Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Botswana, Singapore, Hong Kong, although more libertarian in principle, follow a reasonably conservative economic policy.
Botswana and Singapore.
I rest my case.
Doesn't Botswana lead the world in AIDS infections?
I guess that is why he considers it a Conservative paradise
James K. Polk was one of the faces of extreme American expansion. He started a war based on a false premise in order to acquire territory. The idea of America being an Empire IN THE PAST, isn't too far fetched.
Well if we are going to use that as an example then every nation back in those days were bent on being an "empire".
Historians have emphasized that "Manifest Destiny" was a contested concept--many prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and most Whigs and Republicans) rejected it.
The Whigs primarily rejected it because it would have likely meant the expansion of slavery to new states (such as the former territories of Mexico), and they would lose their influence in the Senate.
However, the U.S was specifically referred to as an empire bent on expanding its territory, by Jefferson, Jackson, and Polk.
Of course. This is why none of these "conservatives" can point out a single country that is being successfully run with policies that they consider "conservative worthy". They live in a fantasy world. That much is plain to see.
Funny the far left can not point to a country that is prospering under far left rule, yet want others to something they can not do themselves. Typical far left.
Of course I can. Pick any of the Scandinavian countries for starters.
List of the most prosperous countries. Which of these are conservative nations?
http://www.prosperity.com/#!/?aspxerrorpath=%2Fmedia.aspx
1. Norway
2. Switzerland
3. Canada
4. Sweden
5. New Zealand
6. Denmark
7. Australia
8. Finland
9. Netherlands
10. Luxembourg
Quick, break out the canned talking points!
Proud, probably. But he has abso-fucking-lutely no idea what living in a real socialist country is like. He's just been taught to be afraid of anything socialist.
So I suggest he avoid national parks, crossing the Hoover Dam and entering public libraries.
Of course. This is why none of these "conservatives" can point out a single country that is being successfully run with policies that they consider "conservative worthy". They live in a fantasy world. That much is plain to see.
Botswana, Singapore, Hong Kong, although more libertarian in principle, follow a reasonably conservative economic policy.
Well if we are going to use that as an example then every nation back in those days were bent on being an "empire".
Historians have emphasized that "Manifest Destiny" was a contested concept--many prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and most Whigs and Republicans) rejected it.
The Whigs primarily rejected it because it would have likely meant the expansion of slavery to new states (such as the former territories of Mexico), and they would lose their influence in the Senate.
However, the U.S was specifically referred to as an empire bent on expanding its territory, by Jefferson, Jackson, and Polk.
Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy.
So the word "empire" in those days must have had different meaning than the one that is being used today as the US was not an "empire" in any stance of the definition.
Unless you believe that the US as well as many other nations are ruled by oligarchy.
Botswana and Singapore.
I rest my case.
Doesn't Botswana lead the world in AIDS infections?
I guess that is why he considers it a Conservative paradise
Although still lagging behind in comparison to the most of the world, Bostwana has shown economic growth that has not been replicated by the rest of the countries in Africa, due to the free market principles that it has implemented. Despite starting out as the very worst country, it has the highest GDP growth per year of any African country.
Where in the Constitution does it mandate how much must be spent on defense?
More proof that the far left does not understand the Constitution.
Oh goody, another expert on the Constitution of the United States. Tell us oh wise one, where in the Constitution did it authorize the Federal Government to provide the Salk Vaccine to the citizens of the United States? Do you believe the Eisenhower Administration was acting illegally in doing so? Would you prefer the parents of afflicted children purchase an Iron Lung to keep their child alive instead?
Haha, loaded questions. You mean you don't answer questions that your handlers haven't given you a response to fire back with.
Maybe the next time you call in to Rush you can ask him how to best respond.
Then show where it is the responsibility of the government to run healthcare and how much of the budget all the social programs should take via the Constition?
It doesn't say that explicitly, just like it doesn't say how much we should be spending on defense. Which is the whole point that you refused to acknowledge.
Just because the Constitution allows for spending on defense it doesn't mandate a minimum spend level. Hence, we can certainly reduce the tremendous defense spending we currently engage in.
Get it yet?
The most prosperous countries in the world today are built on predominantly liberal policies. Conservative policies get you countries like Iran and Pakistan. You must be proud.
Spot on!
Botswana, Hong Kong, and Singapore beg a differ.
Notice how the far left will deny that far left policies have bankrupted most of the worlds countries and it took conservative policies to bring them from the brink of collapse.
Well if we are going to use that as an example then every nation back in those days were bent on being an "empire".
Historians have emphasized that "Manifest Destiny" was a contested concept--many prominent Americans (such as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, and most Whigs and Republicans) rejected it.
The Whigs primarily rejected it because it would have likely meant the expansion of slavery to new states (such as the former territories of Mexico), and they would lose their influence in the Senate.
However, the U.S was specifically referred to as an empire bent on expanding its territory, by Jefferson, Jackson, and Polk.
Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy.
So the word "empire" in those days must have had different meaning than the one that is being used today as the US was not an "empire" in any stance of the definition.
Unless you believe that the US as well as many other nations are ruled by oligarchy.
Notice how the far left will deny that far left policies have bankrupted most of the worlds countries and it took conservative policies to bring them from the brink of collapse.
You do understand that your sob story is not the responsibility of the federal government, don't you [MENTION=13805]Againsheila[/MENTION]? It's the parents of those "1 in 100 born with autism" that are responsible.
Furthermore, it is absolutely despicable that you feign interest in these people in need. I mean, if you actually cared an ounce, you would pick up the bill for them yourself. Not demand that the federal government hold a gun to my head and make me do it for you.
