California embodies left-wing misery

[P@triot]

That made absolutely no sense and didn't relate to the question at all.

He does that when he knows he's been defeated. Once he's backed himself into a corner, he'll string together words that he doesn't know in hopes that nobody will understand it, and thus they won't challenge him.

 

[hadit]

We need national policy to help recover the economy.

Getting rid of democrats would work.

Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.

Come get us shit stain.

Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.

Fake.

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Nope, using your standard, the right to bear arms is doubly protected.

It should have been, even for homosexuals in the military. Where was the right wing then?

What I said has nothing to do with the military.

 

[hadit]

That made absolutely no sense and didn't relate to the question at all.

He does that when he knows he's been defeated. Once he's backed himself into a corner, he'll string together words that he doesn't know in hopes that nobody will understand it, and thus they won't challenge him.

Yup. The time is close at hand when he disappears for a while.

 

[P@triot]

Elon Musk has officially moved operations to Texas. Because, well, California is a shit-hole of left-wing misery that continues to lose good people and good jobs to Texas.

We need to upgrade our economy anyway.

Of course you do...because you're ignorant and failed left-wing policy keeps running successful companies out of California.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Constitution is express not implied...

Exactly. And it expressly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers. No matter how many times you troll, we'll just keep defeating your propaganda with facts. I promise I am infinitely more relentless than you.

You merely appeal to ignorance of actual express law.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District

 

[hadit]

We need national policy to help recover the economy.

Getting rid of democrats would work.

Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.

Come get us shit stain.

Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.

Fake.

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

No Individual right there. Collective and plural terms are express not implied.

for comparison and contrast:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Constitution: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

Simpleton Danny: No Individual right there.

the collective People is the term they used not the individual Person. The right of the persons to keep and bear Arms is what they would have used and expressed if that is what they meant, instead of merely imply it. Our Constitution is express not implied in any way.

So you DO care what they meant by the words they used. Why do you then insist on completely reversing their intent when it comes to the general welfare?

 

[danielpalos]

Our Tenth Amendment is clear. The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.

The 10th Amendment is clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.

Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.

Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare" to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.

We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.

No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.

Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense. To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.

Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.

I am getting it from our Constitution, expressly.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

You confuse everything that may be done for general welfare with anything that could be done for the general badfare or the general warfare.

That's not what I asked. You continue doggedly to insist that term means something the people who wrote it didn't intend. Quote something from the people who wrote it that shows they wanted the federal government to have unlimited power to do what it wanted under the guise of "general welfare".

It is not unlimited but that our tax monies are only to be used for the general welfare and common defense, along with paying the debt.

And what did they mean by the term "general welfare". They wrote about it, they explained what they meant, so you tell us what THEY meant, NOT what you wish they meant.

Our Constitution is express not implied for the right wing. Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency from the top down. For comparison and contrast, there are no express terms in our federal Constitution regarding the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the general defense or common offense.

That made absolutely no sense and didn't relate to the question at all.

You have no sense only fallacy or you would have asked questions for clarification. Or, are you really that ignorant of the topic but want to be taken seriously simply Because you are on the Right Wing?

 

[danielpalos]

Equal protection of the laws is in our Constitution. We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.

Yes, WE should but the federal government is restricted to specifically enumerated powers, or did you forget that?

Fixing Standards for the Union covers it for the general welfare.

Is that what they meant when they wrote it?

Yes, they did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

Okay, so you agree then that the federal government is restricted to a handful of enumerated powers and does not have the authority to do whatever it wants in the name of "general welfare". Good to know, because you've been arguing the opposite for a very long time.

this is what we are supposed to be doing:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[P@triot]

You merely appeal to ignorance of actual express law.

You merely resort to projecting once you can't dispute the facts provided.

 

[danielpalos]

We need national policy to help recover the economy.

Getting rid of democrats would work.

Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.

Come get us shit stain.

Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.

Fake.

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

No Individual right there. Collective and plural terms are express not implied.

for comparison and contrast:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Constitution: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

Simpleton Danny: No Individual right there.

the collective People is the term they used not the individual Person. The right of the persons to keep and bear Arms is what they would have used and expressed if that is what they meant, instead of merely imply it. Our Constitution is express not implied in any way.

So you DO care what they meant by the words they used. Why do you then insist on completely reversing their intent when it comes to the general welfare?

Only illegals don't care about express laws.

 

[hadit]

Our Tenth Amendment is clear. The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.

The 10th Amendment is clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.

Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.

Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare" to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.

We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.

No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.

Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense. To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.

Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.

