Economics 101

Nothing generates unemployment like liberalism...
  • Nearly 1/3 of American workers needing to acquire an occupational license in order to work
  • The licenses require individuals to pay large sums of money and wait long periods of time just to obtain the government’s permission to work
  • The share of Americans participating in the labor market is now hovering near its lowest point in many decades—since 1977, in fact
  • These licensing requirements essentially “block out and exclude” poorer workers from contributing to society and earning their keep
  • On the back end, these expensive requirements raise the price of goods and services, hurting the consumer
30% of Workers Need ‘the Government’s Permission to Work’
 
Nothing generates unemployment like liberalism...
  • Nearly 1/3 of American workers needing to acquire an occupational license in order to work
  • The licenses require individuals to pay large sums of money and wait long periods of time just to obtain the government’s permission to work
  • The share of Americans participating in the labor market is now hovering near its lowest point in many decades—since 1977, in fact
  • These licensing requirements essentially “block out and exclude” poorer workers from contributing to society and earning their keep
  • On the back end, these expensive requirements raise the price of goods and services, hurting the consumer
30% of Workers Need ‘the Government’s Permission to Work’
CON$ervatives feel safest when they go to an unlicensed doctor!!!! :cuckoo:
 
Nothing generates unemployment like liberalism...
  • Nearly 1/3 of American workers needing to acquire an occupational license in order to work
  • The licenses require individuals to pay large sums of money and wait long periods of time just to obtain the government’s permission to work
  • The share of Americans participating in the labor market is now hovering near its lowest point in many decades—since 1977, in fact
  • These licensing requirements essentially “block out and exclude” poorer workers from contributing to society and earning their keep
  • On the back end, these expensive requirements raise the price of goods and services, hurting the consumer
30% of Workers Need ‘the Government’s Permission to Work’

Having integrity, I do not use agenda driven web sites owned by right or left wing organizations. You would be hard pressed to find a more partial, right wing source, me boy. thanks for showing you have no integrity at all.
Perhaps I should use moveon.org for a post. Nah. I think I will keep my integrity. Con trolls have none.
 
Nice to see you found someone with the same IQ as you. Just think, between the two of you it would be almost normal if you added them together.
Says the idiot foreigner who can't figure out how to use a website.... :lmao:

OK, OK. the two of you, if you sum you Iq's, really do not add up to one full person. But maybe a half a normal person.
Again...coming from an idiot who can't figure out how to use a fairly simple website and who is a foreigner that has never read the U.S. Constitution. :lol:

Thanks for your post. Made up of personal attacks, lies, and stupid accusations. Proves you to be what you are: A con troll.
 
Nice to see you found someone with the same IQ as you. Just think, between the two of you it would be almost normal if you added them together.
Says the idiot foreigner who can't figure out how to use a website.... :lmao:

OK, OK. the two of you, if you sum you Iq's, really do not add up to one full person. But maybe a half a normal person.
Again...coming from an idiot who can't figure out how to use a fairly simple website and who is a foreigner that has never read the U.S. Constitution. :lol:

Thanks for your post. Made up of personal attacks, lies, and stupid accusations. Proves you to be what you are: A con troll.
It always amazes me how liberals make personal attacks and then cry like little girls when someone returns the rhetoric.
 
Nothing generates unemployment like liberalism...
  • Nearly 1/3 of American workers needing to acquire an occupational license in order to work
  • The licenses require individuals to pay large sums of money and wait long periods of time just to obtain the government’s permission to work
  • The share of Americans participating in the labor market is now hovering near its lowest point in many decades—since 1977, in fact
  • These licensing requirements essentially “block out and exclude” poorer workers from contributing to society and earning their keep
  • On the back end, these expensive requirements raise the price of goods and services, hurting the consumer
30% of Workers Need ‘the Government’s Permission to Work’

Having integrity, I do not use agenda driven web sites owned by right or left wing organizations. You would be hard pressed to find a more partial, right wing source, me boy. thanks for showing you have no integrity at all.
Perhaps I should use moveon.org for a post. Nah. I think I will keep my integrity. Con trolls have none.
You have no integrity my foreign friend. You also have no education. There is no thing as "right wing source". There are only sources that provide facts (Heritage Foundation) and sources that lie for an agenda (MSNBC).
 
