So you love socialism ?????

[alpine]

Moderation in all things. Not too much capitalism, not too much socialism, and plenty of common sense, which the US, and you especially, lack...

The perfect answer....

 

[BULLDOG]

How many of them are from Sweden?

It says in the link.

No it doesn't. Read your own damn link.

Only 1% want to move to Sweden and 23% want to come to America.
If it is so great why does only 1% want to move there?

Sweden is doing just fine.
View attachment 63300View attachment 63301

Sweden is a capitalist country. See all those products on the shelves? They were produced by private companies and corporations. The store itself is owned by a private corporation. The government takes no part in the business of supplying the population with food.

You were saying?

So you'tr saying the proper blend of capitalist and socialist programs is a good thing? I agree. We just went too far to the capitalist side, and need to move the other way some.

Nope. I'm saying any blending with socialism is a bad thing. The more socialism you blend in, the worse off you are. Venezuela drank the whole bottle of poison, Sweden only drank a quarter of it.

Make up your mind. In #66 you said Sweden was a capitalist country.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

liberals then are the complete opposite of the kind of liberals we have now. The liberals then believed in free enterprise. Liberals now are all communists.

Your dogma is utterly boring. I am a liberal capitalist. Capitalists know that capitalism is not the answer to every question. As a liberal I also know the same is true of government.

Like most children, you lack anything like a reasonable approach to the world.

 

[bripat9643]

It says in the link.

No it doesn't. Read your own damn link.

Only 1% want to move to Sweden and 23% want to come to America.
If it is so great why does only 1% want to move there?

Sweden is doing just fine.
View attachment 63300View attachment 63301

Sweden is a capitalist country. See all those products on the shelves? They were produced by private companies and corporations. The store itself is owned by a private corporation. The government takes no part in the business of supplying the population with food.

You were saying?

So you'tr saying the proper blend of capitalist and socialist programs is a good thing? I agree. We just went too far to the capitalist side, and need to move the other way some.

Nope. I'm saying any blending with socialism is a bad thing. The more socialism you blend in, the worse off you are. Venezuela drank the whole bottle of poison, Sweden only drank a quarter of it.

Moderation in all things. Not too much capitalism, not too much socialism, and plenty of common sense, which the US, and you especially, lack...

Why is moderation always good? Is moderate health better than perfect health? Is moderate intelligence better than genius intelligence? Is moderately toxin free food better than completely toxin free food?

The "moderation in all things" mantra is obvious horseshit.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

6. “As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” — George Washington

an excellent reference, and one that I honestly could not agree with more. Im surprised you brought it up.
"More apt to allow that all THOSE WHO CONDUCT THEMSELVES AS WORTHY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY are egually entitled to the protections of civil government.

Worthy members of the community.
I dont think this includes the lazy welfare leach. I would think that by worthy members of society he meant those that contributed, were a value, had worth.

Thanks for finally agreeing with us.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Very likely, the opposed concentrated power and wealth getting its way with no group able to stop them however they believed in government, it's why the founded one eh?

What they did not establish, anarchy, unregulated capitalism, or a nation for selfish children who think only of their own welfare...

Actually, they did establish unregulated capitalism. What kind of regulations on business did the federal government enforce in 1800?

Doesn't matter if they didn't have a one, they established, in the Constitution itself, the ability to regulate economic activity. That wasn't by accident.

They regulated only buying and selling of goods across state lines, not the manufacture or production of goods.

It doesn't matter a damn what they did, in the final analysis. They did what worked for them, and expected us to do the same.

Meaningless twaddle.

LOL. Sure thing, my little infant.

 

[bripat9643]

liberals then are the complete opposite of the kind of liberals we have now. The liberals then believed in free enterprise. Liberals now are all communists.

Your dogma is utterly boring. I am a liberal capitalist. Capitalists know that capitalism is not the answer to every question. As a liberal I also know the same is true of government.

Like most children, you lack anything like a reasonable approach to the world.

No one ever said capitalism is the answer to every question. It is, however, the answer to the question "what is the best way to produce goods and services for the populace?"

These days a liberal is indistinguishable from a communist.

 

[BULLDOG]

Sweden doing fine while Venezuela is failing is just one more bit of evidence at the superiority of an all White society over a Hispanic society.
the problem with the U.S is that the left is so afraid of minorities, they do anything they can to appease them.
Our version of socialism is going to match that of Venezuela, not Sweden.

No, the difference is that Sweden went only so far down the road to socialism and then retreated. It didn't expropriate private property or major industries or try to control prices. Venezuela did.

Good, so you are pro welfare state, which Sweden is.
This will resonance good with your crowd I bet...

No, I'm anti welfare state. However, a welfare state is far superior to the pure socialist model that Venezuela is trying to follow.

Nobody is wanting to emulate Venezuela

Then why are we doing the same type of social programs?

Social programs are not the biggest problem Venezuela has.

 

[peach174]

6. “As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” — George Washington

Your point?

Government, and liberals, are not the enemy, then or now.

The new breed that popped up in the 60's is.

