The Most Interesting Man In The World

It's just a response meme people I wasn't even being serious. Its satire. Relax. Ugh.

That's definitely how dems portray it. Spot on.

Actually, there are a ton of 'em.

'Murica. XD

Actually both are bad but....

http://www.financialsamurai.com/free-money-from-bailout-government/

I noticed an error in the article...Since when is not paying $1800 a month in mortgage considered a profit? Plus, if you have a family, the kids do not deserve to suffer from a parents bad luck in the economy. Notice that the MAXIMUM return is $1,400...on average, most unemployed would be lucky to get a third of that....The $10, 000 gift from the government a year easily pays for your property taxes, and utilities...Now there is not much money left...is there

In this economy.. there's not much left over for any1 making $50K / yr. I'm the messenger of the article,.. not the architect.

A. Not FREE money ("Borrowers who receive loan forbearance, where principal and interest payments are temporarily suspended, will ultimately have to pay back the past-due balance after the forbearance period ends." http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2011/07/07/mortgage-aid-for-unemployed-expanded/)

B. "bailing out" homeowners is a better way of helping real, normal working folks than handing billions to corporations that give multi million dollar bonuses to CEOs for failing....laying off US workers, off shoring jobs in the process and hurting the economy further.

C. This is from 2011. Is it even still available?

26 democratps saw this

Can you explain why a socialist couldn't uphold the constitution? What part(s) of it and why?

All parts of it. Socialism is more guided by say the 10 planks of communism, which directly contradict the constitution. It's a conflict of interest. And that's being politically correct about it.

So....no specifics. In that case I call BULLSHIT.

I just specifically said all parts of it. I then referred you to the 10 planks of communism which reflect most ideals of a socialist economy.

And thus, you become this pie chart imgflip.com/i/mcgvq

Saying "all of it" is not specific.
"Hey what was your favorite part of the movie, specifically?"
"all of it"
"You're a douche."

Looks like neither major party can either. Bush LOOOOVED unconstitutional acts. Here's a nice read for ya.
http://thecollegeconservative.com/2012/03/14/the-unconstitutional-presidencies/

When did I mention anything about Bush. I don't support either party's ideologies at this point. Typical liberal hack tho labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a Bush supporter. Do you want to keep digging this hole deeper?

LOL....So what party/parties *IS* capable of being president? Libertarian? Or...? Enlighten me with specifics if you can. I know it's hard for you.

Why does it have to be a party? Why can't a candidate just swear to uphold the constitution? Not a single president has in the last century. Why does everything have to be polarized by party politics? Its blindingly ignorant. Neither party actually knows what they really stand for. Neither do you.

These folks had a discussion on thisntopic. Do yourself a favor and read the threads. They actually see logic and facts to make their points. Since you were the one that originally made the statement - the responsibility is on you to prove it. Just a little tip for your future trolling needs. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1024894#post29

Bernie is a (democratic) socialist and according to you unable to uphold the constitution but you have no idea WHY. Your grasp of political ideology is loose at best. Watch this video and tell me why he is wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suN-9FrBi7E

I don't think you understand political ideology at all if you say that, or even bother to challenge my original statement. It's NOT POSSIBLE to be a socialist under the constitution. I don't need to watch Bernie Sanders spout off at the mouth about socialism, I know what it is. Redistribution of wealth is unconstitutional. Period. Also, please consider, The US is a Republic, NOT a democracy, which so many people seem to have confused. Mostly liberals. The term Democratic Socialist is first of all an oxymoron, second of all a direct affront to the constitution itself and personal economic freedoms in this country.

You still can't actually cite WHY a socialist is unable to uphold the constitution. It's amazing. You can't do it and your only "answer" is "because I said so" well I say they can. Because reasons.