I am getting it from our Constitution, expressly.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

You confuse everything that may be done for general welfare with anything that could be done for the general badfare or the general warfare.

That's not what I asked. You continue doggedly to insist that term means something the people who wrote it didn't intend. Quote something from the people who wrote it that shows they wanted the federal government to have unlimited power to do what it wanted under the guise of "general welfare".

It is not unlimited but that our tax monies are only to be used for the general welfare and common defense, along with paying the debt.

And what did they mean by the term "general welfare". They wrote about it, they explained what they meant, so you tell us what THEY meant, NOT what you wish they meant.

Our Constitution is express not implied for the right wing. Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency from the top down. For comparison and contrast, there are no express terms in our federal Constitution regarding the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the general defense or common offense.

That made absolutely no sense and didn't relate to the question at all.

You have no sense only fallacy or you would have asked questions for clarification. Or, are you really that ignorant of the topic but want to be taken seriously simply Because you are on the Right Wing?

There is no question that can be asked about what you wrote, because it made no sense and didn't relate to the question.

 

[danielpalos]

You merely appeal to ignorance of actual express law.

You merely resort to projecting once you can't dispute the facts provided.

You have no facts only Being always Right, in right wing fantasy.

 

[hadit]

We need national policy to help recover the economy.

Getting rid of democrats would work.

Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.

Come get us shit stain.

Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.

Fake.

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

No Individual right there. Collective and plural terms are express not implied.

for comparison and contrast:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Constitution: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

Simpleton Danny: No Individual right there.

the collective People is the term they used not the individual Person. The right of the persons to keep and bear Arms is what they would have used and expressed if that is what they meant, instead of merely imply it. Our Constitution is express not implied in any way.

So you DO care what they meant by the words they used. Why do you then insist on completely reversing their intent when it comes to the general welfare?

Only illegals don't care about express laws.

IOW, you know you're busted and are just flinging words out, hoping something will stick.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Tenth Amendment is clear. The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.

The 10th Amendment is clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.

Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.

Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare" to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.

We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.

No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.

Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense. To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.

Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.

I am getting it from our Constitution, expressly.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

You confuse everything that may be done for general welfare with anything that could be done for the general badfare or the general warfare.

That's not what I asked. You continue doggedly to insist that term means something the people who wrote it didn't intend. Quote something from the people who wrote it that shows they wanted the federal government to have unlimited power to do what it wanted under the guise of "general welfare".

It is not unlimited but that our tax monies are only to be used for the general welfare and common defense, along with paying the debt.

And what did they mean by the term "general welfare". They wrote about it, they explained what they meant, so you tell us what THEY meant, NOT what you wish they meant.

Our Constitution is express not implied for the right wing. Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency from the top down. For comparison and contrast, there are no express terms in our federal Constitution regarding the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the general defense or common offense.

That made absolutely no sense and didn't relate to the question at all.

You have no sense only fallacy or you would have asked questions for clarification. Or, are you really that ignorant of the topic but want to be taken seriously simply Because you are on the Right Wing?

There is no question that can be asked about what you wrote, because it made no sense and didn't relate to the question.

You have no sense and no point.

 

[danielpalos]

We need national policy to help recover the economy.

Getting rid of democrats would work.

Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.

Come get us shit stain.

Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.

Fake.

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

No Individual right there. Collective and plural terms are express not implied.

for comparison and contrast:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Constitution: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

Simpleton Danny: No Individual right there.

the collective People is the term they used not the individual Person. The right of the persons to keep and bear Arms is what they would have used and expressed if that is what they meant, instead of merely imply it. Our Constitution is express not implied in any way.

So you DO care what they meant by the words they used. Why do you then insist on completely reversing their intent when it comes to the general welfare?

Only illegals don't care about express laws.

IOW, you know you're busted and are just flinging words out, hoping something will stick.

Proof we should not take right wingers seriously about being legal to the express laws.

 

[P@triot]

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District

Again...not even a complete or cohere sentence!

Psst...high school drop out....the "L" in "legislation" shouldn't be capitalized. It is neither a proper noun, nor starting a sentence. Likewise, the "C" in "cases" shouldn't be capitalized. It too is neither a proper noun, nor starting a sentence. Likewise, the "D" in "district" shouldn't be capitalized. It too is neither a proper noun, nor starting a sentence.

Come on man, this is basic fucking English. No wonder the US Constitution is too complex for you.

Additionally, who are you referring to in your nonsensical babble? Who is supposed to "exercise exclusive legislation in call cases"?

