For the first time, more than 90% of Americans have health insurance

[Conservative65]

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.

Yet you still won't personally do for someone what you say you believe they should have, all the while, supporting others being forced to pay for it so you can take credit.

 

[Arianrhod]

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.

Yet you still won't personally do for someone what you say you believe they should have.

Prove it.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Yet you still won't personally do for someone what you say you believe they should have.

Prove it.

Your own words. When you support others being forced to fund what you said should occur, it shows you haven't done it. If you had done it, you wouldn't support others being forced to fund it because it would have already been funded by YOU.

 

[Arianrhod]

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.

Yet you still won't personally do for someone what you say you believe they should have.

Prove it.

Your own words.

Link?

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Yet you still won't personally do for someone what you say you believe they should have.

Prove it.

Your own words.

Link?

Don't need to waste time posting a link. It can be shown in one simple yes/no question. Do you support social welfare programs that involve redistribution of wealth mandated by the government?

 

[Conservative65]

PS he fell, and he did feel deserted and alone

People with seizures often have the same experience. Haters like Conservative65 would just step right over them. "Not my problem." But if something happened to them or someone close to them, they'd be the first ones screaming "Somebody help MEEEEEEE!!!!"

Pathetic.

Prove it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

What you believe is irrelevant. You believe that general welfare equals social welfare. You couldn't be any further from the truth.

When did I equate the general Welfare as written in COTUS in the 18th Century with social welfare a concept of the 20th Century?

What I propose is nothing more than a level playing field, equal opportunity for all no matter their color, ethnicity, gender, creed or appearance. I wonder how many problems are a result of bigotry, racism, hate and fear - and please don't deny they are not dominant in too many posts on this message board - could be solved if those who speak, who write and who act without good will toward others.

Granted I call people assholes, and some stupid because there is not other way to address bigots, racists, fear and hate mongers, liars by omission and commission (damn liars in MO) who cannot or will not engage in civil discussions.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

What you believe is irrelevant. You believe that general welfare equals social welfare. You couldn't be any further from the truth.

When did I equate the general Welfare as written in COTUS in the 18th Century with social welfare a concept of the 20th Century?

What I propose is nothing more than a level playing field, equal opportunity for all no matter their color, ethnicity, gender, creed or appearance. I wonder how many problems are a result of bigotry, racism, hate and fear - and please don't deny they are not dominant in too many posts on this message board - could be solved if those who speak, who write and who act without good will toward others.

Granted I call people assholes, and some stupid because there is not other way to address bigots, racists, fear and hate mongers, liars by omission and commission (damn liars in MO) who cannot or will not engage in civil discussions.

So you oppose social welfare?

 

[Conservative65]

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.

What you believe is irrelevant. You believe that general welfare equals social welfare. You couldn't be any further from the truth.

When did I equate the general Welfare as written in COTUS in the 18th Century with social welfare a concept of the 20th Century?

What I propose is nothing more than a level playing field, equal opportunity for all no matter their color, ethnicity, gender, creed or appearance. I wonder how many problems are a result of bigotry, racism, hate and fear - and please don't deny they are not dominant in too many posts on this message board - could be solved if those who speak, who write and who act without good will toward others.

Granted I call people assholes, and some stupid because there is not other way to address bigots, racists, fear and hate mongers, liars by omission and commission (damn liars in MO) who cannot or will not engage in civil discussions.

On February 5, 2016, on a thread entitled "No One Has A Right to Healthcare" you stated:

• Life, Liberty and Property are protected by Social Services.

Are you saying that your belief about Life, Liberty, and Property don't fall under the premise of general welfare in the Preamble of the Constitution?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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:

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.
​

If the general Welfare clause can be parsed, the 2nd Amendment must be treated in the same manner!

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.

What....just because you said so ?

How would you reconcile the General Welfare Clause with Federalist 45 ?

Or the10th amendment.

Or the way the government behaved up until the 1930's ?

