California embodies left-wing misery

[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.

Yes, we absolutely need to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility. Now, how does that relate to the federal government being restricted to specific enumerated powers and not having a blank check to do whatever it wants to do?

Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States. It really is that simple.

Incorrect. They are NOT examples, they are enumerated powers and the federal government is restricted to those powers. Everything else is reserved to the states and the people. Please quote the portion of the Constitution that specifies they are only examples.

I doubt he has ever read the Constitution. And if he has, he is too stupid to comprehend it.

He's read nothing beyond a headline here or there and the parts taken out of context that some article he agrees with points at.

y'all have even less but are on the Right Wing.

 

[danielpalos]

Y'all have nothing but Hoax not any valid arguments for rebuttal. Nothing but the affirmative action of the franchise; why are y'all such hypocrites when blacks do it?

Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.--The Federalist Number Forty-one

You've officially lost it. Back up what you claim with contemporary writings or admit you have no clue.

You simply appeal to ignorance like usual for the Right Wing.

 

[hadit]

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.

Yes, we absolutely need to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility. Now, how does that relate to the federal government being restricted to specific enumerated powers and not having a blank check to do whatever it wants to do?

Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States. It really is that simple.

Incorrect. They are NOT examples, they are enumerated powers and the federal government is restricted to those powers. Everything else is reserved to the states and the people. Please quote the portion of the Constitution that specifies they are only examples.

I doubt he has ever read the Constitution. And if he has, he is too stupid to comprehend it.

He's read nothing beyond a headline here or there and the parts taken out of context that some article he agrees with points at.

y'all have even less but are on the Right Wing.

Then support your assertion. Quote the writers of the Constitution on what they meant by the term, "general welfare".

 

[hadit]

Y'all have nothing but Hoax not any valid arguments for rebuttal. Nothing but the affirmative action of the franchise; why are y'all such hypocrites when blacks do it?

Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.--The Federalist Number Forty-one

You've officially lost it. Back up what you claim with contemporary writings or admit you have no clue.

You simply appeal to ignorance like usual for the Right Wing.

Then support your assertion.

 

[hadit]

The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble.

However did you reach your conclusion? The preamble is our "mission statement" for our form of Government. Any ambiguities should be resolved pursuant to it. We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.

And we're back to the question you are studiously trying to ignore. What did the writers of the Constitution mean by "general welfare"? Answer that and support your answer. We're not moving on until you do.

You are simply being disingenuous. They obviously did not express the general badfare nor the general malfare nor the general warfare. It does not inspire any confidence in your sincerity.

You keep saying what they did not mean. I asked you what they meant and for you to support it. I tire of this, so will answer for you. Clearly you cannot do either of those, because we all know what they meant because we read the things they wrote about it. You are simply wrong, you have the most fallacies, and no one takes you seriously. Now, instead of just putting words together in nonsense sentences, you're making up words that also mean nothing. It's sad, really. Even a bot is more flexible.

go ahead and look up the word and post it for us. i am not the one resorting to diversion or any other fallacies.

welfare, what does it mean to you and what does a dictionary say it means?

No, not welfare in the general sense or what it might mean to you today. "General welfare", as written in the Constitution. We posted several quotes from the people who wrote it explaining what it meant and what it didn't mean.

 

[hadit]

1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.

Seriously, you really need a new schtick.

Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.

All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.

You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.

You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.

Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.

They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.

Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.

It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.

It doesn't matter what they said it means then. Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.

It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.

 

[hadit]

Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?

That is your misconception. I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.

The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.

Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.

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.

Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.

Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.

What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.

 

[miketx]

Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?

That is your misconception. I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.

The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.

Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.

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.

Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.

Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.

What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare". We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.

It's pointless to try to get anything out of these leftist assholes.

 

[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.

Yes, we absolutely need to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility. Now, how does that relate to the federal government being restricted to specific enumerated powers and not having a blank check to do whatever it wants to do?

Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States. It really is that simple.

Incorrect. They are NOT examples, they are enumerated powers and the federal government is restricted to those powers. Everything else is reserved to the states and the people. Please quote the portion of the Constitution that specifies they are only examples.

I doubt he has ever read the Constitution. And if he has, he is too stupid to comprehend it.

He's read nothing beyond a headline here or there and the parts taken out of context that some article he agrees with points at.

y'all have even less but are on the Right Wing.