 

[BULLDOG]

liberals then are the complete opposite of the kind of liberals we have now. The liberals then believed in free enterprise. Liberals now are all communists.

Your dogma is utterly boring. I am a liberal capitalist. Capitalists know that capitalism is not the answer to every question. As a liberal I also know the same is true of government.

Like most children, you lack anything like a reasonable approach to the world.

No one ever said capitalism is the answer to every question. It is, however, the answer to the question "what is the best way to produce goods and services for the populace?"

These days a liberal is indistinguishable from a communist.

You're still babbling.

 

[BULLDOG]

6. “As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” — George Washington

Your point?

Government, and liberals, are not the enemy, then or now.

The new breed that popped up in the 60's is.

You tell em Archie.

 

[bripat9643]

No, actually they didn't. That's a lie that FDR managed to foist on the public. He extorted the Supreme Court into interpreting the Constitution the way he wanted it interpreted.

But you pretty much just admitted that we had unregulated capitalism until 1933.

In 1824 the Supreme Court strengthened the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce with its decision in Gibbons v. Ogden, which involved the authority to license shipping. Steamboat operator Thomas Gibbons had secured only a federal license to run his business in New York State waters, which were controlled by a monopoly created through a state licensing system. A member of this monopoly, Aaron Ogden tried to shut down Gibbons's business by suing him for failing to have the proper New York State licenses. The Court ruled in favor of Gibbons and declared that commerce involved not only buying and selling but also transportation and navigation. By giving Congress the sole authority to regulate interstate transportation, this decision cleared the way for the United States to create a national transportation system that has continued to benefit business.

No it didn't. It also stated unequivocally that commerce consisted of trade, not of producing food or manufacturing.

And when you sell that food, or manufactured goods, that is trade. You need to stick your head back in the freezer. It's overheating again.

So the government can control how you sell it. It can't control how you make it or determine what is allowed to be made.

Right. They can make it any way they want, but if they want to sell it to the public, it has to meet certain standards.

Nope.The constitution doesn't mention a thing about "selling to the public." That's leftwing horseshit.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why is moderation always good?

Did I say it was "always good"? Nope.

And in something like healthcare there is an obvious approach, that other nations more reasonable than the US use. A universal single-payer system, public health is important, to capitalism no less, and private system that you can buy what you like. Your kids' shots are covered, the face-lift is on your dime, not ours.

 

[bripat9643]

http://theunsolicitedopinion.com/Bill/August 2nd Handout - 3.pdf​

What is the Original Intent!and True Meaning of the “Commerce!Clause”?

Consider the following parts of the “ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT” by Judge Roger Vinson, of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, PENSACOLA DIVISION, in Case No.: 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT – Jan. 31, 2011.

[We encourage you to read the entire opinion and the referenced documents cited therein.]

Judge Vinsonʼs Analysis starts on page 19 and continues through page 37 of 78 in his Order. …

“The Commerce Clause is a mere sixteen words long, and it provides that Congress shall have the power:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. U.S. Const. art I, § 8, cl. 3. …

There is considerable historical evidence that in the early years of the Union, the word “commerce” was understood to encompass trade, and the intercourse, traffic, or exchange of goods; in short, “the activities of buying and selling that come after production and before the goods come to rest.” …

In a frequently cited law review article, one Constitutional scholar has painstakingly tallied each appearance of the word “commerce” in Madisonʼs notes on the Constitutional Convention and in The Federalist [Papers], and discovered that in none of the ninety-seven appearances of that term is it ever used to refer unambiguously to activity beyond trade or exchange. … (further examining each and every use of the word that appeared in the state ratification convention reports and finding “the term was uniformly used to refer to trade or exchange”). Even a Constitutional scholar who has argued for an expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause (and, in fact, has been cited to, and relied on, by the defendants in this case) has acknowledged that when the Constitution was drafted and ratified, commerce “was the practical equivalent of the word ʻtrade.ʼ” See Robert L. Stern, That Commerce Which Concerns More States than One, 47 Harv. L. Rev. 1335, 1346 (1934) (“Stern”).

The Supreme Courtʼs first description of commerce (and still the most widely accepted) is from Gibbons v. Ogden, [22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824)], which involved a New York law that sought to limit the navigable waters within the jurisdiction of that state. In holding that “commerce” comprehended navigation, and thus it fell within the reach of the Commerce Clause, Chief Justice Marshall explained that “Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse.” 22 U.S. at 72. This definition is consistent with accepted dictionary definitions of the Foundersʼ time. See 1 Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 1773) (commerce defined as “Intercourse; exchange of one thing for another; interchange of any thing; trade; traffick”). And it remained a good definition of the Supreme Courtʼs Commerce Clause interpretation throughout the Nineteenth Century. See, e.g., Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. 1, 20- 21, 9 S. Ct. 6, 32 L. Ed. 346 (1888) (“The legal definition of the term [commerce] . . . consists in intercourse and traffic, including in these terms navigation and the transportation and transit of persons and property, as well as the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities”).