I don't, only the 10th A. has the force of law, the other two are opinions or policies of government.

The Federalist Papers' purpose was to convince the citizens of New York to ratify the Constitution. And an effort to solve the issues which would divide the north and south, the large and small states.
Milestones: 1784–1800 - Office of the Historian

 

[Conservative65]

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:

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.
​

If the general Welfare clause can be parsed, the 2nd Amendment must be treated in the same manner!

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.

What....just because you said so ?

How would you reconcile the General Welfare Clause with Federalist 45 ?

Or the10th amendment.

Or the way the government behaved up until the 1930's ?

I don't, only the 10th A. has the force of law, the other two are opinions or policies of government.

The Federalist Papers' purpose was to convince the citizens of New York to ratify the Constitution. And an effort to solve the issues which would divide the north and south, the large and small states.
Milestones: 1784–1800 - Office of the Historian

People on your side of things don't consider the 10th Amendment as having the force of law. You support all sorts of things that have no direct delegated authority for the federal government to do. That means those things, only if a State chooses to do them, belong to the State. The mindset by so many of you Liberal bleeding hearts is that if a State chooses not to deal with it that it defaults to the federal government. That's not how the 10th worked.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

What you believe is irrelevant. You believe that general welfare equals social welfare. You couldn't be any further from the truth.

When did I equate the general Welfare as written in COTUS in the 18th Century with social welfare a concept of the 20th Century?

What I propose is nothing more than a level playing field, equal opportunity for all no matter their color, ethnicity, gender, creed or appearance. I wonder how many problems are a result of bigotry, racism, hate and fear - and please don't deny they are not dominant in too many posts on this message board - could be solved if those who speak, who write and who act without good will toward others.

Granted I call people assholes, and some stupid because there is not other way to address bigots, racists, fear and hate mongers, liars by omission and commission (damn liars in MO) who cannot or will not engage in civil discussions.

On February 5, 2016, on a thread entitled "No One Has A Right to Healthcare" you stated:

• Life, Liberty and Property are protected by Social Services.

Are you saying that your belief about Life, Liberty, and Property don't fall under the premise of general welfare in the Preamble of the Constitution?

I don't recall a post I made over five months ago. Post a link and everyone can read it in context. Since I used a bullet point I'm certain what you posted is taken out of context. That said, I don't disagree with the bullet point, do you really dispute the fact that government on every level has a duty to protect its citizens?

 

[Conservative65]

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.

What you believe is irrelevant. You believe that general welfare equals social welfare. You couldn't be any further from the truth.

When did I equate the general Welfare as written in COTUS in the 18th Century with social welfare a concept of the 20th Century?

What I propose is nothing more than a level playing field, equal opportunity for all no matter their color, ethnicity, gender, creed or appearance. I wonder how many problems are a result of bigotry, racism, hate and fear - and please don't deny they are not dominant in too many posts on this message board - could be solved if those who speak, who write and who act without good will toward others.

Granted I call people assholes, and some stupid because there is not other way to address bigots, racists, fear and hate mongers, liars by omission and commission (damn liars in MO) who cannot or will not engage in civil discussions.

On February 5, 2016, on a thread entitled "No One Has A Right to Healthcare" you stated:

• Life, Liberty and Property are protected by Social Services.

Are you saying that your belief about Life, Liberty, and Property don't fall under the premise of general welfare in the Preamble of the Constitution?

I don't recall a post I made over five months ago. Post a link and everyone can read it in context. Since I used a bullet point I'm certain what you posted is taken out of context. That said, I don't disagree with the bullet point, do you really dispute the fact that government on every level has a duty to protect its citizens?

You asked to provide proof and I did. Not surprised you used the context excuse.

Since you don't disagree with the bullet point, my statement that you equate social welfare and general welfare is proven although you denied you did.

Social services isn't about protecting. It's about giving one person something that another person earned. No, I don't agree it's the place of government to make sure you have given to you what you should be providing yourself. One person/group does not owe another person/group a damn thing related to what has come to be known as social services.

