Can anyone object to a world pace Amendment to Constitution?

translation: you do not have a primary source and don't win the $10,000. How did I know it would turn out that way?

Fact: Jefferson and Madison formed the Republicans Party in 1793 to stand for what modern Republicans stand for,i.e, freedom from liberal big govt. Democratic ideas were and are the opposite of American ideas.

 

Ted, stop with the $10 grand nonsense, it's embarrassing. A "primary source" isn't necessary to establish the formation of the Democratic-Republican party by Jefferson and Madison. A primary source isn't necessary to establish this party eventually morphed into the Whigs and the Democrat-Republicans, the Whigs bit the dust and the Democrat-Republicans became the Democratic party. A primary source isn't required to show the formation of the Republican party in 1854, mostly made up of remnants of the Whigs and others from other parties etc.

 

why not? You clean forgot to say?

 

"Not at all" what? Your reply is completely disconnected from anything I said.

PS. "Shot heard round the world" is from a poem by Emerson. As far as I know Jefferson never uttered that phrase.

 

Jefferson stood for freedom from liberal govt and started the Republican Party in 1793 , with Madison, for that reason. Do you understand the part about the Amendment?

 

"The Amendment"?? You mean that idiotic suggestion you made in post #1 that has absolutely zero chance of ever going anywhere?

 

by chance can you say why world peace and prosperity is idiotic??

 

I never made that claim. I said that you're amendment suggestion was idiotic. Which it is.

 

There will be peace alright but same as how the US before a lot of bloodshed entailed with utter discordance/revolutions materialized through civil wars will occur before peace will be achieved. One good example is how would it be if it is applied in a very conservative Islamic state like Iran, would the Shah allow the first amendment making him vulnerable against criticism? and how about in North Korea would Kim Jung un allow the people to control the government?, I could say it will be so chaotic, But still the goal is noble but impossible to be adopted.

But by the way,
there are some indication that it should be polished.

 

Haha. Right. Modern Republicans *love* big government, just not some parts of the "liberal" version. Republicans trample the Constitution as much as, if not more than, the Democrats.

 

if they did they would not have voted against Obamacare taking over 17% of the economy.

 

so you're saying there will be a Nazi peace through war, but getting Republican peace with an Amendment to encourage a peaceful world wide Republican culture will not work?

 

If it was presented by a Republican administration, they would. It's not like they turned Bush's incredible Medicare expansion.

 

No I'm talking about the actual adaptation,
Of course liberty and freedom is championed within the US and that is not the case outside.
So implementing that entails a lot of bloodshed and revolution.
The people who would adhere with such an ideals will of course oppose the status quo and that would create civil wars and revolutions of course, mostly when it defies beliefs and other modes of idealisms one of it is your Nazism of course.

 

liberty is championed within the USA by Republicans only and opposed by Democrats. Outside the USA there are no George Washingtons fighting for liberty because Democrats oppose liberty. They have blunted America's shot heard around the world and Jefferson's empire of liberty.
Do you understand?

- - - Updated - - -

don't be silly Republicans proposed 32 Balanced Budget Amendments and Democrats killed every one of them. Do you understand now?

 

I see why Obama reigned for 8 years in a row.

 

care to tell us why he reigned for 8 years???

 

Bush enslaves Iraq.

 

Actually Bush is not president so its doubtful he enslaves Iraq. Do you understand?

 

Are you talking about Jeb Bush.

 

Jeb and George are not in office so its doubtful either enslaves Iraq as you claimed. Can the liberal following this??

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/dispatch/2013/03/18/full-text-of-president-george-w-bushs-speech-march-19-2003/

Possession is nine-tenths of the law. That was confirmed on May 22 when the United Nations Security Council voted to legalize the military occupation of Iraq by the United States and Great Britain.

The Security Council handed over both governmental power and unlimited economic control of Iraq's oil wealth to the U.S. and British occupying forces.

The United States administration managed to secure an overwhelming vote of 14 of the council's 15 members. Only Syria refused to even attend the vote.

This infamous resolution will long be reviled. It establishes a dangerous precedent. And it places every developing nation at far greater risk of predatory imperialist war.

The vote swept away the 65 UN resolutions against Iraq that had imposed 13 years of the cruelest sanctions in history. These sanctions have now been replaced--with a resolution that gives the U.S. and Britain authority far beyond any given to an occupying power in UN history.

There is no time limit for U.S. political rule and economic control over Iraq's resources. The May 23 New York Times bragged that the United States had "gained the authority to do as it sees fit."

The United Nations will be allowed to "check" the resolution after one year. But since the United States and Great Britain have veto power, this is meaningless.

Control of Iraq's vast oil wealth is explicitly granted to the U.S./British Authority. Representatives of the UN, World Bank and International Monetary Fund will be allowed to "participate." So these financial institutions, which are dominated by U.S. capital, can express their opinions.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/4861-U-S-wins-resolution-to-legally-enslave-Iraq-surprise-sur

 

Jeb and George are not in office so its doubtful either enslaves Iraq as you claimed. Can the liberal following this??