It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Also by the way the republicans back in the 1700's were actually what the Democrats are now, and the present day republicans formed a new party. but me and my friend always fight about if it was actually the fedaralists are the Republicans now.
Okay seemingly 'small' buisnesses ( like IBM? Is that really tha small? LOL) Have only one owner but have many employees. Now, why do the employees support their own bosses poltical views? Cause they want to keep their boss in business? I dunno just a thought.
No why do the Republican party hate doctors? seriously. why? Terminix hates them because? Also why do they not like education? He (Terminix) took 2 million dollars from schools and didn't pay it back. Why was he asking the school for money in the first place? I don't know. Isn't he a katrillionaire.
Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06
Okay if what you mentioned earlier about Democrats wanting to let illegal immigrants in easier and you say schwarz...terminator wants to create a luxury place for them, why isn't he a Democrat?
I don't really believe that the Democrats want to do this considering in a debate kerry and bush had, kerry wanted more security but bush refused to talk about it, and instead moved on to social secruity. Considering what your saying about the Democrats opening up the border more, kerry would of surely lost. So why did he mention it then?
Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06
You mentioned ealier on another post that the Democrats want to take away the second amendment.
Now the Demorcrats or Republicans will never take away an amendment, both of them will shrink different ones down to almost nothing.
But the part that Democrats attack (2nd amendment) is a little bit for the general safety.
How many people go hunting with an automatic pistol? I know absolutely none. People do NOT need automatic pistols or automatic weapons for hunting. I think that they should keep shotguns and rifles, but you do not need an AK-47 to go hunting or to protect yourself.
Well Bush doesn't violate the 1st amendment he talks about it. (what I'm reffering to is the freedom of worship) He almost violates the 4th amendment because he makes some of these big buisnesses 'unsueable'.
Also why would I want to pay taxes to support big buisnesses I mean at least when a Democrat is in office, you know where its going. Where does your money actually go? Big buisness? Govt base? Osama?
Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06
Why would he make a Special Election when his approval ratings are down? Got to be something up his sleeve (besides steroids).
Terminator is holding this special election, but everybody is gonna say no anyway and if more than 1 of those props gets chosen its GOT TO BE a conspiracy.
I also think that the 10th amendment is just there but it has almost no point.
How are the Democrats attacking the 10th amendment.
One more really randome thing:
Whats tje difference between the following
Democrats/Liberals
Republicans/Conservatives
Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06
By the way, the tenth amendment, I think, should only come into action if it is absoulotely neccesary.
I also think the power to change laws, shouldn't be as easy.
The supreme court officials and whatever john roberts is SHOULD NOT have their career their whole life. It isn't fair because if they stay in and make republican choices even when a democrat is president, it isn't fair.
The congress is completely overrun by Republicans so its impossible to do any.
Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06
Hello Bush elects the senate! I thought. I thought the president elcts them not the people.
Also for the law thing, I think they should make it so at least one democrat votes yes or if the situation was reversed, one republican votes yes.
I also think the congress should remain neutral it would make sense, so that when bush wants a law, no one automatically accpets it because he is a Republican or vice-versa.
Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06
I just had an odd conspiracy theory that threatens both parties.
Okay the Democrats are funding the secret government.
The Republicans are kind of running it.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
The most noteable feature of the historical political landscape in America is the presence of a party of small government which enjoys the support of the typical working man. For a very large part of our history, this was the Democratic-Republican Party, and it's direct descendant, the Democratic Party.
There was yet another shift early in the 20th century. The issues became economic again and the Democrats again became the party of big government, intervening to create and improve jobs. There you've got the New Deal.
Now we are in the midst of a shift- these things seem to happen every 60 years, like clockwork. The issue has become national security, and Republicans are fast becoming the party of big government again.
So the story of American partisan history, in a nutshell, is that . . . you will have a party of big business and a party of the people. This will very rarely change, although second options will open up here and there, either in the form of 3rd parties or in the form of each major party having something to offer for a different sector of the common people.
Our modern Republican party has been conservative like the Democratic-Republicans, but are becoming liberal like the federalists again.
Then why do Republicans hate education? For the same reason that Democrats do: Educated people ask too many questions and want too much change.
Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
What isn't true is that the D-Rs supported small government generally (only w/r/t the feds),
or that the D-Rs represented the typical working man. It's more accurate to say that the D-Rs/Democrats represented rural interests (including the big slaveowning planters -- far from "working people"), while the Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans represented the urban elites.
In the early days of our nation, working people in the sense of hired industrial workers weren't much of a political force;
No American political party except the Libertarians has ever truly represented "small government."
A nation generally has the amount of government that it needs given its diversity, population, and complexity of culture.
The Constitution actually authorizes a level of intrusive government that no American would want, but doesn't require that this be done.
Being old enough to have lived through the 1960s and half of the 1950s, I can definitely attest that this is not the first time that national security has been on the front burner.
In fact, by comparison to the Cold War at its height, today's obsession with security is tame and halfway.
I definitely don't agree that this is a permanent shift, although we do have an issue since the end of World War II regarding the degree and type of U.S. international intervention.
Well, that would be nice, wouldn't it? Unfortunately, the more usual trend where money influences politics to the degree it does in America, is that everybody represents big business and nobody represents the people.
The Democratic Leadership Council, which took control of the Democratic Party with Clinton's election (although they may be losing it now), made the Democrats a party just as corporatist as the Republicans, and defined the differences between the parties purely in terms of social issues.
This is what corporate America would call a "politically safe" situation -- no matter who wins, they win.
A quibble: the equation of "liberal" with "big government" and "conservative" with "small government" is an invention of self-serving conservatives, and is false.
Cynical young person.
Regarding Amendment 10: You might consider this amendment in light of the process that led to the Bill of Rights in the first place. It's common in our political discourse to attribute these amendments to the framers of the Constitution, but that's incorrect. They were framed by, and demanded by, the anti-federalists, and the Constitution advocates agreed to them under protest and as a condition of ratification.
A close examination of Article I, Section 8 shows some very vague empowering language that allows the federal government to do almost anything it wants. It can levy taxes in any amount, and by implication spend the money it levies on anything, as long as the taxes are uniform by state and it can justify the taxing and spending as intended to "pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."
But the 10th amendment contains no such affirmative restrictions. It merely says that whatever powers are not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. The problem being that the language of the Constitution grants, in potential, ALL powers to the federal government, leaving NOTHING reserved to the states or to the people!