If you think someone doesn't have what they should have, you can solve that problem yourself without the government being involved at all. It's easy. Provide it to them yourself. Why are you opposed to providing someone with what you say they need yourself?

 

[Arianrhod]

PS he fell, and he did feel deserted and alone

People with seizures often have the same experience. Haters like Conservative65 would just step right over them. "Not my problem." But if something happened to them or someone close to them, they'd be the first ones screaming "Somebody help MEEEEEEE!!!!"

Pathetic.

Prove it.

You owe me several proofs before you get anything in return. Talk about taking without putting in...that would be you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

What you believe is irrelevant. You believe that general welfare equals social welfare. You couldn't be any further from the truth.

When did I equate the general Welfare as written in COTUS in the 18th Century with social welfare a concept of the 20th Century?

What I propose is nothing more than a level playing field, equal opportunity for all no matter their color, ethnicity, gender, creed or appearance. I wonder how many problems are a result of bigotry, racism, hate and fear - and please don't deny they are not dominant in too many posts on this message board - could be solved if those who speak, who write and who act without good will toward others.

Granted I call people assholes, and some stupid because there is not other way to address bigots, racists, fear and hate mongers, liars by omission and commission (damn liars in MO) who cannot or will not engage in civil discussions.

On February 5, 2016, on a thread entitled "No One Has A Right to Healthcare" you stated:

• Life, Liberty and Property are protected by Social Services.

Are you saying that your belief about Life, Liberty, and Property don't fall under the premise of general welfare in the Preamble of the Constitution?

I don't recall a post I made over five months ago. Post a link and everyone can read it in context. Since I used a bullet point I'm certain what you posted is taken out of context. That said, I don't disagree with the bullet point, do you really dispute the fact that government on every level has a duty to protect its citizens?

You asked to provide proof and I did. Not surprised you used the context excuse.

Since you don't disagree with the bullet point, my statement that you equate social welfare and general welfare is proven although you denied you did.

Social services isn't about protecting. It's about giving one person something that another person earned. No, I don't agree it's the place of government to make sure you have given to you what you should be providing yourself. One person/group does not owe another person/group a damn thing related to what has come to be known as social services.

If you think someone doesn't have what they should have, you can solve that problem yourself without the government being involved at all. It's easy. Provide it to them yourself. Why are you opposed to providing someone with what you say they need yourself?

Con65, you are confused / unable to put your biases aside or unable to read and comprehend English. Why do we have a government? Simply to repel foreign nation states from invasion, to have a post office, provide for the arts? Read and try to comprehend clause 1 and clause 18 and try to understand them in concert. It matters not what single founder wrote on the issue, that is his opinion and be assured, the signers of COTUS did not all agree on every clause and its meaning.

Some believe that clauses can be parsed to fit their ideology and others cannot be parsed since they fit within their ideology.

That includes USSC Justices and Federal Appellate triers of fact too. Want evidence, see how many decision are split decisions, that should convince even those brainwashed to believe the wording of all laws and COTUS are clear and not ambiguous.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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:

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.
​

If the general Welfare clause can be parsed, the 2nd Amendment must be treated in the same manner!

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.

What....just because you said so ?

How would you reconcile the General Welfare Clause with Federalist 45 ?

Or the10th amendment.

Or the way the government behaved up until the 1930's ?

I don't, only the 10th A. has the force of law, the other two are opinions or policies of government.

The Federalist Papers' purpose was to convince the citizens of New York to ratify the Constitution. And an effort to solve the issues which would divide the north and south, the large and small states.
Milestones: 1784–1800 - Office of the Historian

The guy who wrote the General Welfare Clause also wrote Federalist 45.

The question was: how do you reconcile that ?

Answer: You don't

 

[Conservative65]

What you believe is irrelevant. You believe that general welfare equals social welfare. You couldn't be any further from the truth.

