Obama Admits it: Conservatism Works

[DiamondDave]

And just because the SCOTUS has been drawn in to the very same power grab as the executive and the legislative branches does not change what was meant in the creation of the federal government.... and just because they have gone along with changes without going through the amendment process, does not make it right
__________________

May not make it right by you...but it does make it the law of the land.

SCOTUS was stacked by Bush and is now Conservative. They still haven't backed your views

1) Bush did not 'stack conservative' nor was Bush a conservative... the SC is not "stacked conservative".. indeed it is 'on paper' very balanced
2) REP or DEM can both be corrupted by power.. as much of our government has
3) And I obey the law and do not withhold taxation payment, even if I fully understand that what the federal government is doing is indeed against the constitution. You see, I still even obey laws I disagree with and know to be wrong. I fight my fight against it legally, through words, explanation, and thru my vote. Who knows, you may see DiamondDave run for office one day to try and advance constitutionality over power grabs that we see now.

 

[Vast LWC]

Ahh.. the whole "I make more than you" route... any other old chestnuts you wish to polish off?? I don't brag of my career or title, nor do I try and tweak an argument with insinuations to how much I make....

You accused me of being a leech on society. I responded. I would not have brought it up if you did not make the accusation.

And the words "united states" in the sentence are not 'an addition'.. they are part of the original wording and have specific meaning with them in the sentence.... just as a sentence that says general purpose company vehicle does not mean that every person in the company gets personal use or benefit from that vehicle

And just because the SCOTUS has been drawn in to the very same power grab as the executive and the legislative branches does not change what was meant in the creation of the federal government.... and just because they have gone along with changes without going through the amendment process, does not make it right

Ahh yes, the "Everyone's out to get us" approach.

You're right, there's a world-wide conspiracy to keep you and your conservative brethren down.

It's not that other people have other valid interpretations of Constitutional Law, they're just all part of the vast conspiracy.

And obviously I'm part of it, thus my moniker. LOL.

Listen man, we're all in this together. I know that you are honestly trying to serve what you perceive to be the greater good with your argument, and here's a newsflash: so am I.

Just because I interpret the Consitution differently from you doesn't make me part of some vast power-grabbing conspiracy. I just happen to honestly believe that that was in fact the intent of many of the writers of the original document.

 

[Vast LWC]

Again.. you cannot grasp that referring to a greater entity does not mean that it is inherently all inclusive of every individual part of that entity..

And you can't grasp that it would in fact include as many individual parts of that entity as humanly possible.

Of course you can't possibly benefit every single individual in the country, instead you try to get as many as you can.

Actually.. it is you that seems brain washed by the loopy left... by some socialist ideal that does not mesh with human nature.... that requires crushing power to ensure distribution to non-contributors at the expense of the individual freedoms of the contributors

There was no brainwashing, let me explain to you my personal reasons for supporting a social safety net:

When I was a child, my father and mother got divorced. My father was not very supportive, and in the process of raising two boys essentially by herself in the late 70's, my mother was, at points, forced to rely on food stamps and welfare.

After high school, I returned the favor to society by serving my country in the military, and now I am a very successful individual who is happy to pay his taxes.

Thus, society helped me personally, and I gave back to society many times what it gave my mother.

So, yes I believe in protecting the general welfare, and I'm easily insulted by someone implying that I'm a parasite. If it were not for "Providing for the General Welfare", I would probably be a much different person, and society as a whole would have suffered for it.

The children have the same basic rights as other citizens..

They do not. They are in fact denied many of the basic rights of other indivduals in the name of protecting their safety and that of society's.

particularly the right to life... it i s the individual rights of the child or victim that are being protected, from the violation of those rights by the criminal... it is not any rights of the murderer/criminal being violated.... and again.. is it federal jurisdiction because an individual's rights are being violated with a crime?? Unless it is federal property or DISTINCT federal jurisdiction,

The kidnapping of a child is in fact the jurisdiction of the FBI.

that jurisdiction to protect the individual falls with the state and local or the individual themselves... hmmm.. where else is that similarly stated???... 'But but but they are a citizen of the whole country we consider the United States!!!' Well, you see, even so, there is a difference between the country as a whole and the individual within the country and what the federal government is supposed to do and what is to be left to the states and 'the people'...

