Log of Failed Liberal Policies

[P@triot]

Provide for the general welfare of the United States means to provide defense, to coin money, to issue and over see patents, etc. All of the 18 enumerated powers listed in the Constitution.

That does not mean "provide welfare for American's" (unless of course, you are an uneducated parasite like Oops-I-Poo-Poo above).

Now I see why our education system is such a mess. It is really hard work trying to educate idiot liberals with small IQ's and big greed for other people's money.

 

[SniperFire]

Provide for the general welfare of the United States means to provide defense, to coin money, to issue and over see patents, etc. All of the 18 enumerated powers listed in the Constitution.

That does not mean "provide welfare for American's" (unless of course, you are an uneducated parasite like Oops-I-Poo-Poo above).

Now I see why our education system is such a mess. It is really hard work trying to educate idiot liberals with small IQ's and big greed for other people's money.

Liberals changed the meaning of the word 'welfare' after the Constitution was written to buy votes from Oom paas and his freeloading homies.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Provide for the general welfare of the United States means to provide defense, to coin money, to issue and over see patents, etc. All of the 18 enumerated powers listed in the Constitution.

Article I Section 8 Clause 1 IS one of the enumerated 18 powers, shit for brains, and the definition of general welfare is left to the Congress, not you.

 

[P@triot]

Provide for the general welfare of the United States means to provide defense, to coin money, to issue and over see patents, etc. All of the 18 enumerated powers listed in the Constitution.

Article I Section 8 Clause 1 IS one of the enumerated 18 powers, shit for brains, and the definition of general welfare is left to the Congress, not you.

Thank you for displaying your monumental ignorance, stupid. Congress does not get to "define" the Constitution. And for that matter, neither does the Supreme Court stupid (although ignorant liberals believe that even more than your laughable belief that Congress gets to).

The US Constitution says exactly what it says. It is written in black & white and is set in stone unless properly amended through the Constitutional amendment process.

Let me ask you this, my ignorant little uneducated liberal friend - why are you under the laughable misconception that the ultimate law of the land - the US Constitution, is open to "interpretation" by the SCOTUS and "definition" by Congress, yet you would never make that fucking case for say, our rape laws or our speed limits. Do you challenge that a residential speed of 25mph is open to interpretation? Do you challenge rape laws, feel it is ok to rape women, and then ask a governing body of some sort to interpret your crime of rape?

Do you see what a fucking idiot you are? You would never fucking "interpret" lesser laws, but the ultimate law of the land - signed into law by the highest powers - you feel is open to "challenges" and "interpretations" because you are a greedy, lazy little parasite who is looking to mooch of off others and need to warp our Constitution in order to do it.

You seriously just got bitch-slapped in front of the world. I just made you look like the biggest fucking fool ever by illustrating how you acknowledge lesser laws to be set in stone while challening the ultimate law of the land. Want to embarass yourself further? Go ahead - post a dispute. I dare you. I own you son, because I have the facts on my side and can easily slice through your Marxist parasite bullshit. Game. Set. Match. Bitch....

 

[daveman]

Assuming the chart is accurate - it doesn't change the fact that we are getting 5% ROI on R&D government spending.

You've not established that as a fact, nor do you even understand the point of scientific research by claiming its relevant.

Additionally, defense is the constitutional responsibility of the federal government. "Green technology" and other pet projects are not.

The Congress may spend money on both the common defence and the general welfare through Article I Section 8 Clause 1.

How did Obama flushing a half-billion dollars down the Dem donor Solyndra's toilet help the general welfare?

Hint: It didn't. But some big donors got rewarded for supporting Obama, didn't they?

Yo, Oopy! You forgot one!

It's funny when leftists pretend posts don't exist.

 

[Ernie S.]

"Mr. Speaker — I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living.

"I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money.

Colonel David Crockett. US House of Representatives.

 

[P@triot]

You notice how liberals only challenge and "interpret" parts of the Constitution that they feel can be manipulated into providing them with handouts (fucking parasite class is so annoying).

