Would you agree to the assertion that the US is the rightful property of the Democratic Party?

[eagle1462010]

This seems to be a running theme with certain leftist elements. Do you agree with their assertion? Why or why not?

Would you kindly provide some examples? Some links to these assertions would suffice...

Once I have seen and read these examples I will be better able to address you query...


Generally speaking, however, I would not consider the United States to be the property of any one party.

New Advanced Placement Framework Distorts America s History Heartlander Magazine

 

[eagle1462010]

For the common good ring a bell under FDR, when the SCOTUS said they could do so...................Back in his try at a COURT PACKING SCHEME when he didn't get his way......................

To that date it had been unconstitutional to do so.............The Lib President of the time whined like a little bitch when he didn't get his way............after the Courts had reversed his policy.................He was the first to break the chain, just as Wilson created the Federal Reserve under his watch so they could manipulate currency..............and then in a couple of decades they caused the Great Depression...............

Changing the rules for FDR was under turbulent times, and WWII..................Liberals always take advantage during times of crisis........................

How's the funding going for FDR programs...............

So you are contending that the laws enacted while FDR was president weren't passed by congress and approved by the Supreme Court as required by the constitution? You are certainly allowed to not like those duly enacted laws, but calling them unconstitutional is ignorant and childish.

BS

SCOTUS up til that point had classified them as Unconstitutional bitch............

Do you know how to read posts.................Or do you just ignore the information presented..............

That Clarify it for you.

Up until that point? What about after that point? Did they change their mind at that point, and was it unconstitutional for them to change their minds?

Eventually the old were replaced by the new.............and they changed what had been Constitutional or not Constitutional..................changing the rules........

All the Supremes to that point had RULED IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL...............

All of a SUDDEN they were ALL WRONG......................and these new guys were the shit...................


BS that is..............appointed by whining bitches in the WH.............

The supreme court has reversed it's self on lots of things. Slavery, Women's voting rights, Poll taxes, Corporate Monopolies, Marriage between blacks and whites, etc,etc.etc. Are you trying to say a sitting supreme court can't reverse a previous courts findings, no matter who appointed them?

I'm not saying that at all..........I'm saying they distorted for the Common Good Clause and irradicated the meaning of the 10th.

 

[eagle1462010]

Analysis of the College Board AP U.S. History Framework Heartland Institute

The Framework’s focus on “key concepts” will “relieve the pressure for teachers to cover all possible events and details of U.S. history at a superficial level.” The concepts discussed in the Framework thus form “the required knowledge for each period.” It is important to carefully note the phrase “the required knowledge.” The College Board has in effect supplanted local and state curriculums by unilaterally assuming the authority “to prioritize” historical topics. This inevitably means that some topics will be magnified in importance while others are minimized.

The period between 1607 and 1754 provides a particularly glaring example of the Framework’s biased approach to U.S. history. Known as the Colonial period, this era witnessed the development of a distinctive American identity. What fundamental characteristics will the Framework identity as being essential parts of the American character?

The Framework authors begin their presentation of the Colonial period by asking teachers to compare and contrast the different social and economic goals of the 17th century Spanish, French, Dutch, and British colonizers. We are then told that unlike other European colonizers the British-American colonies were characterized by the development of “a rigid racial hierarchy” (page 27). This rigid social structure is in turn derived from “a strong belief in British racial and cultural superiority” (page 28). This sense of “cultural superiority” inevitably leads “the British colonies into violent confrontations with native peoples” (page 28).

 

[eagle1462010]

The Framework’s biased view of American history is not limited to domestic events. Issued in 1823, the Monroe Doctrine became the cornerstone of American foreign policy in the Western Hemisphere. It is important to remember that Monroe’s famous doctrine made a distinction between republican government in American and monarchical government in Europe. Monroe warned the European powers that the Western Hemisphere was no longer open to colonization. Issued at a time when American military power was relatively weak, the Monroe Doctrine was nonetheless a bold statement of America’s intent to defend and support democracy in the Western Hemisphere. This is not, however, how the College Board Framework interprets the Monroe Doctrine. According to the Framework, “The U.S. sought dominance over the North American continent through a variety of means, including military actions, judicial decisions, and diplomatic efforts” (page 42). The phrase “diplomatic efforts” apparently refers to the Monroe Doctrine since the Framework then grants teachers the flexibility to use the Monroe Doctrine as an example of their point about America’s intent to assert its “dominance over the North American continent.”

 

[BULLDOG]

This seems to be a running theme with certain leftist elements. Do you agree with their assertion? Why or why not?

Would you kindly provide some examples? Some links to these assertions would suffice...

Once I have seen and read these examples I will be better able to address you query...