The rights of the individual in the Murderer's case are still being violated in the name of the common good.

Again I will ask... a simple yes or no question... Are you owed something at the expense of someone else, for your personal need or personal well being, just because you exist?

The question does not have a simple "yes" or "no" answer. It is a philosophical question.

Is a child "owed" something because they exist? Like care and shelter? I would say yes.

In the same vein, should a hadicapped person be helped or left to die on their own? I would say yes.

Should an older person be left for dead when they can no longer help themselves? I'd say yes, other may disagree.

 

[DiamondDave]

No.. entitlement junkies and those that support such a system, and the use of that language, does not mean I am stating I make more than someone else, nor does it state that I think you are personally on the handout wagon without any proof of knowing one way or another.... you could make 10K or 100K, who the hell knows.. what I do know is that you do indeed support benefiting entitlement junkies.. that you support a system of redistribution at the hands of the government (inherently control and directly against property rights of individuals and the freedoms of individuals)... and you do indeed believe that congress/government has unlimited power.. and I will fully contend by the actual full words of the constitution that such things are directly opposed to our constitution, the concepts of freedom, the idea and premise of personal responsibility, and equal treatment under the law

 

[DiamondDave]

Again.. you cannot grasp that referring to a greater entity does not mean that it is inherently all inclusive of every individual part of that entity..

And you can't grasp that it would in fact include as many individual parts of that entity as humanly possible.

Of course you can't possibly benefit every single individual in the country, instead you try to get as many as you can.

Actually.. it is you that seems brain washed by the loopy left... by some socialist ideal that does not mesh with human nature.... that requires crushing power to ensure distribution to non-contributors at the expense of the individual freedoms of the contributors

There was no brainwashing, let me explain to you my personal reasons for supporting a social safety net:

When I was a child, my father and mother got divorced. My father was not very supportive, and in the process of raising two boys essentially by herself in the late 70's, my mother was, at points, forced to rely on food stamps and welfare.

After high school, I returned the favor to society by serving my country in the military, and now I am a very successful individual who is happy to pay his taxes.

Thus, society helped me personally, and I gave back to society many times what it gave my mother.

So, yes I believe in protecting the general welfare, and I'm easily insulted by someone implying that I'm a parasite. If it were not for "Providing for the General Welfare", I would probably be a much different person, and society as a whole would have suffered for it.



They do not. They are in fact denied many of the basic rights of other indivduals in the name of protecting their safety and that of society's.



The kidnapping of a child is in fact the jurisdiction of the FBI.

that jurisdiction to protect the individual falls with the state and local or the individual themselves... hmmm.. where else is that similarly stated???... 'But but but they are a citizen of the whole country we consider the United States!!!' Well, you see, even so, there is a difference between the country as a whole and the individual within the country and what the federal government is supposed to do and what is to be left to the states and 'the people'...

The rights of the individual in the Murderer's case are still being violated in the name of the common good.

Again I will ask... a simple yes or no question... Are you owed something at the expense of someone else, for your personal need or personal well being, just because you exist?

The question does not have a simple "yes" or "no" answer. It is a philosophical question.

Is a child "owed" something because they exist? Like care and shelter? I would say yes.

In the same vein, should a hadicapped person be helped or left to die on their own? I would say yes.

Should an older person be left for dead when they can no longer help themselves? I'd say yes, other may disagree.

I grew up poor as well.. collecting cans and bottles for meat money, gardening our entire yard to can veggies, raising chickens for eggs (which I hate) and meat.. etc... and was taught and shown that you do what you have to do and that nobody gets a free ride... and while people do occasionally ask and receive help, it is a VOLUNTARY thing but not a forced thing....

Now you are switching from murder to kidnapping?? And did I not say that the fed only has jurisdiction in very specific areas?

Children have the same basic right to life as do all other citizens.. may other things people call 'rights' are not rights but freedoms.. and children, by nature, are minors and not adults and have limited freedoms while having the same basic right (especially to life)

The rights of the child were being protected. The murderer has no right to privacy, actions, etc when committing crime.. that criminal has no right to violate the rights to others even in the privacy of their own house (and there is no right to privacy)

Yes.. the question is a simple yes or no question... is anyone owed something simply for existing??