Then support your assertion. Quote the writers of the Constitution on what they meant by the term, "general welfare".

This is what it has to mean now:

welfare - Google Search

 

[danielpalos]

The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble.

However did you reach your conclusion? The preamble is our "mission statement" for our form of Government. Any ambiguities should be resolved pursuant to it. We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.

And we're back to the question you are studiously trying to ignore. What did the writers of the Constitution mean by "general welfare"? Answer that and support your answer. We're not moving on until you do.

You are simply being disingenuous. They obviously did not express the general badfare nor the general malfare nor the general warfare. It does not inspire any confidence in your sincerity.

You keep saying what they did not mean. I asked you what they meant and for you to support it. I tire of this, so will answer for you. Clearly you cannot do either of those, because we all know what they meant because we read the things they wrote about it. You are simply wrong, you have the most fallacies, and no one takes you seriously. Now, instead of just putting words together in nonsense sentences, you're making up words that also mean nothing. It's sad, really. Even a bot is more flexible.

go ahead and look up the word and post it for us. i am not the one resorting to diversion or any other fallacies.

welfare, what does it mean to you and what does a dictionary say it means?

No, not welfare in the general sense or what it might mean to you today. "General welfare", as written in the Constitution. We posted several quotes from the people who wrote it explaining what it meant and what it didn't mean.

Our federal Constitution applies and has to be applied today. The powers are general enough to handle it.

 

[danielpalos]

1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.

Seriously, you really need a new schtick.

Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.

All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.

You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.

You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.

Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.

They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.

Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.

It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.

It doesn't matter what they said it means then. Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.

It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.

Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.

 

[22lcidw]

The rich will always destroy themselves. Their shit does not smell anymore. In history every wealthy entity does the same thing. In reality or myth...King Arthur and Camelot was an example. We had it and threw it away.

 

[Stryker___777]

California is an absolute embarrassment to the United States. A filth-hole filled with crime, drugs, sexual assault, illegal aliens, and devastating debt. But even by their horrific standards, this is a new low. Their state government is actually making it a misdemeanor to infect people with a deadly virus on purpose. This state always did promote promiscuity. I guess they don’t want the law to get in the way of that agenda?

Knowingly exposing others to HIV will no longer be a felony in California

I grew up there. Used to be a lot better. Then they started going to war against the average American lifestyle and try to create this unworkable utopia where plastic bags don't exist anymore, gas-powered cars are illegal (wtf??) and everyone rides bicycles or uses public transit, while happily living in high rise low cost cramped apartments, even as the techie elites laugh their way to the bank. They purposely reduce lanes, encourage traffic jams, they want to make driving so time-consuming that it becomes unviable. There is a full-blown war on cars in California... even as the legislators drive their BMWs alone to work.
They give you $500 tickets for driving in HOV lane. They raise the bridge tolls to $8 to discourage people from driving to work, even though people HAVE to drive.
The legislature lives in a fantasy bubble and forces all of CA to obey irrational, unworkable regulations and the obsession with climate change and fake racial equality is on the level of medieval fanaticism. It only gets worse with time. 1-party state.

 

[danielpalos]

Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?

That is your misconception. I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.

The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.

Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.

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.

Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.

Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.

What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.

Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

 

[hadit]

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.

Yes, we absolutely need to provide for the common defense and insure domestic tranquility. Now, how does that relate to the federal government being restricted to specific enumerated powers and not having a blank check to do whatever it wants to do?

Those particular powers are examples and qualifications of what was meant by promoting and providing for the welfare General, of the United States. It really is that simple.

Incorrect. They are NOT examples, they are enumerated powers and the federal government is restricted to those powers. Everything else is reserved to the states and the people. Please quote the portion of the Constitution that specifies they are only examples.

I doubt he has ever read the Constitution. And if he has, he is too stupid to comprehend it.

He's read nothing beyond a headline here or there and the parts taken out of context that some article he agrees with points at.

y'all have even less but are on the Right Wing.

Then support your assertion. Quote the writers of the Constitution on what they meant by the term, "general welfare".

This is what it has to mean now:

welfare - Google Search

Irrelevant. If they wrote about people being gay in the Constitution, it wouldn't have anything to do with homosexuals, because the meaning of that term didn't change until long after it was written. You don't get to re-interpret a document based on changed word meanings since it was written.

