Democrats: Let's Throw Out The Constitution

[danielpalos]

The right wing had nothing but repeal. They never had any solutions.

Solutions for what?

our spending on alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Spending on national defense is a constitutional requirement. Spending on health care insurance isn't. Are you a socialist?

We can lower taxes. It Must be real times of Peace, not real times of War. We have a Second Amendment, we don't need a standing army.

Obviously we do need a military because it's a Constitutional requirement. Are you against the US Constitution?

We have a Second Amendment.

 

[BS Filter]

Solutions for what?

our spending on alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Spending on national defense is a constitutional requirement. Spending on health care insurance isn't. Are you a socialist?

We can lower taxes. It Must be real times of Peace, not real times of War. We have a Second Amendment, we don't need a standing army.

Obviously we do need a military because it's a Constitutional requirement. Are you against the US Constitution?

We have a Second Amendment.

Yep, and we also have Article 1 Section 8.

 

[danielpalos]

our spending on alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.

Spending on national defense is a constitutional requirement. Spending on health care insurance isn't. Are you a socialist?

We can lower taxes. It Must be real times of Peace, not real times of War. We have a Second Amendment, we don't need a standing army.

Obviously we do need a military because it's a Constitutional requirement. Are you against the US Constitution?

We have a Second Amendment.

Yep, and we also have Article 1 Section 8.

Yes, we do. It says to provide for the general welfare and only the common defense. It does not say to provide for the general warfare or the common offense.

 

[BS Filter]

Spending on national defense is a constitutional requirement. Spending on health care insurance isn't. Are you a socialist?

We can lower taxes. It Must be real times of Peace, not real times of War. We have a Second Amendment, we don't need a standing army.

Obviously we do need a military because it's a Constitutional requirement. Are you against the US Constitution?

We have a Second Amendment.

Yep, and we also have Article 1 Section 8.

Yes, we do. It says to provide for the general welfare and only the common defense. It does not say to provide for the general warfare or the common offense.

First, "general welfare" doesn't include paying your medical insurance premiums. If it did, the founders would have told congress to do that from day one. Second, killing a rattle snake before it bites you is self defense. Case closed.

 

[danielpalos]

We can lower taxes. It Must be real times of Peace, not real times of War. We have a Second Amendment, we don't need a standing army.

Obviously we do need a military because it's a Constitutional requirement. Are you against the US Constitution?

We have a Second Amendment.

Yep, and we also have Article 1 Section 8.

Yes, we do. It says to provide for the general welfare and only the common defense. It does not say to provide for the general warfare or the common offense.

First, "general welfare" doesn't include paying your medical insurance premiums. If it did, the founders would have told congress to do that from day one. Second, killing a rattle snake before it bites you is self defense. Case closed.

They simply didn't think of it. In any case, why do you believe there should be limits to the General welfare but not the Common defense?

 

[BS Filter]

Obviously we do need a military because it's a Constitutional requirement. Are you against the US Constitution?

We have a Second Amendment.

Yep, and we also have Article 1 Section 8.

Yes, we do. It says to provide for the general welfare and only the common defense. It does not say to provide for the general warfare or the common offense.

First, "general welfare" doesn't include paying your medical insurance premiums. If it did, the founders would have told congress to do that from day one. Second, killing a rattle snake before it bites you is self defense. Case closed.

They simply didn't think of it. In any case, why do you believe there should be limits to the General welfare but not the Common defense?

LOL.....that's funny...."they simply didn't think of it". Your interpretation of General Welfare isn't constitutional. It didn't mean the government should pay insurance premiums for people. I do agree with you that the founders "simply didn't think of it". They didn't think of it because that's not what the "general welfare clause" was intended for. You lefties are continually trying to rewrite the Constitution. Funny stuff.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Second Amendment.

Yep, and we also have Article 1 Section 8.

Yes, we do. It says to provide for the general welfare and only the common defense. It does not say to provide for the general warfare or the common offense.

First, "general welfare" doesn't include paying your medical insurance premiums. If it did, the founders would have told congress to do that from day one. Second, killing a rattle snake before it bites you is self defense. Case closed.

They simply didn't think of it. In any case, why do you believe there should be limits to the General welfare but not the Common defense?

LOL.....that's funny...."they simply didn't think of it". Your interpretation of General Welfare isn't constitutional. It didn't mean the government should pay insurance premiums for people. I do agree with you that the founders "simply didn't think of it". They didn't think of it because that's not what the "general welfare clause" was intended for. You lefties are continually trying to rewrite the Constitution. Funny stuff.

You make it seem like the right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

The common Defense is not the common Offense or general Warfare.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

 

[BS Filter]

Yep, and we also have Article 1 Section 8.

Yes, we do. It says to provide for the general welfare and only the common defense. It does not say to provide for the general warfare or the common offense.

First, "general welfare" doesn't include paying your medical insurance premiums. If it did, the founders would have told congress to do that from day one. Second, killing a rattle snake before it bites you is self defense. Case closed.

