The liberal march towards EXTREME fascism

[P@triot]

You support the Anchor baby

Uh....no I don’t. That is yet another egregious lie by you.

 

[regent]

Yeah, since the first conservative party violated the First Amendment, and it was the end of that party; the current conservative party are probably a more careful...

Now if we could only get the left to actually respect the 1st Amendment and the U.S. Constitution.

Yeah, since the first conservative party violated the First Amendment, and it was the end of that party; the current conservative party are probably a more careful...

Now if we could only get the left to actually respect the 1st Amendment and the U.S. Constitution.

The left was responsible for the First Amendment being added to the Constitution and much of its maintenance since.

I love the way you retards pretend you have something in common with the Founding Fathers.

It was a liberal age that changed the course of history and made America a liberal nation.

 

[P@triot]

You don't support the Law that says that those who hire Illegals should be classified as criminals.

Uh...yes I do. Yet another egregious lie by you. Your credibility is complete shot.

 

[P@triot]

It was a liberal age that changed the course of history and made America a liberal nation.

Yes - before the left hijacked the term “liberal” in an attempt to mask their fascism.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

As fascism conserves all power to the central authority, it is the antithesis of 'liberal'.

What do you think modern day liberalism is in the U.S., snowflake? Does the left fight to prevent power to the federal government or consolidate all power not only to the federal government, and not only to one branch in that federal government (the executive), but to ONE man in that branch (the president).

Go ahead....lie all you want and deny it. You know it. I know it. The entire world knows it. The left is committed to collectivism, centralized control, and totalitarianism. That’s just an indisputable fact.

Democrats, and Republicans both support, or go against Liberty at similar proportions.

When it comes to things like illegal drugs, , or abortion Republicans go against Liberty more.

When it comes to things like Gun rights, or Hiring freedom Democrats go against Liberty more.

While National Healthcare might be considered going against Liberty, so could supporting a massive military Industrial Complex.

Please, do explain, otherwise?

 

[P@triot]

I don't think the Founding Fathers would've tolerated a 10 million + illegals storming their country, and abusing it.

They wouldn’t have. Which is more proof that progressivism (the idiotic shit YOU support) is a cancer to society.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

It was a liberal age that changed the course of history and made America a liberal nation.

Yes - before the left hijacked the term “liberal” in an attempt to mask their fascism.

The Liberals both Democrats, and Republicans have hijacked Fascism completely.

Most Americans think Fascism is the most evil, which is not true.,,, Capitalism, and Communism both killed far more.

Most Americans think Capitalism achieves the best economic growth... Fascism does, proven by Franco's Spanish Miracle, or Hitler's economic turn around in the Great Depression.

The Liberals of America have kicked, and screamed about Fascism, to make us, weak, and impotent as a country.... So we'd be dominated into submission,.

That's why we should be Fascist.

 

[P@triot]

While National Healthcare might be considered going against Liberty, so could supporting a massive military Industrial Complex.

Please, do explain, otherwise?

Easy...defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Healthcare is not.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

I don't think the Founding Fathers would've tolerated a 10 million + illegals storming their country, and abusing it.

They wouldn’t have. Which is more proof that progressivism (the idiotic shit YOU support) is a cancer to society.

Explain?

If you go to the #2 largest Guatemalan neighborhood by percentages in the morning. (Brewster, NY)

You'll see a spot where about 30 or so Guatemalan illegal immigrants wait to be picked up by Capitalist contractors.

Of course that's only a small fraction of them.

The truth is that many of them are beyond Day laborers, they work as Cooks, Dishwashers, Landscapers, in Construction etc. to benefit Capitalists need for cheap labor greed.

Explain otherwise?

Progressivism has only a minor role to play in this particular problem.

The Communists had great border controls... and were virtually devoid of immigrants.

Russia today has an illegal immigrant issue nearly as big as the U.S.A, now that Russia is Capitalist.... This illegal immigration issue did not exist in Soviet Russia during Communism.