Generally speaking, however, I would not consider the United States to be the property of any one party.

New Advanced Placement Framework Distorts America s History Heartlander Magazine

You don't really expect that particular magazine to have any credibility do you, especially when the article doesn't back up a single claim.

 

[eagle1462010]

ll state U.S. history curriculum guides include a unit on Westward expansion and the concept of Manifest Destiny. Textbooks have traditionally defined Manifest Destiny as a belief that America was destined to extend its democratic institutions, agricultural advances and technological innovations across the continent. In contrast, here is how the College Board Framework defines Manifest Destiny: “The idea of Manifest Destiny, which asserted U.S. power in the Western Hemisphere and supported U.S. expansion westward, was built on a belief in white racial superiority and a sense of American cultural superiority, and helped to shape the era’s political debates” (page 44).

This is not an isolated or careless definition. As we have documented, the Framework uses the theme of “a belief in white superiority” (page 25) to serve as a foundation for its biased and objectionable portrayal of American society and culture.

The six-page Unit 7 presentation is more than a disorganized jumble of topics. It also omits and deemphasizes many vital leaders and events. For example, historians agree that Theodore Roosevelt’s dynamic leadership revitalized the presidency. While TR is honored as one of four presidents immortalized on Mount Rushmore, he has been completely excised from the College Board Framework. This astonishing omission means that the Framework totally omits TR’s role as a trust buster, conservationist, consumer protector, builder of the Panama Canal, and author of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. It is important to note that question about TR’s presidency have always played a prominent role on AP U.S. History exams. The College Board’s decision to delete TR is outrageous, inexplicable, and unacceptable.

 

[BULLDOG]

So you are contending that the laws enacted while FDR was president weren't passed by congress and approved by the Supreme Court as required by the constitution? You are certainly allowed to not like those duly enacted laws, but calling them unconstitutional is ignorant and childish.

BS

SCOTUS up til that point had classified them as Unconstitutional bitch............

Do you know how to read posts.................Or do you just ignore the information presented..............

That Clarify it for you.

Up until that point? What about after that point? Did they change their mind at that point, and was it unconstitutional for them to change their minds?

Eventually the old were replaced by the new.............and they changed what had been Constitutional or not Constitutional..................changing the rules........

All the Supremes to that point had RULED IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL...............

All of a SUDDEN they were ALL WRONG......................and these new guys were the shit...................


BS that is..............appointed by whining bitches in the WH.............

The supreme court has reversed it's self on lots of things. Slavery, Women's voting rights, Poll taxes, Corporate Monopolies, Marriage between blacks and whites, etc,etc.etc. Are you trying to say a sitting supreme court can't reverse a previous courts findings, no matter who appointed them?

I'm not saying that at all..........I'm saying they distorted for the Common Good Clause and irradicated the meaning of the 10th.

OK, I'll type very slowly so you might understand my question. You claimed FDR was the beginning of unconstitutional laws. Can you name one law passed while he was president, that is still in effect and is also unconstitutional?

 

[eagle1462010]

This seems to be a running theme with certain leftist elements. Do you agree with their assertion? Why or why not?

Would you kindly provide some examples? Some links to these assertions would suffice...

Once I have seen and read these examples I will be better able to address you query...


Generally speaking, however, I would not consider the United States to be the property of any one party.

New Advanced Placement Framework Distorts America s History Heartlander Magazine

You don't really expect that particular magazine to have any credibility do you, especially when the article doesn't back up a single claim.

Then dispute their claims............

They say they are quoting the actual pages in the text...................Prove them wrong.................

I posted the actual curriculum of the AP course.............

What have you posted to prove any that I'm posted wrong.

 

[eagle1462010]

BS

SCOTUS up til that point had classified them as Unconstitutional bitch............

Do you know how to read posts.................Or do you just ignore the information presented..............

That Clarify it for you.

Up until that point? What about after that point? Did they change their mind at that point, and was it unconstitutional for them to change their minds?

Eventually the old were replaced by the new.............and they changed what had been Constitutional or not Constitutional..................changing the rules........

All the Supremes to that point had RULED IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL...............

All of a SUDDEN they were ALL WRONG......................and these new guys were the shit...................


BS that is..............appointed by whining bitches in the WH.............

The supreme court has reversed it's self on lots of things. Slavery, Women's voting rights, Poll taxes, Corporate Monopolies, Marriage between blacks and whites, etc,etc.etc. Are you trying to say a sitting supreme court can't reverse a previous courts findings, no matter who appointed them?

I'm not saying that at all..........I'm saying they distorted for the Common Good Clause and irradicated the meaning of the 10th.

OK, I'll type very slowly so you might understand my question. You claimed FDR was the beginning of unconstitutional laws. Can you name one law passed while he was president, that is still in effect and is also unconstitutional?

