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.
Might it be that those on the right think that it is YOUR plans which are important and it is not up to the state to plan for you? And that it is YOUR thoughts that matter and that they should not try to impose theirs upon you?
That is called freedom which, I understand, was once held dear in the USA.
That could be it except all those guys in Washington are elected to do more than let freedom ring or whatever. They are there to solve problems.
The right never lays out their solutions or plans...they spend all their time telling each other "the left believes" fairy tales. Its safer that way.
The same way they never have a Tea Party Leader. It allows them to point to the Tea Party as an idea but allows them to never stand behind any ideas presented by them...
Wrong answer there hero, the feds are there to manage a federation of free and independent States, doing only the things the states are incapable of doing themselves. They are not there to manipulate the citizens of those States.
That could be it except all those guys in Washington are elected to do more than let freedom ring or whatever. They are there to solve problems.
The right never lays out their solutions or plans...they spend all their time telling each other "the left believes" fairy tales. Its safer that way.
The same way they never have a Tea Party Leader. It allows them to point to the Tea Party as an idea but allows them to never stand behind any ideas presented by them...
Wrong answer there hero, the feds are there to manage a federation of free and independent States, doing only the things the states are incapable of doing themselves. They are not there to manipulate the citizens of those States.
you seem to be confused, first of all, between the articles of confederation and the constitution. secondly, if you actually read the constitution and the case law around it, you'll see that the founders weren't kidding when they put in the general welfare, supremacy and commerce clauses.
so, you're the wrong with the wrong answer there, chief.
Wrong answer there hero, the feds are there to manage a federation of free and independent States, doing only the things the states are incapable of doing themselves. They are not there to manipulate the citizens of those States.
you seem to be confused, first of all, between the articles of confederation and the constitution. secondly, if you actually read the constitution and the case law around it, you'll see that the founders weren't kidding when they put in the general welfare, supremacy and commerce clauses.
so, you're the wrong with the wrong answer there, chief.
Case law that is in conflict with the wording of the Constitution is void, no court has the authority to amend or redefine the Constitution.
One of the words that has been totally hijacked by the left is "fairness". The only real fairness is treating everyone equally under the law. But liberals reinterpreted this as giving "social justice" to people with the government as the determiner of whether or not "you've made too much money"(Obama said there's a point when someone's made too much - look it up) or how much to "spread the wealth around".
See, that's the difference between liberals and conservatives/libertarians. The leftists define "fairness" as giving more power to the state to do what it thinks is right. The right thinks that you should be given the power to determine your own future.
I love how the righties spend 99% of their time talking about what "the left believes" and cant seem to lay out their own thoughts and plans
you seem to be confused, first of all, between the articles of confederation and the constitution. secondly, if you actually read the constitution and the case law around it, you'll see that the founders weren't kidding when they put in the general welfare, supremacy and commerce clauses.
so, you're the wrong with the wrong answer there, chief.
Case law that is in conflict with the wording of the Constitution is void, no court has the authority to amend or redefine the Constitution.
Oh really? And who or what has the legal authority to void case law solely on the arbitrary determination that it conflicted with the 'wording' of the Constitution?
One of the words that has been totally hijacked by the left is "fairness". The only real fairness is treating everyone equally under the law. But liberals reinterpreted this as giving "social justice" to people with the government as the determiner of whether or not "you've made too much money"(Obama said there's a point when someone's made too much - look it up) or how much to "spread the wealth around".
See, that's the difference between liberals and conservatives/libertarians. The leftists define "fairness" as giving more power to the state to do what it thinks is right. The right thinks that you should be given the power to determine your own future.
Arguments based on fairness are generally appeals to emotions or ideologies.
Very true. Politicians in all democracies have long since realised that most of their electorates are more at home with emotions than ideas. And 'fairness' is one of those useful words than can mean anything or nothing.
So much fail in one post. The Tea Party is a grassroots movement, unlike the idol worship top down leadership mentality of the left. The right articulates their ideas regularly but can't see or understand them for you. Right now the rights job in Washington is to minimize the damage done by the big spenders.That could be it except all those guys in Washington are elected to do more than let freedom ring or whatever. They are there to solve problems.
The right never lays out their solutions or plans...they spend all their time telling each other "the left believes" fairy tales. Its safer that way.