Hey Oops-I-Poo-Poo-Doo-Doo, how come you don't feel the Emancipation Proclamation should be challenged and "interpreted"? First of all, it was an executive order by Lincoln on Janurary 1, 1863. So it's not even a law, as Congress makes the law (I have to explain our entire government to you). So I guess you can report to my house first thing tomorrow and I will put you to work son (I know, the first time you've ever worked).

And please cry the "13th Amendment" in your response - because I can't wait to unleash my beat down on you with that one

Anyway, it's just another glaring example of your hypocrisy. You see the world "welfare" and you're salavating like a dog to "challenge" and "interpret" it like the parasite you are, but when it comes to the Emancipation Proclamation, somehow that is set in stone in your mind. What a tool - you just keep getting exposed for your idiot and hypocrite opinions.

 

[whitehall]

LBJ's "great society" did what it was intended. It kept Black families on the democrat plantation.

 

[francoHFW]

Thanks for helping the greedy rich dismantle the Great Society, dupes...min wage in 1968=$10.50 today. And twice as many blacks went to college. See sig pp1. Moron haters/chumps.

We're finally back on the right track.

 

[francoHFW]

Dems want what's best for the country- you wouldn't understand, myopic ones....

 

[rdean]

Since Republicans won't let Democrats invest in America, what we are seeing are Republican policies.

 

[daveman]

Dems want what's best for the country- you wouldn't understand, myopic ones....

I agree, if by "the country" you mean "Democrat special interest groups and fuck everybody else".

 

[P@triot]

Thanks for helping the greedy rich dismantle the Great Society, dupes...min wage in 1968=$10.50 today. And twice as many blacks went to college. See sig pp1. Moron haters/chumps.

We're finally back on the right track.

Nobody helped anybody forward and nobody held anybody back. You're just a typical, crying liberal who can't take personal responsibility. You hate your own life, you do nothing to make it better, and it's easier for you to just blame others rather than work, improve your skill sets, innovate, and start your own business.

I don't care about your MSNBC propaganda - it's all lies. The reality is, until Obama took office, this was the land of the free and the only limitations were you're own abilities and work ethic. Go cry somewhere else...

 

[P@triot]

Since Republicans won't let Democrats invest in America, what we are seeing are Republican policies.

By invest, RDickhead here means "take from hard working conservatives and redistribute to lazy, parasite, welfare liberals".

Sorry stupid, but it's unconstitutional for the federal government to take money from Floridians and spend it on roads in Nebraska. So don't try to spin your illegal activities by referring to it as "investing".

It's not the governments job to "invest" asshole...

 

[P@triot]

Provide for the general welfare of the United States means to provide defense, to coin money, to issue and over see patents, etc. All of the 18 enumerated powers listed in the Constitution.

Article I Section 8 Clause 1 IS one of the enumerated 18 powers, shit for brains, and the definition of general welfare is left to the Congress, not you.

Thank you for displaying your monumental ignorance, stupid. Congress does not get to "define" the Constitution. And for that matter, neither does the Supreme Court stupid (although ignorant liberals believe that even more than your laughable belief that Congress gets to).

The US Constitution says exactly what it says. It is written in black & white and is set in stone unless properly amended through the Constitutional amendment process.

Let me ask you this, my ignorant little uneducated liberal friend - why are you under the laughable misconception that the ultimate law of the land - the US Constitution, is open to "interpretation" by the SCOTUS and "definition" by Congress, yet you would never make that fucking case for say, our rape laws or our speed limits. Do you challenge that a residential speed of 25mph is open to interpretation? Do you challenge rape laws, feel it is ok to rape women, and then ask a governing body of some sort to interpret your crime of rape?

Do you see what a fucking idiot you are? You would never fucking "interpret" lesser laws, but the ultimate law of the land - signed into law by the highest powers - you feel is open to "challenges" and "interpretations" because you are a greedy, lazy little parasite who is looking to mooch of off others and need to warp our Constitution in order to do it.