I'll have to write it in crayon for you..............I said that the clause was changed during this time in areas that were previously considered Unconstitutional.................

I've stated that FDR helped push this and put SCOTUS members in that would agree with him.

I've stated that FDR pitched a fit when he didn't get his way and tried to pack the courts............

And I've stated for the Common Good has been abused to the point of damaging our economy with Debt we have no means to pay................

You know exactly what I'm saying. Stop dancing.

 

[BULLDOG]

This seems to be a running theme with certain leftist elements. Do you agree with their assertion? Why or why not?

Would you kindly provide some examples? Some links to these assertions would suffice...

Once I have seen and read these examples I will be better able to address you query...


Generally speaking, however, I would not consider the United States to be the property of any one party.

New Advanced Placement Framework Distorts America s History Heartlander Magazine

You don't really expect that particular magazine to have any credibility do you, especially when the article doesn't back up a single claim.

Then dispute their claims............

They say they are quoting the actual pages in the text...................Prove them wrong.................

I posted the actual curriculum of the AP course.............

What have you posted to prove any that I'm posted wrong.

I'm not questioning the page quotes. Just the conclusions drawn by the silly nutjob magazine

 

[Staidhup]

America belongs to the American people not a Political PARTY!

 

[BULLDOG]

Up until that point? What about after that point? Did they change their mind at that point, and was it unconstitutional for them to change their minds?

Eventually the old were replaced by the new.............and they changed what had been Constitutional or not Constitutional..................changing the rules........

All the Supremes to that point had RULED IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL...............

All of a SUDDEN they were ALL WRONG......................and these new guys were the shit...................


BS that is..............appointed by whining bitches in the WH.............

The supreme court has reversed it's self on lots of things. Slavery, Women's voting rights, Poll taxes, Corporate Monopolies, Marriage between blacks and whites, etc,etc.etc. Are you trying to say a sitting supreme court can't reverse a previous courts findings, no matter who appointed them?

I'm not saying that at all..........I'm saying they distorted for the Common Good Clause and irradicated the meaning of the 10th.

OK, I'll type very slowly so you might understand my question. You claimed FDR was the beginning of unconstitutional laws. Can you name one law passed while he was president, that is still in effect and is also unconstitutional?

I'll have to write it in crayon for you..............I said that the clause was changed during this time in areas that were previously considered Unconstitutional.................

I've stated that FDR helped push this and put SCOTUS members in that would agree with him.

I've stated that FDR pitched a fit when he didn't get his way and tried to pack the courts............

And I've stated for the Common Good has been abused to the point of damaging our economy with Debt we have no means to pay................

You know exactly what I'm saying. Stop dancing.

You've said so many things. Your original statement, which I have tried to stick to throughout our conversation was

"It worked fine, until some dumb asses thought they could use tax payer money to spend on anything they deemed fair game................"


At which point I asked who exactly did that without constitutional authority. I'm sorry that you have trouble keeping to that particular question. Perhaps you should rest for a while.

 

[hipeter924]

The Republicans are doing their best to not get re-elected in Maryland, especially the current governor. But I wouldn't say the Democrats run Maryland, any more than any other state.

 

[BluesLegend]

...its prominent black leaders calling the Democratic party a 'plantation'.

Name one?

I don't take orders from trolls, run along I think your mom is calling you.

It was your claim dumbass.

Shouldn't you be out attending a gay rights rally or something?

Don't worry about my schedule. Are you even going to try to back up your silly claims or are you just another teabagger spouting crazy shit and then running away?

LOL look its useless to even try breaking through the 4 inches of dense bone in liberals thick Neanderthal skulls, facts just bounce off.

 

[BULLDOG]

Name one?

I don't take orders from trolls, run along I think your mom is calling you.

It was your claim dumbass.

Shouldn't you be out attending a gay rights rally or something?

Don't worry about my schedule. Are you even going to try to back up your silly claims or are you just another teabagger spouting crazy shit and then running away?

LOL look its useless to even try breaking through the 4 inches of dense bone in liberals thick Neanderthal skulls, facts just bounce off.

You haven't presented any, that's why I keep asking. Why don't you just admit you posted a lie, and move on?

 

[Syriusly]

This seems to be a running theme with certain leftist elements. Do you agree with their assertion? Why or why not?

The running theme of yours seems to be that you beat your wife.

Do you deny beating your wife?

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

This seems to be a running theme with certain leftist elements. Do you agree with their assertion? Why or why not?

The running theme of yours seems to be that you beat your wife.

Do you deny beating your wife?

I've cited a couple sources for this trend in the thread. Others have come out of the woodwork. I'm not married btw. No wife at all.