Nothing generates unemployment like liberalism...
  • Nearly 1/3 of American workers needing to acquire an occupational license in order to work
  • The licenses require individuals to pay large sums of money and wait long periods of time just to obtain the government’s permission to work
  • The share of Americans participating in the labor market is now hovering near its lowest point in many decades—since 1977, in fact
  • These licensing requirements essentially “block out and exclude” poorer workers from contributing to society and earning their keep
  • On the back end, these expensive requirements raise the price of goods and services, hurting the consumer
30% of Workers Need ‘the Government’s Permission to Work’

Having integrity, I do not use agenda driven web sites owned by right or left wing organizations. You would be hard pressed to find a more partial, right wing source, me boy. thanks for showing you have no integrity at all.
Perhaps I should use moveon.org for a post. Nah. I think I will keep my integrity. Con trolls have none.


You have no integrity my foreign friend. Yes, I do, as a matter of fact. You also have no education. Yes I do, as a matter of fact., way more than you. BA and MBA. There is no thing as "right wing source". h, but there are. First there is FOX, the most dishonest cable channel in the world. And then there is Heritage being one of over 80 paid to post right wing "Think Tanks". "Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a right-wing think tank." Heritage Foundation - SourceWatch " There are only sources that provide facts (Heritage Foundation)

"The best-known and most influential right-wing think tank, the Heritage Foundation owes much of its success to savvy marketing and PR and the generous donations of right-wing benefactors, foundations and wealthy corporations. The foundation boasts about its influence on Capitol Hill." and sources that lie for an agenda (MSNBC).

"Think tanks may have a decided political leaning. There are twice as many conservative think tanks as liberal ones, and the conservative ones generally have more money. One of the important functions of think tanks is to provide a way for business interests to promote their ideas or to support economic and sociological research not taking place elsewhere that they feel may turn out in their favor. Conservative think tanks also offer donors an opportunity to support conservative policies outside academia, which during the 1960s and 1970s was accused of having a strong "collectivist" bias."
Think tanks - SourceWatch
No conservative think tanks? Really, dipshit, you are such a liar.

You are too stupid to understand that you are conflating cable news channels and think tanks. Heritage is a think tank, MSNBC is a cable channel. Relative to truth in cable channels, FOX is easily the most dishonest:

Fact Checker Finds 60% Of Fox News Statements To Either Be Mostly False Or A Lie
Fact Checker Finds 60% Of Fox News Statements To Either Be Mostly False Or A Lie


MSNBC, Fox, CNN move the needle on our Truth-O-Meter scorecards
"At Fox and Fox News, 10 percent of the claims we’ve rated have been True, 11 percent Mostly True, 18 percent Half True, 21 percent Mostly False, 31 percent False and nine percent Pants on Fire.

That means about 60 percent of the claims we’ve checked have been rated Mostly False or worse.

If you are smart enough to do so, click on the link, and you will find no other cable channel is close to as dishonest as FOX. Funny how you missed that, me boy.

Do you have anything to say that is true? Because nothing you said in this post is.
 
Last edited:
yes very few laws!!

James Madison: "The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specific objectives. It is not like state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

James Madison in Federalist paper NO. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."
The Federalist Papers are NOT our ratified Constitution!!!!
No stupid - but they clarify exactly what the founders thoughts were behind the U.S. Constitution. Which is why you libtards hate it so much. Because it prevents your false narratives and perversion of the Constitution.

You're so angry because the facts prove you're wrong.
They are the OPINIONS and arguments for ratification of three Founders who could not come to agreement with the others to muster enough support to get ratified.
For example in Federalist NO 84 Hamilton argued that the Constitution didn't need to be amended with a "Bill of Rights."
Does the Constitution have a Bill of Rights?
Yeah.....and why did Hamilton say that chief?!? Of all of the papers you could have pointed to - that was the worst one you could have used.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

Excerpt From: Hamilton, Alexander. “The Federalist Papers.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton on iBooks

Federalist 84 is my favorite. Alexander Hamilton was a liberal prick who wanted to expand the federal government and yet even he is very clear in Federalist 84 that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government in the Constitution is strictly prohibited to them. Thank you for walking right into that one.
As you can see Hamilton argued you don't need a Bill of Rights because in his OPINION the protections were already there because there was no "enumerated power" to restrict them. But obviously the MAJORITY of the founders disagreed and fely the power was in face enumerated and that a Bill of Rights was essential.
Thus the actual Constitution contains the Bill of Rights.
Try again.

That is not true.

The Bill of Rights was ratified December 15, 1791, so obviously the "actual" constitution does NOT contain the Bill of Rights.

Twelve were proposed with two being rejected.

