Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What is a society, and what duty do we have for our fellow citizens?
Would you step over a person in obvious discomfort and in need of assistance on a sidewalk? Yes or No?
There's the entire problem. You think it's your place to determine what duty I have to someone else. I get to pick those, you don't.
Depends on whether or not I, not you, determine whether that person is in discomfort and need. You don't get to make that determination for me just like I don't get to make it for you.
I have said for years that if I think someone is truly in need of help and I can help them, I will. If I don't, I won't. It's that simple.
If I don't think someone truly needs help, I'll walk right past them. If someone is in a position not of their own doing or truly can't help themselves, and that's based on MY determination, I'll help. If that person caused their own problems by making bad choices and/or only wants something handed to them, and that's also based on MY determination, I'll let them go without. I didn't create their situation, therefore, it's not my place to offset the results.
You expect other peoples kids to go overseas and kill terrorists, or not? If, or not, why are you not going into Syria and hunting down ISIS:? Don't tell us that is apples and oranges, some people can help others and object to paying taxes, others pay taxes and vote to make taxes pay for the good of us all.
My wife and I are looking for a new home, a new expensive home for this reason. We own our home free and clear and thus don't have enough tax right offs, and give too much of our money to a Congress which claims to be fiscally conservative, but have yet to cut their salary and benefits, and are ever willing to cut benefits and aid to others.
So, by buying an expensive home we will pay about the same in local taxes, but we will pay more to taxes spend locally and less to the DOD which (for example) drops $40,000 humvees out of the sky, one after another, & each is totally destroyed, or to members of Congress who spent millions on political witch hunts and nothing to fix the needs of the American citizen.
What you need to do with that money is provide for the needs of all the people you say you care about. If you don't, your words that you care are nothing more than bullshit from the typical Liberal. If you care and you think taxes should go to help, you shouldn't have a problem with paying more. Since you won't, you're a typical piece of shit liar.
There's a difference between military spending and the type spending you think Congress should do. One is directly listed in the Constitution and the nonsense social programs aren't. You can't fix the American citizen by handing him/her something for nothing. That you think so proves you're a moron. Get out of the way of those of us that know how to do things and STFU. We'll tell you when you can speak. Outside of that, keep your damn mouth shut.
What does the Constitution say about infrastructure?
Art I. sec 8 clause 1 gives the Congress the power to raise money for the general welfare. Roads, bridges, tunnels, electricity; a healthy population and one educated seem to fall under the general welfare clause here and in the Preamble; Clause 18 allows the Congress to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper.for providing for the general Welfare.
Both statements in COTUS are clear statements, unlike this one:
If the general Welfare clause can be parsed, the 2nd Amendment must be treated in the same manner!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.
The worst part about is what you said is "subsidized by the taxpayer". No one owes another person healthcare coverage.
What is a society, and what duty do we have for our fellow citizens?
Would you step over a person in obvious discomfort and in need of assistance on a sidewalk? Yes or No?
There's the entire problem. You think it's your place to determine what duty I have to someone else. I get to pick those, you don't.
Depends on whether or not I, not you, determine whether that person is in discomfort and need. You don't get to make that determination for me just like I don't get to make it for you.
I have said for years that if I think someone is truly in need of help and I can help them, I will. If I don't, I won't. It's that simple.
If I don't think someone truly needs help, I'll walk right past them. If someone is in a position not of their own doing or truly can't help themselves, and that's based on MY determination, I'll help. If that person caused their own problems by making bad choices and/or only wants something handed to them, and that's also based on MY determination, I'll let them go without. I didn't create their situation, therefore, it's not my place to offset the results.
You expect other peoples kids to go overseas and kill terrorists, or not? If, or not, why are you not going into Syria and hunting down ISIS:? Don't tell us that is apples and oranges, some people can help others and object to paying taxes, others pay taxes and vote to make taxes pay for the good of us all.
My wife and I are looking for a new home, a new expensive home for this reason. We own our home free and clear and thus don't have enough tax right offs, and give too much of our money to a Congress which claims to be fiscally conservative, but have yet to cut their salary and benefits, and are ever willing to cut benefits and aid to others.
So, by buying an expensive home we will pay about the same in local taxes, but we will pay more to taxes spend locally and less to the DOD which (for example) drops $40,000 humvees out of the sky, one after another, & each is totally destroyed, or to members of Congress who spent millions on political witch hunts and nothing to fix the needs of the American citizen.