 

[P@triot]

Proof we should not take right wingers seriously about being legal to the express laws.

Being "legal" to convey thoughts or feelings about the law?

No wonder nobody takes you seriously about anything. You can't even construct basic sentences properly.

 

[P@triot]

this is what we are supposed to be doing:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And how do we do that? By adhering to the US Constitution, which explicitly restricts the federal government to 18 enumerated powers, snowflake. What you just cited is called the "preamble". The preamble is not a power.

You need to learn English and grammar before you can learn the US Constitution. I'm sure there is a community college near you that can assist.

 

[hadit]

Our Tenth Amendment is clear. The general power to provide for the general welfare cannot sacrifice the end to the means; we have no general badfare or general warfare clause.

The 10th Amendment is clear. And yet, somehow, you managed to fuck it up. So here it is again, as not a single word of what you just stated, resides in it:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Plain as day. Anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers in the US Constitution is illegal for the federal government to engage in.

Providing for the general welfare is expressed not implied in any way.

Yet you insist that it implies the government can do whatever it wants to in the name of "general welfare". That's not how it works, because you change the meaning of "general welfare" to fit whatever it is that you want at the time. Try this one on for size. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on the right to own weapons. The "general welfare" clause is now interpreted to mean that it is in the best interests of the citizenry that citizens be allowed to defend themselves with firearms, because I say so. Thus, gun ownership is doubly protected.

We have to quibble that the general welfare cannot be the general badfare.

No, we do not. The clause CLEARLY was not intended to grant the federal government power to do whatever was trendy at the time in the name of the general welfare. THAT'S what you have to prove, and you have to go far beyond just insisting over and over again that it was. Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion.

Both promote and provide are used in regard to the general welfare not the common defense. To the extent we don't enjoy perfect knowledge anything that promotes the general welfare will do; optimization should happen on a routine basis.

Post some writings of the people who wrote the clause and voted on it that support your assertion, don't just keep insisting you're right.

I am getting it from our Constitution, expressly.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

You confuse everything that may be done for general welfare with anything that could be done for the general badfare or the general warfare.

That's not what I asked. You continue doggedly to insist that term means something the people who wrote it didn't intend. Quote something from the people who wrote it that shows they wanted the federal government to have unlimited power to do what it wanted under the guise of "general welfare".

It is not unlimited but that our tax monies are only to be used for the general welfare and common defense, along with paying the debt.

And what did they mean by the term "general welfare". They wrote about it, they explained what they meant, so you tell us what THEY meant, NOT what you wish they meant.

Our Constitution is express not implied for the right wing. Our welfare clause is General and must cover any given contingency from the top down. For comparison and contrast, there are no express terms in our federal Constitution regarding the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the general defense or common offense.

That made absolutely no sense and didn't relate to the question at all.

You have no sense only fallacy or you would have asked questions for clarification. Or, are you really that ignorant of the topic but want to be taken seriously simply Because you are on the Right Wing?

There is no question that can be asked about what you wrote, because it made no sense and didn't relate to the question.

You have no sense and no point.

You hope I'll follow you down the rabbit hole on that one, but instead I'll point back to when you really started going off the rails. I've been asking you point blank for a while now to tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant by the term, "general welfare" and to back it up with quotes of what they wrote about it. You have totally failed to do any of that.

So, to reiterate and expose further the absolute vacuity of your posts, what did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "general welfare"? State it concisely and back it up with quotes from their writings at the time.

 

[hadit]

We need national policy to help recover the economy.

Getting rid of democrats would work.

Getting rid of low life tezans and pukes would make America great again. As for California i love it here and find it to be the best place to live in the USA.

Come get us shit stain.

Why bother, the mortar team needs practice anyway.

Fake.

Only well regulated militia of the United States may not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

I always get a kick out of moron Dimwingers who think they can ignore the Constitution when it addresses individual rights.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

No Individual right there. Collective and plural terms are express not implied.

for comparison and contrast:

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Constitution: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

Simpleton Danny: No Individual right there.

the collective People is the term they used not the individual Person. The right of the persons to keep and bear Arms is what they would have used and expressed if that is what they meant, instead of merely imply it. Our Constitution is express not implied in any way.

So you DO care what they meant by the words they used. Why do you then insist on completely reversing their intent when it comes to the general welfare?

Only illegals don't care about express laws.

IOW, you know you're busted and are just flinging words out, hoping something will stick.

Proof we should not take right wingers seriously about being legal to the express laws.

How is you flinging words out proving that? Again, you're just stating stuff with no substantiation whatsoever.