Perhaps, but it's not free which is the problem. I would not trade my freedom for comfort. I disagree; first off, a hundred years ago is hardly the best example seeing as the entire world and society and culture were different back then, irrelevant to the economy. And furthermore, if anything it could be said that the Great Depression was because of government, not because of its absence. Hooey. At one point or another everyone is a first generation immigrant; it makes them no less American. Look at Arnold S. No, I don't need to be a natural born American to know and understand what the country was to be about. I already know about the Preamble; I have had formal American history education, thank you very much. The government is there to protect the borders, maintain law and order, and protect civil liberties. Nothing more. Conservatives do promote traditionalism, if you're talking about traditionalists. However they are focused on the future and ensuring the maintenance of culture and tradition in that respect. Regardless, to different people there are different priorities, freedom and culture.
Such statements make no sense, my man. The Great Depression has its roots in something called the dust bowl of America. A great drought that took place in the central United States crippled our agricultural industry and led to the crash of our commodity exchange. The farmers begged for help while this drought was taking place... but Hoover didn't do anything. He was a hands off nutjob who was under serious pressure by "the four horsemen" of the supreme court who threatened to reverse any relief he would offer. When the stock market finally crashed, and when FDR came into office, he made massive relief efforts were allowed to go through when a key justice switched his alignment because he recognized that the unyielding nature of the hands off approach was driving the economy into an even worse direction. At that point FDR constructed a massive soil conservation effort based on forcing more environmentally conservative soil plowing techniques that repaired the central USA and stopped the soil from blowing away. It worked and in time, after many other battles involving the factories, we crawled out of that terrible time. Eh, no norse. I'm not a first generation immigrant in any stretch of the term. I was born here in the USA, and I never have emigrated to another country in my life, nor do I plan on doing so. The same holds true for most natural born American citizens. Our parents, or our grandparents were immigrants... but we weren't. You, on the other hand, are a foreigner, and outsider, once a stranger to this country of ours. A foreigner may think he knows and understands what this country is supposed to be about... but in most cases he does not. How could he..? He wasn't raised here, and he wasn't naturalized here. All he knows is what he's been told by others. For him to pretend that his knowledge of America is no different than that of most actual Americans is rather insane. That's not what our Preamble says. Nor are those the only powers enumerated in the constitution. Let's take a look at the ones in Article 1, shall we? Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. The bottom line: you don't know what you're talking about norse. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! How many years have you lived here?
I'm not talking about the droughts, droughts have nothing to do with government, I'm talking about the stock market crash. I didn't say you were a first generation immigrant, I said at one point or another every family, every lineage was first generation. This is the simple truth; being American has little to do with whether or not your parents were American. It is a matter of principle. Nothing you bolded mentioned anything about government provision of enterprise; "general welfare" is such a vague term as to be irrelevant. Except for post office, but this is not a good thing; the USPS was a legal monopoly for many years, and look at that, now private companies are doing a better job than USPS ever could, and unlike USPS they don't get government funding. No, you don't know what you're talking about. You don't understand capitalism, and you don't understand what the American spirit is all about.
The government is constitutionally able to regulate commerce among states, norse. It says so in the enumerated powers. Keep in mind: that isn't the only list of powers in the constitution. Those are merely the powers of Congress... and judging by your reaction, you probably didn't know Congress had such powers. Now, being an American has to do with whether you are an American citizen, either through natural birth or through naturalization. You aren't one. If there is such a thing as the American spirit, then you don't have it in you. At least not yet. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So, how many years have you been living here?
I know, I'm talking about government provision of enterprise. Regardless, unsound and baseless 'regulation' does nothing except disturb freedom. Obviously they have such powers or else they wouldn't be using them today. This is a lowly way of looking at it; one can be a citizen of any country and not truly be in the spirit. So no, I do understand the American spirit, and that is freedom. That is my business.
An American is a person who is a citizen of the United States of America. If you are not a citizen, then that means you can't vote in our elections. It also means that if you commit certain crimes, then you face apprehension and deportation followed by a permanent ban. If that describes you, then you aren't an American, norse. Americans can't be forcibly removed and then banned from their own country. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Your opinion of unsound and baseless regulation is different from that of America's. The regulation we do have is meant to protect our freedom.