What you need to do with that money is provide for the needs of all the people you say you care about. If you don't, your words that you care are nothing more than bullshit from the typical Liberal. If you care and you think taxes should go to help, you shouldn't have a problem with paying more. Since you won't, you're a typical piece of shit liar.
There's a difference between military spending and the type spending you think Congress should do. One is directly listed in the Constitution and the nonsense social programs aren't. You can't fix the American citizen by handing him/her something for nothing. That you think so proves you're a moron. Get out of the way of those of us that know how to do things and STFU. We'll tell you when you can speak. Outside of that, keep your damn mouth shut.
What does the Constitution say about infrastructure?
Very little, if anything.
Very little, if anything.
So you'd toss out just the general welfare clause or the entire Preamble? Turn the clock back to the 18th century and privately owned dirt roads with a toll barrier every few miles? Let the dams crumble like they did in South Carolina or, since most were federal projects, dismantle them in the name of FREEEEEDOMMMM!!!!11!!
Tell us about the America you want to live in. Might give your polio immunizations back as well. Those were free, courtesy of Salk's decision and the Evul Gubmint providing them.
Idiot.
Very little, if anything.
So you'd toss out just the general welfare clause or the entire Preamble? Turn the clock back to the 18th century and privately owned dirt roads with a toll barrier every few miles? Let the dams crumble like they did in South Carolina or, since most were federal projects, dismantle them in the name of FREEEEEDOMMMM!!!!11!!
Tell us about the America you want to live in. Might give your polio immunizations back as well. Those were free, courtesy of Salk's decision and the Evul Gubmint providing them.
Idiot.
The idiot is the person that think the government should be able to do whatever people want it to do despite nothing giving it the authority to do so. That's you.
Very little, if anything.
So you'd toss out just the general welfare clause or the entire Preamble? Turn the clock back to the 18th century and privately owned dirt roads with a toll barrier every few miles? Let the dams crumble like they did in South Carolina or, since most were federal projects, dismantle them in the name of FREEEEEDOMMMM!!!!11!!
Tell us about the America you want to live in. Might give your polio immunizations back as well. Those were free, courtesy of Salk's decision and the Evul Gubmint providing them.
Idiot.
The idiot is the person that think the government should be able to do whatever people want it to do despite nothing giving it the authority to do so. That's you.
Since there's no one here who believes that (except you), you're shadow-boxing.
Fun to watch, though.
Very little, if anything.
So you'd toss out just the general welfare clause or the entire Preamble? Turn the clock back to the 18th century and privately owned dirt roads with a toll barrier every few miles? Let the dams crumble like they did in South Carolina or, since most were federal projects, dismantle them in the name of FREEEEEDOMMMM!!!!11!!
Tell us about the America you want to live in. Might give your polio immunizations back as well. Those were free, courtesy of Salk's decision and the Evul Gubmint providing them.
Idiot.
The idiot is the person that think the government should be able to do whatever people want it to do despite nothing giving it the authority to do so. That's you.
Since there's no one here who believes that (except you), you're shadow-boxing.
Fun to watch, though.
Sure there is. You're one of them. When you use the "general welfare" clause and the "implied powers" clause to support the government doing things for which they have no delegated authority, it's exactly what you do. You're simply too stupid to realize you're doing it.
Sacred Second.
Very little, if anything.
So you'd toss out just the general welfare clause or the entire Preamble? Turn the clock back to the 18th century and privately owned dirt roads with a toll barrier every few miles? Let the dams crumble like they did in South Carolina or, since most were federal projects, dismantle them in the name of FREEEEEDOMMMM!!!!11!!
Tell us about the America you want to live in. Might give your polio immunizations back as well. Those were free, courtesy of Salk's decision and the Evul Gubmint providing them.
Idiot.
The idiot is the person that think the government should be able to do whatever people want it to do despite nothing giving it the authority to do so. That's you.
Since there's no one here who believes that (except you), you're shadow-boxing.
Fun to watch, though.
Sure there is. You're one of them. When you use the "general welfare" clause and the "implied powers" clause to support the government doing things for which they have no delegated authority, it's exactly what you do. You're simply too stupid to realize you're doing it.
Very little, if anything.
So you'd toss out just the general welfare clause or the entire Preamble? Turn the clock back to the 18th century and privately owned dirt roads with a toll barrier every few miles? Let the dams crumble like they did in South Carolina or, since most were federal projects, dismantle them in the name of FREEEEEDOMMMM!!!!11!!