You seriously just got bitch-slapped in front of the world. I just made you look like the biggest fucking fool ever by illustrating how you acknowledge lesser laws to be set in stone while challening the ultimate law of the land. Want to embarass yourself further? Go ahead - post a dispute. I dare you. I own you son, because I have the facts on my side and can easily slice through your Marxist parasite bullshit. Game. Set. Match. Bitch....

Anyone else notice how this post made Oops-I-Poo-Poo go away?

They can never admit they were wrong, but a few will realize when they've been beaten and just go away

Sadly, the rest will stay and continue to bury themselves further.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Provide for the general welfare of the United States means to provide defense, to coin money, to issue and over see patents, etc. All of the 18 enumerated powers listed in the Constitution.

Article I Section 8 Clause 1 IS one of the enumerated 18 powers, shit for brains, and the definition of general welfare is left to the Congress, not you.

Thank you for displaying your monumental ignorance, stupid. Congress does not get to "define" the Constitution. And for that matter, neither does the Supreme Court stupid (although ignorant liberals believe that even more than your laughable belief that Congress gets to).

I'm very sorry you disagree with judicial authority being vested in the Supreme Court as outlined in Article III. Who would you have decide disputes between the People and the Congress on the meaning of the Constitution? The Congress? The President? You? FOX News?

The US Constitution says exactly what it says.

You're right, and it exactly says:

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

Thus the Congress has the power to lay taxes to provide for the general welfare.

It is written in black & white and is set in stone unless properly amended through the Constitutional amendment process.

If the Constitution is so black and white why did the people who wrote it disagree with each other on what it meant?

Let me ask you this, my ignorant little uneducated liberal friend - why are you under the laughable misconception that the ultimate law of the land - the US Constitution, is open to "interpretation" by the SCOTUS and "definition" by Congress, yet you would never make that fucking case for say, our rape laws or our speed limits. Do you challenge that a residential speed of 25mph is open to interpretation? Do you challenge rape laws, feel it is ok to rape women, and then ask a governing body of some sort to interpret your crime of rape?

Wow. So now you accuse me of rape. That's an interesting turn.

Do you see what a fucking idiot you are? You would never fucking "interpret" lesser laws, but the ultimate law of the land - signed into law by the highest powers - you feel is open to "challenges" and "interpretations" because you are a greedy, lazy little parasite who is looking to mooch of off others and need to warp our Constitution in order to do it.

You seriously just got bitch-slapped in front of the world. I just made you look like the biggest fucking fool ever by illustrating how you acknowledge lesser laws to be set in stone while challening the ultimate law of the land. Want to embarass yourself further? Go ahead - post a dispute. I dare you. I own you son, because I have the facts on my side and can easily slice through your Marxist parasite bullshit. Game. Set. Match. Bitch....

Do you intend to mature into an adult any time this century?


BTW, in your "black and white" interpretation of the Constitution, can you tell me where the Constitution makes the President Commander-In-Chief of the Air Force?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Well?

 

[P@triot]

If the Constitution is so black and white why did the people who wrote it disagree with each other on what it meant?

Stop avoiding the question. If you can decide for yourself that the ultimate law of the land - the US Constitution - is open to "interpretation" and "definition", then surely lesser laws such as speed limit, laws against rape, theft, and murder must be open for interpretation and challenge by your own "logic" (and I use that term loosely with you).

Come on anti-constitutional parasite liberal, try to squirm your way out of this one.

The law is the law son. Period. End of story. Why have law or contracts if the words are open to "interpretation"? Society would fall apart if liberals were in charge because signed laws and contracts have no meaning in their warped little minds.

 

[P@triot]

Well?

Stop avoiding the question. If you can decide for yourself that the ultimate law of the land - the US Constitution - is open to "interpretation" and "definition", then surely lesser laws such as speed limit, laws against rape, theft, and murder must be open for interpretation and challenge by your own "logic".

It's a simple question - yes or no?

 

[P@triot]

BTW, in your "black and white" interpretation of the Constitution, can you tell me where the Constitution makes the President Commander-In-Chief of the Air Force?

Yes I can. Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution (the Commander in Chief Clause) states that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

Any other questions?