When did I equate the general Welfare as written in COTUS in the 18th Century with social welfare a concept of the 20th Century?

What I propose is nothing more than a level playing field, equal opportunity for all no matter their color, ethnicity, gender, creed or appearance. I wonder how many problems are a result of bigotry, racism, hate and fear - and please don't deny they are not dominant in too many posts on this message board - could be solved if those who speak, who write and who act without good will toward others.

Granted I call people assholes, and some stupid because there is not other way to address bigots, racists, fear and hate mongers, liars by omission and commission (damn liars in MO) who cannot or will not engage in civil discussions.

On February 5, 2016, on a thread entitled "No One Has A Right to Healthcare" you stated:

• Life, Liberty and Property are protected by Social Services.

Are you saying that your belief about Life, Liberty, and Property don't fall under the premise of general welfare in the Preamble of the Constitution?

I don't recall a post I made over five months ago. Post a link and everyone can read it in context. Since I used a bullet point I'm certain what you posted is taken out of context. That said, I don't disagree with the bullet point, do you really dispute the fact that government on every level has a duty to protect its citizens?

You asked to provide proof and I did. Not surprised you used the context excuse.

Since you don't disagree with the bullet point, my statement that you equate social welfare and general welfare is proven although you denied you did.

Social services isn't about protecting. It's about giving one person something that another person earned. No, I don't agree it's the place of government to make sure you have given to you what you should be providing yourself. One person/group does not owe another person/group a damn thing related to what has come to be known as social services.

If you think someone doesn't have what they should have, you can solve that problem yourself without the government being involved at all. It's easy. Provide it to them yourself. Why are you opposed to providing someone with what you say they need yourself?

Con65, you are confused / unable to put your biases aside or unable to read and comprehend English. Why do we have a government? Simply to repel foreign nation states from invasion, to have a post office, provide for the arts? Read and try to comprehend clause 1 and clause 18 and try to understand them in concert. It matters not what single founder wrote on the issue, that is his opinion and be assured, the signers of COTUS did not all agree on every clause and its meaning.

Some believe that clauses can be parsed to fit their ideology and others cannot be parsed since they fit within their ideology.

That includes USSC Justices and Federal Appellate triers of fact too. Want evidence, see how many decision are split decisions, that should convince even those brainwashed to believe the wording of all laws and COTUS are clear and not ambiguous.

What it boils down to is people like you believe those who don't have what others do should have it but don't have the ability to understand that if you think they should have, it's your place as an individual to provide it to them. It's not the responsibility of someone else you think should be forced to provide it to do so.

What matters is that you say something should be done but are unwilling to do a damn thing about it but get someone else to pay for it. It's that simple and nowhere near what the founders meant by the Constitution.

You can either pay for what you think someone else should have or they can do without. It's that simple.

 

[Conservative65]

PS he fell, and he did feel deserted and alone

People with seizures often have the same experience. Haters like Conservative65 would just step right over them. "Not my problem." But if something happened to them or someone close to them, they'd be the first ones screaming "Somebody help MEEEEEEE!!!!"

Pathetic.

Prove it.

You owe me several proofs before you get anything in return. Talk about taking without putting in...that would be you.

I've proven what I need to prove. That you are unwilling to accept it doesn't mean it hasn't been done.

You made a claim about what I would do yet nothing to back it up. Just another false statement by the forum liar. How does it feel to know the person your baby mama raised is such a cowardly pussy?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

PS he fell, and he did feel deserted and alone

People with seizures often have the same experience. Haters like Conservative65 would just step right over them. "Not my problem." But if something happened to them or someone close to them, they'd be the first ones screaming "Somebody help MEEEEEEE!!!!"

Pathetic.

Prove it.

You owe me several proofs before you get anything in return. Talk about taking without putting in...that would be you.

I've proven what I need to prove. That you are unwilling to accept it doesn't mean it hasn't been done.

