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.
Instead of government securing inherent rights to own, etc, you get a government abolishing inherent rights to own... as in TAKING from one to GIVE to another.
Remember that little thing called the fifth amendment wherein it says that government cannot take PRIVATE PROPERTY without paying just compensation.
Since 1933, government has been taking property (wages, etc) and giving them to another without paying just compensation.
War and Emergency Powers Acts
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."
FREEDOMS ... GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION ... HAVE BEEN ABRIDGED BY LAWS ... UNDER EMERGENCY RULE ...
Constitutional U.S.A. (1789 - 1933) R.I.P.
<< You're currently living under the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America. * No constitutional money * No endowed rights * No private property * No republican form of government * by your consent * >>
That's what I thought. So that means the GOP is running on ending public education, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, farm subsidies, public roads, the military and every other government program.
The positive is they must now oppose building the wall because they will no longer support eminent domain, nor the money taken to build the wall itself.
Splitting the country would allow that much easier.
I think it would work. You get what you PAY for. It's fair to everyone.
No, you don't think it would work, you just like to post here and pretend you do.
325 million people with 325 million ideas of what we should or should not pay for. Some say 'dinosaurs" some say "healthcare" in the end we go with the general vibe... Your idea is centered on YOU getting what YOU need to hell with the nation , the future and humankind.
and guess what when asked Americans say "no, I don't want that". it is you and 3 guys in france who want anarchy
No, you don't think it would work, you just like to post here and pretend you do.
325 million people with 325 million ideas of what we should or should not pay for. Some say 'dinosaurs" some say "healthcare" in the end we go with the general vibe... Your idea is centered on YOU getting what YOU need to hell with the nation , the future and humankind.
and guess what when asked Americans say "no, I don't want that". it is you and 3 guys in france who want anarchy
Your idea is centered on YOU getting what YOU need to hell with the nation, the future and humankind.
You see that works both ways.
It's more than social welfare programs. We didn't vote for tariffs. We didn't vote to turn our military into paid mercenaries. We didn't vote to turn allies into enemies. We didn't vote to pay farmers "tariff relief". We do not agree on anything. Let red states go be free to destroy their environment, toll every road, end public schools, and every other social program. Stop forcing people together that hate each other. Let the country split with national defense being the ONLY shared cost.
Yes, that's an excellent way to end your comment. We can split, and I might even miss you a little bit
Who really is behind wanting civil war and civil discourse and a divided USA? Certainly not Americans. C'mon. It is destructive to just talk about this. Be a part of the solution and not the problem.
We are Americans. We can solve this if we want to. We can rise above this if we want to.
Can’t we just split the country into blue states and red states? Trump has proven beyond a doubt that the red states and blue states can't work together, so why don't we stop pretending we can and just split the country?
You'd think that would work but in reality there is no such thing as a state/country where everybody's politics is the same. The right wingers would go to their country and continue to argue and fight over just how "right wing" things should be, and the same would happen in the left-wing liberal country. It would be an exercise in futility attempting to balkanize the country along political ideological lines.
We tried that back in Civil War times. Things didn't go well. Want to try again?
Actually no, we didn't try it. The Confederacy attempted to and was quickly attacked and destroyed.
Did the "good guys" win? Eh, that's debatable. Slavery existed north of the Mason Dixson line too. It would be more accurate to say the less powerful entity was subdued and subjected to the whims of the more powerful one, and the rest is history that the victor wrote.
That was not done by agreement. Do you think maybe -- just maybe -- it might be different if both sides agreed to the break-up?
I think we've reached the point where the divorce would be quite amicable. Both sides detest each other and that is not going to change. It is only going to get worse. Best to split while discussion can still take place.
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.