On December 15, 1791, Virginia became the 10th of 14 states to approve 10 of the 12 amendments, thus giving the Bill of Rights the two-thirds majority of state ratification necessary to make it legal. Of the two amendments not ratified, the first concerned the population system of representation, while the second prohibited laws varying the payment of congressional members from taking effect until an election intervened. The first of these two amendments was never ratified, while the second was finally ratified more than 200 years later, in 1992.

Bill of Rights is finally ratified - Dec 15, 1791 - HISTORY.com
 
Sadly it has been brought to the shores of the United States as well thanks to liberalism...
Communism Still Persists
So does Polio. Communism is a subject only because con trolls like Patriot pushes the subject. Here is a fact check on a Republican Congressman who agrees with Patriot.

"Allen West says about 80 House Democrats are members of the Communist Party
West is using guilty by association here, and has failed to prove that any member of Congress is a communist. Pants on Fire!"
None

Poor ignorant con trolls have to lie a lot to make their crazy points. Next they will be warning us about zombies still persisting. Dip shits.[/QUOTE]You

Living in denial is something which comforts you does it not?

Allen West is simply pointing out the members of the Progressive Caucus.

Congressional Progressive Caucus : Caucus Members
 
The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions.
They built in a process for "meeting changing conditions" - it's called amendments.

Now we've established through your lack of proper English and your complete lack of understanding about the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government that your from another country. Which country?

Yes, indeed, me lying con troll. My english is proper. You are not. And it is you that has proven you have a complete misunderstanding of the constitution. Expert source versus you, a bat shit con troll with absolutely no credentials proves my argument, and ruins yours.
There are indeed amendments. We all understand that. But there are many, many more interpretations than there have been amendments. So, again, interpretations are indeed a part of out constitution, regardless of how bad you do not want there to be. You lost that argument big time, Trying to negate it with an argument regarding amendments is just like a con troll. You make an argument that does not pass the giggle test, and irritate everyone who has a rational mind as you show how stupid you are.
But not me, dipshit, I just do not take you at all seriously. As a typical con troll, all you are capable of are personal attacks, lies, and a lost argument. Thanks for proving to all that you are a total
looser [loser].

As you know, if you're nearly as brilliant as you claim, is that case law makes no changes in the constitution. Future decisions can overturn previous decisions, make modifications to them or uphold them without changing the constitution or and of the amendments.
 
Nothing generates unemployment like liberalism...
  • Nearly 1/3 of American workers needing to acquire an occupational license in order to work
  • The licenses require individuals to pay large sums of money and wait long periods of time just to obtain the government’s permission to work
  • The share of Americans participating in the labor market is now hovering near its lowest point in many decades—since 1977, in fact
  • These licensing requirements essentially “block out and exclude” poorer workers from contributing to society and earning their keep
  • On the back end, these expensive requirements raise the price of goods and services, hurting the consumer
30% of Workers Need ‘the Government’s Permission to Work ’

100% true and outrageous. Prevents untold low-income people from entering higher-paying fields.
 
The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions.
They built in a process for "meeting changing conditions" - it's called amendments.

Now we've established through your lack of proper English and your complete lack of understanding about the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government that your from another country. Which country?

Yes, indeed, me lying con troll. My english is proper. You are not. And it is you that has proven you have a complete misunderstanding of the constitution. Expert source versus you, a bat shit con troll with absolutely no credentials proves my argument, and ruins yours.
There are indeed amendments. We all understand that. But there are many, many more interpretations than there have been amendments. So, again, interpretations are indeed a part of out constitution, regardless of how bad you do not want there to be. You lost that argument big time, Trying to negate it with an argument regarding amendments is just like a con troll. You make an argument that does not pass the giggle test, and irritate everyone who has a rational mind as you show how stupid you are.
But not me, dipshit, I just do not take you at all seriously. As a typical con troll, all you are capable of are personal attacks, lies, and a lost argument. Thanks for proving to all that you are a total
looser [loser].

As you know, if you're nearly as brilliant as you claim, is that case law makes no changes in the constitution. Future decisions can overturn previous decisions, make modifications to them or uphold them without changing the constitution or and of the amendments.

First, I never believe anything coming from a liar. And since I never claimed to be brilliant, that makes you a liar.
Second, the only case law that makes any difference in interpreting supreme court cases is that resulting from supreme court decisions. And though they do not change the constitution, they have the same result. Those decisions determine what the outcome of all future supreme court cases will be. And provide guidance just as the constitution does.
 