 

[hadit]

Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?

That is your misconception. I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.

The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.

Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.

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.

Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.

Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.

What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.

Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.

 

[danielpalos]

The rich will always destroy themselves. Their shit does not smell anymore. In history every wealthy entity does the same thing. In reality or myth...King Arthur and Camelot was an example. We had it and threw it away.

Should we pester Communists for a simple plan for a Commune of Heaven on Earth?

 

[hadit]

The actual text of the Constitution outweighs the description of WHY the Constitution was created, found in the preamble.

However did you reach your conclusion? The preamble is our "mission statement" for our form of Government. Any ambiguities should be resolved pursuant to it. We should be promoting the general welfare at every opportunity.

And we're back to the question you are studiously trying to ignore. What did the writers of the Constitution mean by "general welfare"? Answer that and support your answer. We're not moving on until you do.

You are simply being disingenuous. They obviously did not express the general badfare nor the general malfare nor the general warfare. It does not inspire any confidence in your sincerity.

You keep saying what they did not mean. I asked you what they meant and for you to support it. I tire of this, so will answer for you. Clearly you cannot do either of those, because we all know what they meant because we read the things they wrote about it. You are simply wrong, you have the most fallacies, and no one takes you seriously. Now, instead of just putting words together in nonsense sentences, you're making up words that also mean nothing. It's sad, really. Even a bot is more flexible.

go ahead and look up the word and post it for us. i am not the one resorting to diversion or any other fallacies.

welfare, what does it mean to you and what does a dictionary say it means?

No, not welfare in the general sense or what it might mean to you today. "General welfare", as written in the Constitution. We posted several quotes from the people who wrote it explaining what it meant and what it didn't mean.

Our federal Constitution applies and has to be applied today. The powers are general enough to handle it.

Of course. The actual meaning still applies. The federal government does not have unlimited power. Even Joe Biden understands that. Too bad you don't.

 

[danielpalos]

Let's reel you back in for a moment. Why do you believe a phrase found in the preamble to the Constitution has more power and credence than the actual text of the Constitution?

That is your misconception. I am stating that our Founding Fathers provided the goals we should strive for whenever we are unsure of which direction public policies should take.

The Constitution spells out which direction public policies should take, for example the second amendment which specifies that individuals can own firearms, and the tenth which specifies that every power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people.

Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.

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.

Until you resolve the question of what they actually meant by that term, you will always have the greater fallacies.

Any exigency that may need to be addressed by the public sector must be done in manner which provides for the general welfare.

What did the writers of the Constitution mean by the term, "General Welfare"? We've posted quotes establishing that and you've ignored those quotes in favor of your own fallacies.

Our Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."

You have the greater fallacies. The writers of the Constitution clearly did not mean for the federal government to have unlimited power. It simply doesn't matter what you believe now.

Only the right wing never gets it. Providing for the general welfare is not, unlimited since it must exclude the general badfare and the general malfare and even the general warfare.

 

[hadit]

1. Is that what you think they meant? State it clearly.
2. Support it with quotes from their contemporary writings.

Seriously, you really need a new schtick.

Our welfare clause is general and must provide for any given contingency in a general, top down manner.

All usages of the terms employed can be found in any dictionary for lexiconical support.

You're not even trying any more. Answer the question and support your answer.

You need to read the definitions of the terms employed so you can tell me where you have difficulty following my logic.

Dude, I don't think YOU can follow your "logic", as it isn't logical at all. Now, tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.

They did not mean the general badfare nor the general warfare; for comparison and contrast.

Irrelevant and nonsensical. Answer the question.

It has to provide for the general welfare not the general badfare nor the general malfare nor even the general warfare. Any questions?

Tell us what you think the writers of the Constitution meant when they said, "general welfare" and support it with contemporary quotes from them.

It doesn't matter what they said it means then. Our Constitution is express not implied since the ratification.

It absolutely matters what they wanted it to mean. Re-interpreting it to mean something else is unconstitutional because the only way it can be changed is through the amendment process.

Welfare means the same then as now; only the right wing prefers to be disingenuous at the expense of the Poor as the least wealthy in our republic.

We've posted quotes that show "general welfare" did not mean what YOU think it means now. You have failed to support your position.