And as stated before.. a minor can be a ward of the state or a ward of the court.. people who CANNOT (and there is a big difference between cannot and WILL NOT) take care of themselves can also be committed or declared wards of the court or of the state.. and thus under the direct (notice the word direct) responsibility of the government/state.. and in such cases can be taken care of.... however, one does lose their freedoms when such tings happen.. much as a prisoner loses their freedom and becomes a ward of the state when incarcerated

As for elderly and handicapped, they can become wards of the state as well.. but we have the freedom to save for such things.. we have families that are there to take care of one another.. but nobody is simply OWED something for their existence while they maintain that they are free citizens under their own control

 

[Vast LWC]

No.. entitlement junkies and those that support such a system, and the use of that language, does not mean I am stating I make more than someone else, nor does it state that I think you are personally on the handout wagon without any proof of knowing one way or another.... you could make 10K or 100K, who the hell knows.. what I do know is that you do indeed support benefiting entitlement junkies.. that you support a system of redistribution at the hands of the government (inherently control and directly against property rights of individuals and the freedoms of individuals)... and you do indeed believe that congress/government has unlimited power.. and I will fully contend by the actual full words of the constitution that such things are directly opposed to our constitution, the concepts of freedom, the idea and premise of personal responsibility, and equal treatment under the law

And I will fully contend that such things are not in fact opposed to our constitution, that true freedom can only be obtained when one is not in danger of starvation, and that personal responsibilty works both ways.

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Vast LWC]

I grew up poor as well.. collecting cans and bottles for meat money, gardening our entire yard to can veggies, raising chickens for eggs (which I hate) and meat.. etc... and was taught and shown that you do what you have to do and that nobody gets a free ride... and while people do occasionally ask and receive help, it is a VOLUNTARY thing but not a forced thing....

Now you are switching from murder to kidnapping?? And did I not say that the fed only has jurisdiction in very specific areas?

In the scenario proposed, the child was in the home of the murderer, thus kidnapping.

Children have the same basic right to life as do all other citizens.. may other things people call 'rights' are not rights but freedoms.. and children, by nature, are minors and not adults and have limited freedoms while having the same basic right (especially to life)

The rights of the child were being protected. The murderer has no right to privacy, actions, etc when committing crime.. that criminal has no right to violate the rights to others even in the privacy of their own house (and there is no right to privacy)

Exactly. There are in fact situations when society needs to trample the rights of the individual to protect the common good. Like when someone is committing a crime.

If a corporation were killing people by polluting an environment, that would be the same thing.

Yes.. the question is a simple yes or no question... is anyone owed something simply for existing??

And as stated before.. a minor can be a ward of the state or a ward of the court.. people who CANNOT (and there is a big difference between cannot and WILL NOT) take care of themselves can also be committed or declared wards of the court or of the state.. and thus under the direct (notice the word direct) responsibility of the government/state.. and in such cases can be taken care of.... however, one does lose their freedoms when such tings happen.. much as a prisoner loses their freedom and becomes a ward of the state when incarcerated

As for elderly and handicapped, they can become wards of the state as well.. but we have the freedom to save for such things.. we have families that are there to take care of one another.. but nobody is simply OWED something for their existence while they maintain that they are free citizens under their own control

And when they become wards of the state, they are being taken care of by the state. Apparently someone thought they were OWED something, or such laws would have never come into existence.

 

[DiamondDave]

No.. entitlement junkies and those that support such a system, and the use of that language, does not mean I am stating I make more than someone else, nor does it state that I think you are personally on the handout wagon without any proof of knowing one way or another.... you could make 10K or 100K, who the hell knows.. what I do know is that you do indeed support benefiting entitlement junkies.. that you support a system of redistribution at the hands of the government (inherently control and directly against property rights of individuals and the freedoms of individuals)... and you do indeed believe that congress/government has unlimited power.. and I will fully contend by the actual full words of the constitution that such things are directly opposed to our constitution, the concepts of freedom, the idea and premise of personal responsibility, and equal treatment under the law

And I will fully contend that such things are not in fact opposed to our constitution, that true freedom can only be obtained when one is not in danger of starvation, and that personal responsibilty works both ways.

We will have to agree to disagree.

At the expense of someone else's freedom... you see.. THAT is the key...