Nothing generates unemployment like liberalism...
  • Nearly 1/3 of American workers needing to acquire an occupational license in order to work.
  • The licenses require individuals to pay large sums of money and wait long periods of time just to obtain the government’s permission to work
  • The share of Americans participating in the labor market is now hovering near its lowest point in many decades—since 1977, in fact
  • These licensing requirements essentially “block out and exclude” poorer workers from contributing to society and earning their keep
  • On the back end, these expensive requirements raise the price of goods and services, hurting the consumer
30% of Workers Need ‘the Government’s Permission to Work ’

100% true and outrageous. Prevents untold low-income people from entering higher-paying fields.
Uh, perhaps you have some sort of proof of your statements? Or do you just want people to believe a con troll based on a total lack of proof, no demonstrable knowledge of the subject at all, and no ability to provide a link to someone who is not a nut case. Stupid post.
The subject at hand is what those occupational licenses accomplish. You rather conveniently avoided that whole issue. dipshit.
 
Nothing generates unemployment like liberalism...
  • Nearly 1/3 of American workers needing to acquire an occupational license in order to work.
  • The licenses require individuals to pay large sums of money and wait long periods of time just to obtain the government’s permission to work
  • The share of Americans participating in the labor market is now hovering near its lowest point in many decades—since 1977, in fact
  • These licensing requirements essentially “block out and exclude” poorer workers from contributing to society and earning their keep
  • On the back end, these expensive requirements raise the price of goods and services, hurting the consumer
30% of Workers Need ‘the Government’s Permission to Work ’

100% true and outrageous. Prevents untold low-income people from entering higher-paying fields.
Uh, perhaps you have some sort of proof of your statements? Or do you just want people to believe a con troll based on a total lack of proof, no demonstrable knowledge of the subject at all, and no ability to provide a link to someone who is not a nut case. Stupid post.
The subject at hand is what those occupational licenses accomplish. You rather conveniently avoided that whole issue. dipshit.
There is proof "me idiotic boy". Click the freaking link. Oh wait....that's right....you don't know how to use this website yet. Ask an adult to show you how to click on the link. :eusa_doh:
 
The subject at hand is what those occupational licenses accomplish.

1) prevent people from earning a living
2) raise prices making us all poorer
3) reward special interest groups
4) convince people not to be careful when shopping thus making them more likely to be victims
 
That is not true.

The Bill of Rights was ratified December 15, 1791, so obviously the "actual" constitution does NOT contain the Bill of Rights.
so, those who said the Bill of Rights was not necessary were wrong-right?

1 argument was that the rights were natural and already in place, and enumerated powers did to give govt power to interfere so no worries

2nd argument was that if you gave nasty liberal govt power over rights they would subvert that power and use it to curtail rights

in retrospect its better that we got them in good plain language with clear intent. Libturd govt has not been able to restrict religion speech guns, when surely they would have if there was no clean simple prohibition given the proclivity to always do more and more interfering.
 
That is not true.

The Bill of Rights was ratified December 15, 1791, so obviously the "actual" constitution does NOT contain the Bill of Rights.
so, those who said the Bill of Rights was not necessary were wrong-right?

1 argument was that the rights were natural and already in place, and enumerated powers did to give govt power to interfere so no worries

2nd argument was that if you gave nasty liberal govt power over rights they would subvert that power and use it to curtail rights

in retrospect its better that we got them in good plain language with clear intent. Libturd govt has not been able to restrict religion speech guns, when surely they would have if there was no clean simple prohibition given the proclivity to always do more and more interfering.

Because you are a known congenital idiot, and a con troll, and totally stupid, you may want to look around. No one is reading your drivel. And if they actually do, they are probably also con trolls, and equally stupid. So, hope you enjoy talking to yourself.
 
That is not true.

The Bill of Rights was ratified December 15, 1791, so obviously the "actual" constitution does NOT contain the Bill of Rights.
so, those who said the Bill of Rights was not necessary were wrong-right?

1 argument was that the rights were natural and already in place, and enumerated powers did to give govt power to interfere so no worries

2nd argument was that if you gave nasty liberal govt power over rights they would subvert that power and use it to curtail rights

in retrospect its better that we got them in good plain language with clear intent. Libturd govt has not been able to restrict religion speech guns, when surely they would have if there was no clean simple prohibition given the proclivity to always do more and more interfering.

Because you are a known congenital idiot, and a con troll, and totally stupid, you may want to look around. No one is reading your drivel. And if they actually do, they are probably also con trolls, and equally stupid. So, hope you enjoy talking to yourself.
typical violent viscous liberal, and substance free as always. If liberals had good arguments they'd love to use them, obviously.
 

Forum List

Back
Top