The same way they never have a Tea Party Leader. It allows them to point to the Tea Party as an idea but allows them to never stand behind any ideas presented by them...
I love how the righties spend 99% of their time talking about what "the left believes" and cant seem to lay out their own thoughts and plans
The Right's plan is to turn America into a system of gated communities, walled fortresses with the haves inside and the havenots outside,
and each rightwinger hopes he's on the right side of the wall when the gates close.
Wrong answer there hero, the feds are there to manage a federation of free and independent States, doing only the things the states are incapable of doing themselves. They are not there to manipulate the citizens of those States.
you seem to be confused, first of all, between the articles of confederation and the constitution. secondly, if you actually read the constitution and the case law around it, you'll see that the founders weren't kidding when they put in the general welfare, supremacy and commerce clauses.
so, you're the wrong with the wrong answer there, chief.
Case law that is in conflict with the wording of the Constitution is void, no court has the authority to amend or redefine the Constitution. BTW why do you think they call it the FEDERAL government?
I love how the righties spend 99% of their time talking about what "the left believes" and cant seem to lay out their own thoughts and plans
The Right's plan is to turn America into a system of gated communities, walled fortresses with the haves inside and the havenots outside,
and each rightwinger hopes he's on the right side of the wall when the gates close.
There is much truth to that. The dumb thing is that it's not about how much the wealthy have but how little everyone else has. The rich have benefited immeasurably over the past three to four decades while everyone else has stagnated or lost ground. That is a real problem.
I love how the righties spend 99% of their time talking about what "the left believes" and cant seem to lay out their own thoughts and plans
The Right's plan is to turn America into a system of gated communities, walled fortresses with the haves inside and the havenots outside,
and each rightwinger hopes he's on the right side of the wall when the gates close.
you seem to be confused, first of all, between the articles of confederation and the constitution. secondly, if you actually read the constitution and the case law around it, you'll see that the founders weren't kidding when they put in the general welfare, supremacy and commerce clauses.
so, you're the wrong with the wrong answer there, chief.
Case law that is in conflict with the wording of the Constitution is void, no court has the authority to amend or redefine the Constitution.
Oh really? And who or what has the legal authority to void case law solely on the arbitrary determination that it conflicted with the 'wording' of the Constitution?
Case law that is in conflict with the wording of the Constitution is void, no court has the authority to amend or redefine the Constitution.
Oh really? And who or what has the legal authority to void case law solely on the arbitrary determination that it conflicted with the 'wording' of the Constitution?
Well, then, I guess there is no valid puirpose for the existance of the Supreme Court, then. Just a Court of Appeals will do, to correct faulty judgements in lower courts. That begs the question of why the founding fathers set it up in the first place. I am guessing that you don't even feel that the SC even has jurisdiction over county, city, or state law at all.
you seem to be confused, first of all, between the articles of confederation and the constitution. secondly, if you actually read the constitution and the case law around it, you'll see that the founders weren't kidding when they put in the general welfare, supremacy and commerce clauses.
so, you're the wrong with the wrong answer there, chief.
Case law that is in conflict with the wording of the Constitution is void, no court has the authority to amend or redefine the Constitution. BTW why do you think they call it the FEDERAL government?
As I said. The law is what it is..... Notwithstanding what pretend constitutionalists say
Case law that is in conflict with the wording of the Constitution is void, no court has the authority to amend or redefine the Constitution. BTW why do you think they call it the FEDERAL government?
As I said. The law is what it is..... Notwithstanding what pretend constitutionalists say
No, now days law is what judges say it is, kind of makes you wonder why they bother to write it down in the first place. If judges only used written law and the constitution to determine their decisions, unanimous decisions wouldn't be rare, would they? Yep our judicial system is just as screwed up an the other two branches, the only hope is for the States to reassert their rightful place and put the feds back in their box.
As I said. The law is what it is..... Notwithstanding what pretend constitutionalists say
No, now days law is what judges say it is, kind of makes you wonder why they bother to write it down in the first place. If judges only used written law and the constitution to determine their decisions, unanimous decisions wouldn't be rare, would they? Yep our judicial system is just as screwed up an the other two branches, the only hope is for the States to reassert their rightful place and put the feds back in their box.
That's why it's called Case Law.
A case is just as likely to come up for a Republican judge as for a Democratic judge.
