJ and Nixon.
President Bush defiantly admits initiating such flagrant domestic spying but contends that the Congress implicitly authorized such activities when it approved the use of force against al Qaeda and that such actions fit within his constitutional powers as commander-in-chief. But the founders never intended core principles of the Constitution to be suspended during wartime. In fact, they realized that it was in times of war and crisis that constitutional protections of the people were most at risk of usurpation by politicians, who purport to defend American freedom while actually undermining it.
The Bush administration’s FBI has also expanded its use of national security letters to examine the personal records of tens of thousands of Americans who are not suspected of being involved in terrorism or even illegal acts.
Apparently the president is also taking us back to the Vietnam era by monitoring anti-war protesters. Information on peaceful anti-war demonstrations has apparently found its way into Pentagon databases on possible threats to U.S. security.
Finally, the president’s policies on detainees in the “war on terror” probably qualify as impeachable offenses. The Bush administration decided that the “war on terror” exempted it from an unambiguous criminal law and international conventions (which are also the law of the land) preventing torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners. An American president permitting torture is both disgraceful and ineffective in getting good information from those held. Furthermore, the administration concocted the fictitious category of “enemy combatants” to deprive detainees of the legal protections of either the U.S. courts or “prisoner-of-war” status. The administration then tried to detain these enemy combatants, some of them American citizens, indefinitely without trial, access to counsel, or the right to have courts to review their cases.
All of these actions are part of President Bush’s attempt to expand the power of presidency during wartime—as if the imperial presidency hadn’t been expanded enough by his recent predecessors. President Bush usually gets the Attorney General or the White House Counsel to agree with his usurpation of congressional and judicial powers, but, of course, who in the executive is going to disagree with their boss? According to the Washington Post, the Bush administration describes the president’s war making power under the Constitution as “plenary”—meaning absolute. The founders would roll over in their graves at this interpretation of a document that was actually designed to limit the presidential war power, resulting from their revulsion at the way European monarchs easily took their countries to war and foisted the costs—in blood and treasure—on their people. Conservative Bob Barr, a former Congressman from Georgia who was quoted in the Post, said it best: “The American people are going to have to say, ‘Enough of this business of justifying everything as necessary for the war on terror.’ Either the Constitution and the laws of this country mean something or they don’t. It is truly frightening what is going on in this country.”
Noted.
However, Bush was far from a constitutional conservative, but he had constitutional authority to invade Iraq. Most dummycrats voted for it. In fact, the most leftist dumbicrats started squalking about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" before Bush's 2nd term as Tx. governor.
Getting off the subject a bit, but Nixon was a moderate, middle-of-the-road President. At the time he may have been considered conservative because he followed a liberal period in American politics. He did make cuts in some areas of government and let the income tax surcharge expire. The price freeze and subsequent COWPS program may have been the most intrusive government program he enacted.
Except the government in Argentina has no policies which are remotely like the left in the US, Canada, Australia, the EU, or really any major western country. In short, you either don't know what a leftist in those countries stand for or you are deliberately trying to mischaracterize them.
Why is the American Left ashamed to stand by their international Leftist counterparts?
Quote:
The Justicialist Party (Spanish: Partido Justicialista, IPA: [parˈtiðo xustisjaˈlista]), or PJ, is a Peronist political party in Argentina, and the largest component of the Peronist movement.[4]
The party was led by Néstor Kirchner, President of Argentina from 2003 to 2007,[5] until his death on October 27, 2010. The current Argentine president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, and former presidents Carlos Menem and Eduardo Duhalde are members. Justicialists have, covering nearly the entire period since 1989, been the largest party in the Argentine Congress.
Justicialists currently hold 122 of 257 members in the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, and 43 of 72 seats in the Argentine Senate. These numbers, however, do not reflect the divisions within the party over the role of kirchnerism, the ruling, left-wing faction of the party. Kirchnerists hold 87 and 33 seats in each house, and dissident peronists, 35 and 10 seats.
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.