What's the difference between a nazi and a neo-nazi ? Disclaimer: I've put no thought whatsoever into this reply and I didn't bother with the context. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Neo-conservatism is much different. Neo-conservatives have an emphasis on nationalism, patriotism, "aggressive" foreign policy, censorship, and in fact a certain degree of regulation Conservatives believe in non-interventionalist foreign policy, individualism, capitalism, minimal government, and free press and civil liberties Nothing. Neo-Nazis are Nazis that are not actually of the National Socialist Party of Germany (now dead) They share the exact same beliefs, simply different origins; although Hitler didn't care about Whites in general, only Aryan Germans, and quite likely Austrians and Dutch
WRONG!!!!!!!! conservitives belive in submission to authority, patrotisium and religion as core moral values. Liberals do not
Like Liberals? Submit to government plunder! Government can do this, do that, command you to do this, do that, take this, take that Asguard, do not be so simple-minded. Neo-conservatives do; conservatives, laissez-faire-ists, and libertarians do not. Most individualists are anti-patriotism and anti-religion. Not to mention the loads of liberals, here in the US, that are religious and patriotic. Most people in general here are. I don't know about Australia.
This and that Practically speaking, there are a few. Neos accept the general concept of deficit spending and social safety nets. They place much importance on the teachings of Leo Strauss, who argued, among other things, that it is okay to lie to people if you think you're doing good. For instance, the American tendency to view the world in dualistic terms such as good and evil found a very Straussian context in the last two decades of the Cold War, and again in our panic about terrorism. Neoconservatism sometimes looks like a Freudian ego defense against the arbitrariness of traditional conservatism, which historically has sought to preserve old and exploitative power structures. And this would make sense, I suppose, as the early prominent neoconservatives were former Communists who sided with capitalism in order to combat Stalinism. Much like the hippie generation that brought us the 1980s, neocons are former leftists who woke up one day and smelled the money. Everything else seems to follow from there. • • • If only that was true.
I just think I should point out, since it was linked here, that the libertarian party of the USA has had their reputation marred by scandals for YEARS now. All of those guys are wishy washy republicans in disguise. They always have been. They don't represent libertarianism as an ideal. Let's not forget Bob Barr, folks. He was the nasty little republican troll who (1) wanted to get Clinton impeached, and (2) voted for the patriot act, and (3) was one of the most outspoken proponents for the war on drugs. He is also the libertarian party's favorite nominee for presidential elections. Ron Paul once ran a presidential campaign as the nominee for the libertarian party as well way back in 1988... but then switched back to being a republican when he realized that his reputation was being tainted by a lot of funny business over in the libertarian party. I think their past history speaks for itself. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, between States, not in the States, X Amendment. Now as to Liberal or Conservative? How are you using those terms? classical or as they have been turned Head over Bass Ackward, in the American Political System? Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], and market liberalism[3] or, outside Canada and the United States, sometimes simply liberalism[4]) is a form of liberalism stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to facilitate global free trade and place fiscal constraints on government[5], as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, Frédéric Bastiat, Montesquieu and others. 1.^ Brad Stetson, Human Dignity and Contemporary Liberalism (Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood, 1998), 26. 2.^ a b Ian Adams, Political Ideology Today (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001), 20. 3.^ Kirkpatrick, Jerry. Montessori, Dewey, and Capitalism. TLJ Books, 2008, p. 35 4.^ Merriam-Webster gives a definition of "liberalism" as "a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard" Yes these Great Men were Classical Liberals: classical liberalism - advocated both political freedom for individuals and a free market in the economic sphere. Ideas of this sort were promulgated by Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill. John Locke Benjamin Franklin Thomas Jefferson John Adams Patrick Henry Thomas Paine Frederick Douglas Martin Luther King, Jr. Meaning they were very conservative in their politics as conservatism is defined today, smaller and strictly limited Government as defined by the Constitution of the United Sates, limited to the strick enumeration of powers granted by that Constitution to the Federal Government. These Men are Contemporary Liberals; Nikola Tesla Franklin Delano Rooseveldt Albert Einstein Robert F. Kennedy Bigger and more intrusive government, taking responsibility from the Individual and putting it into the hands of Government Bureaucrats.
That depends on which supreme court justice is being asked. Throughout history, interstate commerce has been inextricably linked with intrastate commerce... and the court has acted (and continues to act) on both basis' at different times.
That is why we need to get the Supreme Court out of making legislation by Judaical fiat, and return to being the Guardians of the Constitution.
Someone has to determine whether or not those laws are constitutional, though. Congress can't do that... because why would Congress declare laws that they themselves voted to pass as unconstitutional...? I don't know if you live in the USA or not but here there's a doctrine that our goverment follows called "separation of powers," and that is the reason that we have multiple branches of government.