Tell us about the America you want to live in. Might give your polio immunizations back as well. Those were free, courtesy of Salk's decision and the Evul Gubmint providing them.
Idiot.
The idiot is the person that think the government should be able to do whatever people want it to do despite nothing giving it the authority to do so. That's you.
Since there's no one here who believes that (except you), you're shadow-boxing.
Fun to watch, though.
Sure there is. You're one of them. When you use the "general welfare" clause and the "implied powers" clause to support the government doing things for which they have no delegated authority, it's exactly what you do. You're simply too stupid to realize you're doing it.
Why was the Preamble written?
I believe, though the phrase(s) are relatively new, that the authors and signers of COTUS included the Preamble as a vision statement / mission statement for future generations. Keep in mind those men who lead us to where we are today were well educated and very curious - they read and critiqued books, they did not study to pass a test, they wrote letters to others sharing opinions, testing theories, and revising their ideas when they did not fit reality.
Of course that would be an ideal message board, not one wherein so many choose to respond with emotion and logical fallacies, in place of study and critical thinking.
Very little, if anything.
So you'd toss out just the general welfare clause or the entire Preamble? Turn the clock back to the 18th century and privately owned dirt roads with a toll barrier every few miles? Let the dams crumble like they did in South Carolina or, since most were federal projects, dismantle them in the name of FREEEEEDOMMMM!!!!11!!
Tell us about the America you want to live in. Might give your polio immunizations back as well. Those were free, courtesy of Salk's decision and the Evul Gubmint providing them.
Idiot.
The idiot is the person that think the government should be able to do whatever people want it to do despite nothing giving it the authority to do so. That's you.
Since there's no one here who believes that (except you), you're shadow-boxing.
Fun to watch, though.
Sure there is. You're one of them. When you use the "general welfare" clause and the "implied powers" clause to support the government doing things for which they have no delegated authority, it's exactly what you do. You're simply too stupid to realize you're doing it.
So you do think the entire Preamble should be excised. Next you'll go after the First Amendment. Hack 'em all down until there's nothing left but the
Go get 'em, Grizzly Adams.
You expect other peoples kids to go overseas and kill terrorists, or not? If, or not, why are you not going into Syria and hunting down ISIS:? Don't tell us that is apples and oranges, some people can help others and object to paying taxes, others pay taxes and vote to make taxes pay for the good of us all.
My wife and I are looking for a new home, a new expensive home for this reason. We own our home free and clear and thus don't have enough tax right offs, and give too much of our money to a Congress which claims to be fiscally conservative, but have yet to cut their salary and benefits, and are ever willing to cut benefits and aid to others.
So, by buying an expensive home we will pay about the same in local taxes, but we will pay more to taxes spend locally and less to the DOD which (for example) drops $40,000 humvees out of the sky, one after another, & each is totally destroyed, or to members of Congress who spent millions on political witch hunts and nothing to fix the needs of the American citizen.
What you need to do with that money is provide for the needs of all the people you say you care about. If you don't, your words that you care are nothing more than bullshit from the typical Liberal. If you care and you think taxes should go to help, you shouldn't have a problem with paying more. Since you won't, you're a typical piece of shit liar.
There's a difference between military spending and the type spending you think Congress should do. One is directly listed in the Constitution and the nonsense social programs aren't. You can't fix the American citizen by handing him/her something for nothing. That you think so proves you're a moron. Get out of the way of those of us that know how to do things and STFU. We'll tell you when you can speak. Outside of that, keep your damn mouth shut.
What does the Constitution say about infrastructure?
Art I. sec 8 clause 1 gives the Congress the power to raise money for the general welfare. Roads, bridges, tunnels, electricity; a healthy population and one educated seem to fall under the general welfare clause here and in the Preamble; Clause 18 allows the Congress to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper.for providing for the general Welfare.
Both statements in COTUS are clear statements, unlike this one:
If the general Welfare clause can be parsed, the 2nd Amendment must be treated in the same manner!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.
The General Welfare Clause only relates to those duties specifically called out by the Constitution.
It is not cart blanche federal power.
However, the 2nd amendment, like all others applied only to the federal government. In true form, states have every right to exercise gun control.
You're wrong.
With rise in the number of insured, Republicans have missed the boat in attempts to repeal Obamacare. There would be just too many people lose their insurance. This means any attempt to seriously repeal Obamacare would have to have new healthcare legislation so these people would not loose their coverage plus there would have to be hundreds of bridges between the old and new legislation. Frankly, I don't think congress is up to this.And over seven months after House Speaker Ryan promised to reveal the GOP's super-special replacement, Congressional Republicans are still whining and doing nothing.