I have a low functioning autistic son that is now being cared for by the state. I guess that makes me a terrible person, I know some on here think that makes me a welfare queen. You try and care for a 25 year old 220 pound 6 foot tall man that is stronger than you and has temper tantrums like a 2 years old and then tell me how I need to be taking care of him instead of the state. Your way, I'd be dead and the state would still be taking care of him. We've discussed this before and the only option that would satisfy people like you is if I commit murder (my son) and then suicide. Trust me, that isn't gonna happen, sorry you got stuck with the bill. Just remember, it's only a matter of luck that you didn't have a special needs child. (Lucky for the kids, that is)
Again [MENTION=13805]Againsheila[/MENTION], your sob story is not the responsibility of the state. Furthermore, just because he's too big for you somehow means that you can't pay for the help you need to provide the proper care for your own son? You wanted to have children, you foot the bill sweetie. He's not our responsibility.
By the way - God forbid you take your parenting responsibility serious enough to start seriously lifting weights so that you can be strong enough to do what you need to do. Nope! Easier to sit on the couch and demand that strangers who did not bring him into the world be forced to care for him.
Again [MENTION=13805]Againsheila[/MENTION], your sob story is not the responsibility of the state. Furthermore, just because he's too big for you somehow means that you can't pay for the help you need to provide the proper care for your own son? You wanted to have children, you foot the bill sweetie. He's not our responsibility.
By the way - God forbid you take your parenting responsibility serious enough to start seriously lifting weights so that you can be strong enough to do what you need to do. Nope! Easier to sit on the couch and demand that strangers who did not bring him into the world be forced to care for him.
I think you must be one of the biggest Richard Craniums I've ever encountered.
I hope you don't profess "Christian Values".
Isn't it remarkable how Seawytch tries to pervert the Bible (like she does the Constitution) so she can avoid all personal responsibility in her life.
I'm sorry SW, I just can't seem to recall the part where Jesus said to use him to avoid personal responsibility.
I have a low functioning autistic son that is now being cared for by the state. I guess that makes me a terrible person, I know some on here think that makes me a welfare queen. You try and care for a 25 year old 220 pound 6 foot tall man that is stronger than you and has temper tantrums like a 2 years old and then tell me how I need to be taking care of him instead of the state. Your way, I'd be dead and the state would still be taking care of him. We've discussed this before and the only option that would satisfy people like you is if I commit murder (my son) and then suicide. Trust me, that isn't gonna happen, sorry you got stuck with the bill. Just remember, it's only a matter of luck that you didn't have a special needs child. (Lucky for the kids, that is)
Again [MENTION=13805]Againsheila[/MENTION], your sob story is not the responsibility of the state. Furthermore, just because he's too big for you somehow means that you can't pay for the help you need to provide the proper care for your own son? You wanted to have children, you foot the bill sweetie. He's not our responsibility.
By the way - God forbid you take your parenting responsibility serious enough to start seriously lifting weights so that you can be strong enough to do what you need to do. Nope! Easier to sit on the couch and demand that strangers who did not bring him into the world be forced to care for him.
Here we go again. The only thing that will make you happy is if I kill my son and then myself. Like I said before, it ain't gonna happen.
BTW, all the weight lifting in the world is not going to make my ribs or heart stronger. The radiation from the cancer killed that. Yeah, I know, not your fault, not your fault my husband has Parkinson's either. Have to wonder if you have ever had kids or anyone you love who's had "problems". In your would people like my family wouldn't exist.
Not sure what the point of this thread is. I've never served and I don't get any kind of government assistance. I also give to charity.
Dunno what else to say I guess.
The point of the thread is that asshole Dumbocrats expect 18 year olds to have their heads blown off for the survival of the United States, but they are not willing to give up entitlements for the survival of the United States.
In other words, while they expect others to make sacrifices on their behalf, they are not willing to make any themselves. This has liberals really pissed off because there is no intelligent response to dispute a statement that is correct.
Not sure what the point of this thread is. I've never served and I don't get any kind of government assistance. I also give to charity.
Dunno what else to say I guess.
The point of the thread is that asshole Dumbocrats expect 18 year olds to have their heads blown off for the survival of the United States, but they are not willing to give up entitlements for the survival of the United States.
In other words, while they expect others to make sacrifices on their behalf, they are not willing to make any themselves. This has liberals really pissed off because there is no intelligent response to dispute a statement that is correct.
We spend 19% of our national budget on our most critical need and our #1 Constitutional responsibility. We spend 62% of our federal budget ensuring that the poor remain poor so that Dumbocrats like Nancy Pelosi can remain in power and worth millions. What is wrong with this picture?
It's time we cut at minimum of 50% from entitlements. Those parasites need to lose 50% of their gravy train (food stamps, housing, healthcare). It's the least sacrifice they can make for America. Learn to live on less or learn to get up off of your ass and earn a living for yourself. Either one.
Charts on Federal Entitlement Spending as a Percentage of US Budget
If it were so simple I would agree. Thees days a strong back and a good word isn't enough to make a living.
Sure it is. I know more than a couple of millionaires who have done it.
You know the government could try fewer regulations to help the poor. I took in a big pot of soup to the church yesterday. The church gives out sack lunches every Mon-Thurs to those in need. My friend, my oldest son and I work on Mondays. The soup was a hit but I was told not to do it again because I made it at home and my kitchen isn't certified. It's not like a was selling the soup. I was giving away hot soup on a cold day to people in need and according to the government, that's a no-no.