You made a claim about what I would do yet nothing to back it up. Just another false statement by the forum liar. How does it feel to know the person your baby mama raised is such a cowardly pussy?

I can only see AirInHead's drivel when I quote your posts.

It's hysterical....."Somebody help me", when there is a social structure that does just that. I've seen it work my entire life and it's 100 times better than anything the government can do.

Because you don't love Obamacare, you are a "hater". What a short sighted narrow minded view of the world. It's the typical left wing attitude of "I am so tolerant...and if you disagree with me, I'll go after you until you come around to my tolerant point of view".

ROTFLMAO

AIH used to make references to primary sources which it never produced. Now, it's just simple maze posting....follow her anywhere it can take you. That is why I put it on ignore. That and JakeTheFake (the only person to be voted board moron and board liar in the same year).

 

[Wry Catcher]

When did I equate the general Welfare as written in COTUS in the 18th Century with social welfare a concept of the 20th Century?

What I propose is nothing more than a level playing field, equal opportunity for all no matter their color, ethnicity, gender, creed or appearance. I wonder how many problems are a result of bigotry, racism, hate and fear - and please don't deny they are not dominant in too many posts on this message board - could be solved if those who speak, who write and who act without good will toward others.

Granted I call people assholes, and some stupid because there is not other way to address bigots, racists, fear and hate mongers, liars by omission and commission (damn liars in MO) who cannot or will not engage in civil discussions.

On February 5, 2016, on a thread entitled "No One Has A Right to Healthcare" you stated:

• Life, Liberty and Property are protected by Social Services.

Are you saying that your belief about Life, Liberty, and Property don't fall under the premise of general welfare in the Preamble of the Constitution?

I don't recall a post I made over five months ago. Post a link and everyone can read it in context. Since I used a bullet point I'm certain what you posted is taken out of context. That said, I don't disagree with the bullet point, do you really dispute the fact that government on every level has a duty to protect its citizens?

You asked to provide proof and I did. Not surprised you used the context excuse.

Since you don't disagree with the bullet point, my statement that you equate social welfare and general welfare is proven although you denied you did.

Social services isn't about protecting. It's about giving one person something that another person earned. No, I don't agree it's the place of government to make sure you have given to you what you should be providing yourself. One person/group does not owe another person/group a damn thing related to what has come to be known as social services.

If you think someone doesn't have what they should have, you can solve that problem yourself without the government being involved at all. It's easy. Provide it to them yourself. Why are you opposed to providing someone with what you say they need yourself?

Con65, you are confused / unable to put your biases aside or unable to read and comprehend English. Why do we have a government? Simply to repel foreign nation states from invasion, to have a post office, provide for the arts? Read and try to comprehend clause 1 and clause 18 and try to understand them in concert. It matters not what single founder wrote on the issue, that is his opinion and be assured, the signers of COTUS did not all agree on every clause and its meaning.

Some believe that clauses can be parsed to fit their ideology and others cannot be parsed since they fit within their ideology.

That includes USSC Justices and Federal Appellate triers of fact too. Want evidence, see how many decision are split decisions, that should convince even those brainwashed to believe the wording of all laws and COTUS are clear and not ambiguous.

What it boils down to is people like you believe those who don't have what others do should have it but don't have the ability to understand that if you think they should have, it's your place as an individual to provide it to them. It's not the responsibility of someone else you think should be forced to provide it to do so.

What matters is that you say something should be done but are unwilling to do a damn thing about it but get someone else to pay for it. It's that simple and nowhere near what the founders meant by the Constitution.

You can either pay for what you think someone else should have or they can do without. It's that simple.

Your thinking (and I use the word thinking, in your case, very loosely) is built on and framed by your biases. And when I suggest they are your biases, understand that what you claim to think is just an echo of others.

It's clear from anyone reading this thread that you keep repeating yourself. Your statement of what I believe is belied by what I write and have written, thus your claim is evidence that you are mendacious and not very bright.