As Alexander Hamilton intimated in The Federalist, however, it did not at that time encompass manufacturing or agriculture. See The Federalist [Papers] No. 34, at 212-13 (noting that the “encouragement of agriculture and manufactures” was to remain an object of state expenditure).This interpretation of commerce as being primarily concerned with the commercial intercourse associated with the trade or exchange of goods and commodities is consistent with the original purpose of the Commerce Clause (discussed immediately below), which is entitled to “great influence in [its] construction.” See Gibbons, supra, at 188-89 11 [Note; the original “foot note 11” is presented in full at the end of this paper and is incorporated herein by reference.]

There is no doubt historically that the primary purpose behind the Commerce Clause was to give Congress power to regulate commerce so that it could eliminate the trade restrictions and barriers by and between the states that had existed under the Articles of Confederation. Such obstructions to commerce were destructive to the Union and believed to be precursors to war.​

So?

Commerce does not include forcing automobile companies to install airbags in their cars or housing developers how many electrical outlets they have to put in a room.

Yes it does.

Wrong.

"As Alexander Hamilton intimated in The Federalist, however, it did not at that time encompass manufacturing or agriculture. See The Federalist [Papers] No. 34, at 212-13 (noting that the “encouragement of agriculture and manufactures” was to remain an object of state expenditure).This interpretation of commerce as being primarily concerned with the commercial intercourse associated with the trade or exchange of goods and commodities is consistent with the original purpose of the Commerce Clause (discussed immediately below), which is entitled to “great influence in [its] construction.” See Gibbons, supra, at 188-89 11 [Note; the original “foot note 11” is presented in full at the end of this paper and is incorporated herein by reference.]"​

That's cute. You think the federalist papers are the same as the constitution.

No, I think you're an idiot.

 

[bripat9643]

Why is moderation always good?

Did I say it was "always good"? Nope.

And in something like healthcare there is an obvious approach, that other nations more reasonable than the US use. A universal single-payer system, public health is important, to capitalism no less, and private system that you can buy what you like. Your kids' shots are covered, the face-lift is on your dime, not ours.

So you admit your quote was bullshit?

Your opinion of various healthcare systems isn't being discussed here.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

6. “As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” — George Washington

an excellent reference, and one that I honestly could not agree with more. Im surprised you brought it up.
"More apt to allow that all THOSE WHO CONDUCT THEMSELVES AS WORTHY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY are egually entitled to the protections of civil government.

Worthy members of the community.
I dont think this includes the lazy welfare leach. I would think that by worthy members of society he meant those that contributed, were a value, had worth.

Thanks for finally agreeing with us.

Just one problem, your kind would be found "unworthy". You hate the government, and don't want to pay up for it. You also are liberals, in a nation founded by and for liberals.

 

[alpine]

No, the difference is that Sweden went only so far down the road to socialism and then retreated. It didn't expropriate private property or major industries or try to control prices. Venezuela did.

Good, so you are pro welfare state, which Sweden is.
This will resonance good with your crowd I bet...

No, I'm anti welfare state. However, a welfare state is far superior to the pure socialist model that Venezuela is trying to follow.

Nobody is wanting to emulate Venezuela

Then why are we doing the same type of social programs?

Social programs are not the biggest problem Venezuela has.

Social programs are a result of the problem Venezuela has, which is; GREED and LACK OF COMMON SENSE

The rich in Venezuela pushed the poor people aside and started leaching off of countries riches

As a result, poor have brought an extreme socialist into power that would widen the social programs in an extent that they cant be supported anymore

This is EFFECT and RESULT

Should be a good lesson for the Wall St Capitalists who are trying to do the same, leaching off of hard working Americans.......

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why is moderation always good?

Did I say it was "always good"? Nope.

And in something like healthcare there is an obvious approach, that other nations more reasonable than the US use. A universal single-payer system, public health is important, to capitalism no less, and private system that you can buy what you like. Your kids' shots are covered, the face-lift is on your dime, not ours.

So you admit your quote was bullshit?

Nope, moderation in all things. And you brought up health care. I used it as an example of where moderation is the answer.

 

[bripat9643]

All you're saying is that you don't give a crap about what the Constitution says.

The type of "conclusion" that only an IDIOT would make....and, sure enough...bripat wants to claim the coveted label of being one of this forum's idiots.

That's exactly what he said. He doesn't care of the Constitution doesn't permit the federal government to regulate farming or manufacturing. He wants the government to do it anyway.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

6. “As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” — George Washington

an excellent reference, and one that I honestly could not agree with more. Im surprised you brought it up.
"More apt to allow that all THOSE WHO CONDUCT THEMSELVES AS WORTHY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY are egually entitled to the protections of civil government.

Worthy members of the community.
I dont think this includes the lazy welfare leach. I would think that by worthy members of society he meant those that contributed, were a value, had worth.

Thanks for finally agreeing with us.

Just one problem, your kind would be found "unworthy". You hate the government, and don't want to pay up for it.

you might just want to go wait for your government check instead of trying to argue with those that have to support you. (like a damn pet)