The problem is largely IDIOTS like YOU.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

While National Healthcare might be considered going against Liberty, so could supporting a massive military Industrial Complex.

Please, do explain, otherwise?

Easy...defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Healthcare is not.

The U.S.A spent in recent years approx 48% of the entire World's military budgets.

Explain how this is what the Founding Fathers wanted?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

You support the Anchor baby

Uh....no I don’t. That is yet another egregious lie by you.

You said you supported the 14th Amendment earlier.... This is essentially the Anchor Baby amendment which says any illegal who has a baby in the U.S has birthed a U.S citizen.

Explain

Explain how you're not a Liberal, exactly?

 

[P@triot]

I don't think the Founding Fathers would've tolerated a 10 million + illegals storming their country, and abusing it.

They wouldn’t have. Which is more proof that progressivism (the idiotic shit YOU support) is a cancer to society.

Explain?

What needs to be “explained”? The Dumbocrats have prevented border security, publicly encouraged aliens to come into the U.S. illegally, provided them with unlimited benefits, and set up sanctuary cities.

It’s the left that has created the problem. My side of the aisle has cracked down BIG TIME - going so far as to elect Donald Trump. It has had instant results. Illegal aliens have actually been “self-deporting” to Canada out of fear.

 

[P@triot]

You support the Anchor baby

Uh....no I don’t. That is yet another egregious lie by you.

You said you supported the 14th Amendment earlier.... This is essentially the Anchor Baby amendment which says any illegal who has a baby in the U.S has birthed a U.S citizen.

That’s not what the 14th Amendment says at all. It was never intended for people to break into the U.S. and give birth to get illegal benefits (remember - the unconstitutional socialist bullshit like welfare, social security, etc. didn’t even exist at the time of the 14th Amendment).

The intent was that children of legal U.S. citizens should not have to apply for citizenship. As with everything else, the left has attempted to twist and abuse it in their quest for power.

 

[P@triot]

The U.S.A spent in recent years approx 48% of the entire World's military budgets.

Explain how this is what the Founding Fathers wanted?

And? So? Did the founders place a cap on military spending with regards to “global spending” by other nations? No? Then you have no leg to stand on in your desperate argument.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

I don't think the Founding Fathers would've tolerated a 10 million + illegals storming their country, and abusing it.

They wouldn’t have. Which is more proof that progressivism (the idiotic shit YOU support) is a cancer to society.

Explain?

What needs to be “explained”? The Dumbocrats have prevented border security, publicly encouraged aliens to come into the U.S. illegally, provided them with unlimited benefits, and set up sanctuary cities.

It’s the left that has created the problem. My side of the aisle has cracked down BIG TIME - going so far as to elect Donald Trump. It has had instant results. Illegal aliens have actually been “self-deporting” to Canada out of fear.

'
Hilarious.

Trump is deporting fewer immigrants than Obama, including criminals

A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants

Obama Has Deported More People Than Any Other President

The 25th Anniversary Of The Immigration Act Of 1990 Is No Cause For Celebration

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

I don't think the Founding Fathers would've tolerated a 10 million + illegals storming their country, and abusing it.

They wouldn’t have. Which is more proof that progressivism (the idiotic shit YOU support) is a cancer to society.

Explain?

What needs to be “explained”? The Dumbocrats have prevented border security, publicly encouraged aliens to come into the U.S. illegally, provided them with unlimited benefits, and set up sanctuary cities.

It’s the left that has created the problem. My side of the aisle has cracked down BIG TIME - going so far as to elect Donald Trump. It has had instant results. Illegal aliens have actually been “self-deporting” to Canada out of fear.

Democrats are mostly Liberal Capitalists.

Heck, even Social Democracy is technically Capitalism on the whole... Despite its social programs...

So, Americans supporting Social Democracy are Liberal Capitalists, too.

 

[P@triot]

Hilarious.

Hilarious, indeed. Indisputable evidence of how easy it is to dupe the dumb polack!