They simply didn't think of it. In any case, why do you believe there should be limits to the General welfare but not the Common defense?

LOL.....that's funny...."they simply didn't think of it". Your interpretation of General Welfare isn't constitutional. It didn't mean the government should pay insurance premiums for people. I do agree with you that the founders "simply didn't think of it". They didn't think of it because that's not what the "general welfare clause" was intended for. You lefties are continually trying to rewrite the Constitution. Funny stuff.

You make it seem like the right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

The common Defense is not the common Offense or general Warfare.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

Oh yeah, for sure, the right wing is really stupid. Uh huh. Have a nice day.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, we do. It says to provide for the general welfare and only the common defense. It does not say to provide for the general warfare or the common offense.

First, "general welfare" doesn't include paying your medical insurance premiums. If it did, the founders would have told congress to do that from day one. Second, killing a rattle snake before it bites you is self defense. Case closed.

They simply didn't think of it. In any case, why do you believe there should be limits to the General welfare but not the Common defense?

LOL.....that's funny...."they simply didn't think of it". Your interpretation of General Welfare isn't constitutional. It didn't mean the government should pay insurance premiums for people. I do agree with you that the founders "simply didn't think of it". They didn't think of it because that's not what the "general welfare clause" was intended for. You lefties are continually trying to rewrite the Constitution. Funny stuff.

You make it seem like the right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

The common Defense is not the common Offense or general Warfare.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

Oh yeah, for sure, the right wing is really stupid. Uh huh. Have a nice day.

Nothing but fallacy instead of a valid rebuttal for an argument, every time.

 

[BS Filter]

First, "general welfare" doesn't include paying your medical insurance premiums. If it did, the founders would have told congress to do that from day one. Second, killing a rattle snake before it bites you is self defense. Case closed.

They simply didn't think of it. In any case, why do you believe there should be limits to the General welfare but not the Common defense?

LOL.....that's funny...."they simply didn't think of it". Your interpretation of General Welfare isn't constitutional. It didn't mean the government should pay insurance premiums for people. I do agree with you that the founders "simply didn't think of it". They didn't think of it because that's not what the "general welfare clause" was intended for. You lefties are continually trying to rewrite the Constitution. Funny stuff.

You make it seem like the right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

The common Defense is not the common Offense or general Warfare.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

Oh yeah, for sure, the right wing is really stupid. Uh huh. Have a nice day.

Nothing but fallacy instead of a valid rebuttal for an argument, every time.

Oh, cut the crap. I gave you a rebuttal. You're the one that started calling people stupid when you didn't have a rebuttal. Run along now. Have a nice day.

 

[danielpalos]

They simply didn't think of it. In any case, why do you believe there should be limits to the General welfare but not the Common defense?

LOL.....that's funny...."they simply didn't think of it". Your interpretation of General Welfare isn't constitutional. It didn't mean the government should pay insurance premiums for people. I do agree with you that the founders "simply didn't think of it". They didn't think of it because that's not what the "general welfare clause" was intended for. You lefties are continually trying to rewrite the Constitution. Funny stuff.

You make it seem like the right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

The common Defense is not the common Offense or general Warfare.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

Oh yeah, for sure, the right wing is really stupid. Uh huh. Have a nice day.

Nothing but fallacy instead of a valid rebuttal for an argument, every time.

Oh, cut the crap. I gave you a rebuttal. You're the one that started calling people stupid when you didn't have a rebuttal. Run along now. Have a nice day.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

 

[BS Filter]

LOL.....that's funny...."they simply didn't think of it". Your interpretation of General Welfare isn't constitutional. It didn't mean the government should pay insurance premiums for people. I do agree with you that the founders "simply didn't think of it". They didn't think of it because that's not what the "general welfare clause" was intended for. You lefties are continually trying to rewrite the Constitution. Funny stuff.

You make it seem like the right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

The common Defense is not the common Offense or general Warfare.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

Oh yeah, for sure, the right wing is really stupid. Uh huh. Have a nice day.

Nothing but fallacy instead of a valid rebuttal for an argument, every time.

Oh, cut the crap. I gave you a rebuttal. You're the one that started calling people stupid when you didn't have a rebuttal. Run along now. Have a nice day.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

LOL.....that's funny...."they simply didn't think of it". Your interpretation of General Welfare isn't constitutional. It didn't mean the government should pay insurance premiums for people. I do agree with you that the founders "simply didn't think of it". They didn't think of it because that's not what the "general welfare clause" was intended for. You lefties are continually trying to rewrite the Constitution. Funny stuff.

You make it seem like the right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

The common Defense is not the common Offense or general Warfare.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

Oh yeah, for sure, the right wing is really stupid. Uh huh. Have a nice day.

Nothing but fallacy instead of a valid rebuttal for an argument, every time.

Oh, cut the crap. I gave you a rebuttal. You're the one that started calling people stupid when you didn't have a rebuttal. Run along now. Have a nice day.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

So lying to the American people about Obamacare, wasting billions of taxpayer money, and forcing me to pay higher insurance premiums to pay for the lies of Obama and democrats is promoting the "general welfare"? Idiocy.

