So you love socialism ?????

[nat4900]

View attachment 63312

Glad you get ALL you need to know from a site that flaunts the following mantra....

.........Politically active, Bible believing, Jesus only Christians standing against the godless and anti-American Progressive Liberals.


BTW, moron.....religion is probably the MOST socialistic of institutions.

Nah. The Democrat Party is.

That Facebook site smacks a lot of KKK propaganda.....Go on, go light a few crosses on your neighbors; front yards......you'll feel more in tune with that site.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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.

 

[BULLDOG]

Help for you, again:

"The U.S. Constitution of 1789 gave the federal government authority to tax, stating that Congress has the power to "... lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." and also "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Tariffs between states is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, and all domestically made products can be imported or shipped to another state tax-free."
Tariffs in United States history - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What sort of taxes wouldn't interfere with trade?

Income taxes...

 

[nat4900]

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.

Try wearing turtle necks to better hide that emerging redneck of yours.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It does now, and for good reasons, generally. Governments regulating capitalism isn't a new thing. It's the cost of doing business here. You use our courts, our roads, our schools to train up your workers, you follow our regulations.

The reasons are all bad. The worst one being that it violates the Constitution. All you're saying is that you don't give a crap about what the Constitution says.

 

[bripat9643]

[

What sort of taxes wouldn't interfere with trade?

Income taxes...

They weren't allowed then. And furthermore they do interfere with trade.

 

[alpine]

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

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...

 

[bripat9643]

If they are doing so fine, why do some want to move?
150 Million Adults Worldwide Would Migrate to the U.S.

150 million want to move to America from their social and communist countries.
Why are we moving towards it?

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?

What conservative socialism free country do you RWnuts want to move to?

They've all swirled down the socialist toilet bowl.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

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.

Why on't you take a nap? You're just babbling now.

 

[peach174]

Corruption is an intrinsic feature of socialism. Liberals are so smart that they cling to their imbecile belief in socialism despite being shown example after example where it failed.

Always up there in the "moron-quotient", right bripat?

So, if corruption is an "intrinsic part of socialism"....does it follow that corruption does NOT exist in a capitalistic system?

NO ONE on the left wants to emulate Venezuela....and you idiots keep on bringing up Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba and Somalia as the "paragons" of socialism....which make you.......well, .........idiots.

If we keep going the way we are we will be like them.

We are doing the exact same government programs that they have.
Housing for low income, free medical, free education, higher pensions, food security - why is it called socialism there and not here?
We bring those countries up because they are giving out huge amounts of government social programs.
Socialism was the 1st to implement these Gov. programs.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Yes, and they did it wrong. I'm not sure anyone is disagreeing on that point eh?

As for Sweden, their mixed economy would be a living hell to someone like you. They actually care for their citizens and offer them services.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

Try wearing turtle necks to better hide that emerging redneck of yours.

when the traitors in this country start hiding the old obama and new sanders stickers on their cars, then I might worry about the delightful crimson hue that my neck takes on.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If we keep going the way we are we will be like them.

Not a chance. We will never be as good as Sweden, or as bad a Cuba.

 

[nat4900]

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.

Well, thank you bripat.........You're finally agreeing with us that we NEVER want to emulate Venezuela and we'd rather emulate Sweden.....Took a while but you're finally getting it. Congrats !!!

 

[peach174]

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.

Yes, and they did it wrong. I'm not sure anyone is disagreeing on that point eh?

As for Sweden, their mixed economy would be a living hell to someone like you. They actually care for their citizens and offer them services.

So do we.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Yes, and they did it wrong. I'm not sure anyone is disagreeing on that point eh?

As for Sweden, their mixed economy would be a living hell to someone like you. They actually care for their citizens and offer them services.

That's like saying someone who drank gasoline got sick because he did it wrong. There is no right way to do it. The more you drink, the sicker you get.

Sweden was turning into a living hell for the Swedes. That's why they retreated from socialism, reduced their welfare programs and cut their taxes.

 

[peach174]

If we keep going the way we are we will be like them.

Not a chance. We will never be as good as Sweden, or as bad a Cuba.

I was talking about Venezuela.

 

[the_human_being]

View attachment 63312

Glad you get ALL you need to know from a site that flaunts the following mantra....

.........Politically active, Bible believing, Jesus only Christians standing against the godless and anti-American Progressive Liberals.


BTW, moron.....religion is probably the MOST socialistic of institutions.

Nah. The Democrat Party is.

That Facebook site smacks a lot of KKK propaganda.....Go on, go light a few crosses on your neighbors; front yards......you'll feel more in tune with that site.

KKK? I'm not a Democrat. I'm civilized. I'm a Seminole.