ObamaCare propels number of insured Americans above 90%
For the first time ever, fewer than 10% of Americans lack health insurance, according to data released Tuesday by the CDC. And CNBC calls that "a clear sign of ObamaCare's impact." In 2015, only 9.1% of Americans—about 28.6 million people—were uninsured. That's down from 14.2% in 2013 when ObamaCare really started to go into effect, the Hill reports. That drop amounts to another 16.2 million Americans who now have health insurance. "Today's report is further proof that our country has made undeniable and historic strides thanks to the Affordable Care Act." Sylvia Burwell, secretary of health and human services, tells CNBC. "Our country ought to be proud of how far we've come and where we're going."
But regardless of ObamaCare's success in reducing the ranks of the uninsured—the Obama administration estimates more than 20 million Americans have gained insurance since the ACA passed in 2010—the Hill reports that Republicans still plan to use it as a wedge issue in November. Donald Trump and Senate Republicans believe hitting Hillary Clinton over ObamaCare will propel them to victories. “This healthcare law has been devastating to the Democratic Party," John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, tells the Hill.
The report from the CDC is attached for anyone who's interested:
With rise in the number of insured, Republicans have missed the boat in attempts to repeal Obamacare. There would be just too many people lose their insurance. This means any attempt to seriously repeal Obamacare would have to have new healthcare legislation so these people would not loose their coverage plus there would have to be hundreds of bridges between the old and new legislation. Frankly, I don't think congress is up to this.And over seven months after House Speaker Ryan promised to reveal the GOP's super-special replacement, Congressional Republicans are still whining and doing nothing.
ObamaCare propels number of insured Americans above 90%
For the first time ever, fewer than 10% of Americans lack health insurance, according to data released Tuesday by the CDC. And CNBC calls that "a clear sign of ObamaCare's impact." In 2015, only 9.1% of Americans—about 28.6 million people—were uninsured. That's down from 14.2% in 2013 when ObamaCare really started to go into effect, the Hill reports. That drop amounts to another 16.2 million Americans who now have health insurance. "Today's report is further proof that our country has made undeniable and historic strides thanks to the Affordable Care Act." Sylvia Burwell, secretary of health and human services, tells CNBC. "Our country ought to be proud of how far we've come and where we're going."
But regardless of ObamaCare's success in reducing the ranks of the uninsured—the Obama administration estimates more than 20 million Americans have gained insurance since the ACA passed in 2010—the Hill reports that Republicans still plan to use it as a wedge issue in November. Donald Trump and Senate Republicans believe hitting Hillary Clinton over ObamaCare will propel them to victories. “This healthcare law has been devastating to the Democratic Party," John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican, tells the Hill.
The report from the CDC is attached for anyone who's interested:
With rise in the number of insured, Republicans have missed the boat in attempts to repeal Obamacare. There would be just too many people lose their insurance. This means any attempt to seriously repeal Obamacare would have to have new healthcare legislation so these people would not loose their coverage plus there would have to be hundreds of bridges between the old and new legislation. Frankly, I don't think congress is up to this.
With rise in the number of insured, Republicans have missed the boat in attempts to repeal Obamacare. There would be just too many people lose their insurance. This means any attempt to seriously repeal Obamacare would have to have new healthcare legislation so these people would not loose their coverage plus there would have to be hundreds of bridges between the old and new legislation. Frankly, I don't think congress is up to this.
They were up to 53 attempts to appeal it. They've gone quiet since King v Burwell and Paul Ryan's ascent to Speaker last October. Ryan's first announcement as Speaker was that Congress had a Super-Duper Brand-Spanking-New Plan to Overturn Obamacare and Provide Americans with REAL insurance options.
Nine months later, nada. Did he abort it?
With rise in the number of insured, Republicans have missed the boat in attempts to repeal Obamacare. There would be just too many people lose their insurance. This means any attempt to seriously repeal Obamacare would have to have new healthcare legislation so these people would not loose their coverage plus there would have to be hundreds of bridges between the old and new legislation. Frankly, I don't think congress is up to this.
They were up to 53 attempts to appeal it. They've gone quiet since King v Burwell and Paul Ryan's ascent to Speaker last October. Ryan's first announcement as Speaker was that Congress had a Super-Duper Brand-Spanking-New Plan to Overturn Obamacare and Provide Americans with REAL insurance options.