Deportation orders jump 31 percent under President Trump

Amid immigration setbacks, one Trump strategy seems to be working: fear

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

The U.S.A spent in recent years approx 48% of the entire World's military budgets.

Explain how this is what the Founding Fathers wanted?

And? So? Did the founders place a cap on military spending with regards to “global spending” by other nations? No? Then you have no leg to stand on in your desperate argument.

Liberal theory and the American Founding Fathers[edit]
Many of the Founding Fathers of the United States were suspicious of standing militaries. As Samuel Adams wrote in 1768, "Even when there is a necessity of the military power, within a land, a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it".[6] Even more forceful are the words of Elbridge Gerry, a delegate to the American Constitutional Convention, who wrote that "tanding armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican Governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism."[6]

In Federalist No. 8, one of The Federalist papers documenting the ideas of some of the Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton expressed concern that maintaining a large standing army would be a dangerous and expensive undertaking. In his principal argument for the ratification of the proposed constitution, he argued that only by maintaining a strong union could the new country avoid such a pitfall. Using the European experience as a negative example and the British experience as a positive one, he presented the idea of a strong nation protected by a navy with no need of a standing army. The implication was that control of a large military force is, at best, difficult and expensive, and at worst invites war and division. He foresaw the necessity of creating a civilian government that kept the military at a distance.

James Madison, another writer of many of The Federalist papers,[7] expressed his concern about a standing military in comments before the Constitutional Convention in June 1787:

In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

[8]
The United States Constitution placed considerable limitations on the legislature. Coming from a tradition of legislative superiority in government, many were concerned that the proposed Constitution would place so many limitations on the legislature that it would become impossible for such a body to prevent an executive from starting a war. Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 26 that it would be equally as bad for a legislature to be unfettered by any other agency and that restraints would actually be more likely to preserve liberty. James Madison, in Federalist No. 47, continued Hamilton’s argument that distributing powers among the various branches of government would prevent any one group from gaining so much power as to become unassailable. In Federalist No. 48, however, Madison warned that while the separation of powers is important, the departments must not be so far separated as to have no ability to control the others.

Finally, in Federalist No. 51, Madison argued that to create a government that relied primarily on the good nature of the incumbent to ensure proper government was folly. Institutions must be in place to check incompetent or malevolent leaders. Most importantly, no single branch of government ought to have control over any single aspect of governing. Thus, all three branches of government must have some control over the military, and the system of checks and balances maintained among the other branches would serve to help control the military.

Hamilton and Madison thus had two major concerns: (1) the detrimental effect on liberty and democracy of a large standing army and (2) the ability of an unchecked legislature or executive to take the country to war precipitously. These concerns drove American military policy for the first century and a half of the country’s existence. While armed forces were built up during wartime, the pattern after every war up to and including World War II was to demobilize quickly and return to something approaching pre-war force levels. However, with the advent of the Cold War in the 1950s, the need to create and maintain a sizable peacetime military force "engendered new concerns" of militarism and about how such a large force would affect civil–military relations in the United States.[9]



Civilian control of the military - Wikipedia

 

[P@triot]

Democrats are mostly Liberal Capitalists.

Wow...what an astoundingly stupid comment in response to facts. You didn't even address the issue we were discussing. You do that every time you are proven wrong (which is every post).

 

[P@triot]

The U.S.A spent in recent years approx 48% of the entire World's military budgets.

Explain how this is what the Founding Fathers wanted?

And? So? Did the founders place a cap on military spending with regards to “global spending” by other nations? No? Then you have no leg to stand on in your desperate argument.

Liberal theory and the American Founding Fathers[edit]
Many of the Founding Fathers of the United States were suspicious of standing militaries.

Yes they were. One of many reasons they have the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

But...what does this have to do with anything? For starters, We the People have taken our military in a slightly different direction due to current/modern threats. The founders empowered us to do just that. Second, you've already proven that you reject EVERY principle that the founders stood for. So why are you trying to manipulate them now? Epic fail.