 

[danielpalos]

You make it seem like the right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

The common Defense is not the common Offense or general Warfare.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

Oh yeah, for sure, the right wing is really stupid. Uh huh. Have a nice day.

Nothing but fallacy instead of a valid rebuttal for an argument, every time.

Oh, cut the crap. I gave you a rebuttal. You're the one that started calling people stupid when you didn't have a rebuttal. Run along now. Have a nice day.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

You make it seem like the right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.

The common Defense is not the common Offense or general Warfare.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

Oh yeah, for sure, the right wing is really stupid. Uh huh. Have a nice day.

Nothing but fallacy instead of a valid rebuttal for an argument, every time.

Oh, cut the crap. I gave you a rebuttal. You're the one that started calling people stupid when you didn't have a rebuttal. Run along now. Have a nice day.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

So lying to the American people about Obamacare, wasting billions of taxpayer money, and forcing me to pay higher insurance premiums to pay for the lies of Obama and democrats is promoting the "general welfare"? Idiocy.

The right wing had nothing but repeal, not better solutions at lower cost.

 

[BS Filter]

Oh yeah, for sure, the right wing is really stupid. Uh huh. Have a nice day.

Nothing but fallacy instead of a valid rebuttal for an argument, every time.

Oh, cut the crap. I gave you a rebuttal. You're the one that started calling people stupid when you didn't have a rebuttal. Run along now. Have a nice day.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

Oh yeah, for sure, the right wing is really stupid. Uh huh. Have a nice day.

Nothing but fallacy instead of a valid rebuttal for an argument, every time.

Oh, cut the crap. I gave you a rebuttal. You're the one that started calling people stupid when you didn't have a rebuttal. Run along now. Have a nice day.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

So lying to the American people about Obamacare, wasting billions of taxpayer money, and forcing me to pay higher insurance premiums to pay for the lies of Obama and democrats is promoting the "general welfare"? Idiocy.

The right wing had nothing but repeal, not better solutions at lower cost.

Here we go round the mulberry bush, round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows.

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing but fallacy instead of a valid rebuttal for an argument, every time.

Oh, cut the crap. I gave you a rebuttal. You're the one that started calling people stupid when you didn't have a rebuttal. Run along now. Have a nice day.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

Nothing but fallacy instead of a valid rebuttal for an argument, every time.

Oh, cut the crap. I gave you a rebuttal. You're the one that started calling people stupid when you didn't have a rebuttal. Run along now. Have a nice day.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

So lying to the American people about Obamacare, wasting billions of taxpayer money, and forcing me to pay higher insurance premiums to pay for the lies of Obama and democrats is promoting the "general welfare"? Idiocy.

The right wing had nothing but repeal, not better solutions at lower cost.

Here we go round the mulberry bush, round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

 

[BS Filter]

Oh, cut the crap. I gave you a rebuttal. You're the one that started calling people stupid when you didn't have a rebuttal. Run along now. Have a nice day.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

Oh, cut the crap. I gave you a rebuttal. You're the one that started calling people stupid when you didn't have a rebuttal. Run along now. Have a nice day.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

So lying to the American people about Obamacare, wasting billions of taxpayer money, and forcing me to pay higher insurance premiums to pay for the lies of Obama and democrats is promoting the "general welfare"? Idiocy.

The right wing had nothing but repeal, not better solutions at lower cost.

Here we go round the mulberry bush, round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

You're repeating yourself. You have a nice day. bye.

 

[danielpalos]

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

So lying to the American people about Obamacare, wasting billions of taxpayer money, and forcing me to pay higher insurance premiums to pay for the lies of Obama and democrats is promoting the "general welfare"? Idiocy.

The right wing had nothing but repeal, not better solutions at lower cost.

Here we go round the mulberry bush, round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows.

The general welfare clause is general, not major or specific or common.

You're repeating yourself. You have a nice day. bye.

Nothing but repeal really is worthless. How long does the right believe they can be credible, with nothing but repeal?

 

[AZGAL]

Recently, it was a homeless shelter in Seattle being sued because of their beliefs. In apparent effort to ensure that no faith-based social service provider goes unpunished, a convent of nuns is being taken back to court as well.

Little Sisters of the Poor had previously been in a four-year legal battle with the Obama Administration over attempts to make them pay for contraception

New Health and Human Services rules from the Trump administration created a religious exemption that eliminated the mandate and once again permitted Little Sisters of the Poor to decide for themselves whether they wanted to pay for all, some, or no forms of contraception.

However, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has filed a lawsuit aimed at eliminating the religious exemption that currently covers Little Sisters

Early next year, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in NIFLA v. Becerra (yes, the same Becerra trying to eliminate the religious exemption in California) to determine whether the State of California can force pro-life pregnancy centers to advertise for abortion providers.

 

[regent]

America has already started its government medical care programs, and they will probably continue to grow.