Nine months later, nada. Did he abort it?
I've provided an option. I'll provide mine and you provide for you and anyone else you choose to help. Interested?
With rise in the number of insured, Republicans have missed the boat in attempts to repeal Obamacare. There would be just too many people lose their insurance. This means any attempt to seriously repeal Obamacare would have to have new healthcare legislation so these people would not loose their coverage plus there would have to be hundreds of bridges between the old and new legislation. Frankly, I don't think congress is up to this.
They were up to 53 attempts to appeal it. They've gone quiet since King v Burwell and Paul Ryan's ascent to Speaker last October. Ryan's first announcement as Speaker was that Congress had a Super-Duper Brand-Spanking-New Plan to Overturn Obamacare and Provide Americans with REAL insurance options.
Nine months later, nada. Did he abort it?
I've provided an option. I'll provide mine and you provide for you and anyone else you choose to help. Interested?
Are you Paul Ryan? That would explain so much.
With rise in the number of insured, Republicans have missed the boat in attempts to repeal Obamacare. There would be just too many people lose their insurance. This means any attempt to seriously repeal Obamacare would have to have new healthcare legislation so these people would not loose their coverage plus there would have to be hundreds of bridges between the old and new legislation. Frankly, I don't think congress is up to this.
They were up to 53 attempts to appeal it. They've gone quiet since King v Burwell and Paul Ryan's ascent to Speaker last October. Ryan's first announcement as Speaker was that Congress had a Super-Duper Brand-Spanking-New Plan to Overturn Obamacare and Provide Americans with REAL insurance options.
Nine months later, nada. Did he abort it?
I've provided an option. I'll provide mine and you provide for you and anyone else you choose to help. Interested?
Are you Paul Ryan? That would explain so much.
I didn't think one of you that claims you care so much for people and want them to have something they don't have would be willing to provide it the way it should be provided. That's the problem with you idiots. You claim you care yet do nothing personally to show that care. Your typical response is to see how much you can get the government to force from others then claim credit as if is was your own money.
With rise in the number of insured, Republicans have missed the boat in attempts to repeal Obamacare. There would be just too many people lose their insurance. This means any attempt to seriously repeal Obamacare would have to have new healthcare legislation so these people would not loose their coverage plus there would have to be hundreds of bridges between the old and new legislation. Frankly, I don't think congress is up to this.
They were up to 53 attempts to appeal it. They've gone quiet since King v Burwell and Paul Ryan's ascent to Speaker last October. Ryan's first announcement as Speaker was that Congress had a Super-Duper Brand-Spanking-New Plan to Overturn Obamacare and Provide Americans with REAL insurance options.
Nine months later, nada. Did he abort it?
I've provided an option. I'll provide mine and you provide for you and anyone else you choose to help. Interested?
Are you Paul Ryan? That would explain so much.
I didn't think one of you that claims you care so much for people and want them to have something they don't have would be willing to provide it the way it should be provided. That's the problem with you idiots. You claim you care yet do nothing personally to show that care. Your typical response is to see how much you can get the government to force from others then claim credit as if is was your own money.
I was talking about Paul Ryan's promise on his very first day in office nine months ago that Congress would have a plan to replace the PPACA. Not sure what you're posting has to do with that.
If you don't want to talk about Ryan, but would rather just keep repeating your very boring screed, I think I may just scroll past your posts for the next little while.
They were up to 53 attempts to appeal it. They've gone quiet since King v Burwell and Paul Ryan's ascent to Speaker last October. Ryan's first announcement as Speaker was that Congress had a Super-Duper Brand-Spanking-New Plan to Overturn Obamacare and Provide Americans with REAL insurance options.
Nine months later, nada. Did he abort it?
I've provided an option. I'll provide mine and you provide for you and anyone else you choose to help. Interested?
Are you Paul Ryan? That would explain so much.
I didn't think one of you that claims you care so much for people and want them to have something they don't have would be willing to provide it the way it should be provided. That's the problem with you idiots. You claim you care yet do nothing personally to show that care. Your typical response is to see how much you can get the government to force from others then claim credit as if is was your own money.
I was talking about Paul Ryan's promise on his very first day in office nine months ago that Congress would have a plan to replace the PPACA. Not sure what you're posting has to do with that.
If you don't want to talk about Ryan, but would rather just keep repeating your very boring screed, I think I may just scroll past your posts for the next little while.
Oh, so you'll hide from debate, too? Like I said, why don't you just say you're a coward and make it easy on both of us.
