You mean like how you laud successful people like, oh, the current President of the United States? I know I’ve been real impressed with all the accolades you and the rest of the conservatives have showered him with, despite his being black and a Democrat.
What’s that? At least one of those things precludes him from being lauded despite his obvious success? Which one and why is that?
The Federal government wastes resources on irrelevant trivia like eradicating smallpox. They print banknotes, a service obviously better left to entrepreneurs: consumers should decide whether or not Wells Fargo Dollars trade at a discount to Citibank Dollars without confusion from the corrupt and unconstitutional Federal Reserve Dollars.
I think Farnaby considers himself a moderate (:eek:) and would disagree with Mr. Rod7, who would let individuals choose which police and judges to use, and to select highways which have the private traffic laws that the given individual prefers.
Attempted conscription, overly burdensome taxation of a particular region, attempted nationalization of property. These are some scenarios under which I would support secession. As I said before I don’t support secession, but only the legal acceptance of secession under certain conditions. The threat of secession would be an adequate check on federal power. As it is, the people have no check on federal power.
It appears to me that the Republican strategy in previous elections was to play to its devoted base, which has become more and more radicalized by such influences as the Tea Party. Since the GOP is aware that they can’t win an election with only their true believers who make up about 30-35% of the electorate, they have attempted to expand their base. The results have been mixed at best.
To **adaher **and the other GOP proponents in this debate: What strategy or strategies would you employ to expand the GOP’s base? What has the GOP done well since the last election in terms of attracting voters? What has it done that has alienated potential voters?
That’s their public positioning. Thus my statement, if only they’d be as upfront. I do agree that socialists have less representation than their supporters would warrant. But I also think that most socialists are willing to tolerate deception on the part of the candidates they favor. It’s that little secret between socialists and candidates like Liz Warren.
In other words, according to you, nearly everyone who doesn’t agree with you is a liar, deceiving not only other voters and other candidates, but deceiving themselves. Also, they willfully tolerate and promulgate deception in order to infiltrate the ranks of government representation.
Your post is quite possibly the most delusional thing you’ve yet written. I wouldn’t bet that it will forever be the most delusional thing you’ll post here, tho; you seem to always find a way to be more fallible all the time.
The outlawing of private ownership of industry is most definitely unconstitutional.
And let’s not be simplistic here. The word ‘abortion’ isn’t in the Constitution either. But guess what is there? The 9th amendment. Our rights are not limited to what is in the Constitution. The government’s power is limited, however.
You are not even wrong, socialists parties were ans are not prohibited from being in the ballot, they are also not prohibited from being elected to office.
So they were not and are not outlawed, even so, after having some traction in the past century, nowadays they are at the fringe, and not driving much of the policies (If that was the case then we already would had single payer in the USA)
And then public schools, publicly maintained roads, electrification to rural areas and the majority of NATO member nations could all be considered socialist programs or entities.
Those aren’t socialism. That’s social democracy. Socialism is government control of major industries and it was flirted with in Western nations in the immediate postwar era. Nowadays it’s completely discredited, of course.