If it were something magical that just appeared when the government wanted it to give to help, it would be one thing...

 

[DiamondDave]

I grew up poor as well.. collecting cans and bottles for meat money, gardening our entire yard to can veggies, raising chickens for eggs (which I hate) and meat.. etc... and was taught and shown that you do what you have to do and that nobody gets a free ride... and while people do occasionally ask and receive help, it is a VOLUNTARY thing but not a forced thing....

Now you are switching from murder to kidnapping?? And did I not say that the fed only has jurisdiction in very specific areas?

In the scenario proposed, the child was in the home of the murderer, thus kidnapping.

Children have the same basic right to life as do all other citizens.. may other things people call 'rights' are not rights but freedoms.. and children, by nature, are minors and not adults and have limited freedoms while having the same basic right (especially to life)

The rights of the child were being protected. The murderer has no right to privacy, actions, etc when committing crime.. that criminal has no right to violate the rights to others even in the privacy of their own house (and there is no right to privacy)

Exactly. There are in fact situations when society needs to trample the rights of the individual to protect the common good. Like when someone is committing a crime.

If a corporation were killing people by polluting an environment, that would be the same thing.

Yes.. the question is a simple yes or no question... is anyone owed something simply for existing??

And as stated before.. a minor can be a ward of the state or a ward of the court.. people who CANNOT (and there is a big difference between cannot and WILL NOT) take care of themselves can also be committed or declared wards of the court or of the state.. and thus under the direct (notice the word direct) responsibility of the government/state.. and in such cases can be taken care of.... however, one does lose their freedoms when such tings happen.. much as a prisoner loses their freedom and becomes a ward of the state when incarcerated

As for elderly and handicapped, they can become wards of the state as well.. but we have the freedom to save for such things.. we have families that are there to take care of one another.. but nobody is simply OWED something for their existence while they maintain that they are free citizens under their own control

And when they become wards of the state, they are being taken care of by the state. Apparently someone thought they were OWED something, or such laws would have never come into existence.

please focus

but nobody is simply OWED something for their existence while they maintain that they are free citizens under their own control

OK.. I will contend you can be owed something for your existence, when you give up the freedoms that other wards of the state have... agreed?

And again.. the criminal had no rights violated... again confusing freedoms with rights.. and as we have seen, freedoms can be taken away

 

[Vast LWC]

Crap I have to go.

Well good debating, I'll be back tomorrow.

 

[antagon]

Infrastructure is public domain.. is your body, your health, your food, your place of residence, and anything else you wish as 'entitlement', public domain??

entitlements are capitalist infrastructure.

my body, food, health, etc. are not interwoven with these programs directly, however, many of my clients' are.

what do you mean 'public domain'?

Entitlements are not infrastructure.. a road is infrastructure.. an entity such as the post office is infrastructure.. a school is infrastructure... and all of those things are indeed public domain or otherwise stated public property

Your body is yours.. nobody else has a right to take possession of it for you... your house is not public domain where the government or other citizens can claim dominion over it or have free access to it .... your responsibility for what is yours stays with you, not to others in the citizenry and not to the government.. if you are a ward of the court or a ward of the state, I can understand the government taking care of your needs as you are inherently controlled by or in the care of the government... but your freedoms give YOU the responsibility for your own care, upkeep, well being, etc....

You simply are not owed something for your personal upkeep, at the expense of someone else's freedoms, just because you fucking exist.. if you are not public property, you do not get government assistance for your personal need

ah.

here you are sweating over the constitution when its your economics fundamentals thats wanting.

entitlements are soft infrastructure. this idea's been addressed in all the macro econ ive been subjected to. they include many more pieces of infrastructure such as the legal system, education system, central banking system, etc. all of them have hard (tangible) infrastructure supporting them. these are essential government roles in a top-tier economy part of your 'public domain'. (??? i know that as an intellectual property term).

on entitlements, i argued several times already that their implementation is a prerequisite to achieving a first-world economy and a substantial middle class altogether.

you've ignored that arguement.

nevertheless there's no country in history to defy that truth, although you're welcome to try to.

your minimalist infrastructure proposal is all the developing world puts forward. while their economies may grow faster than ours, they dont have the per-capita efficiency of ours...

shit, i sound like a broken record.

study your econ, son. you're dismissed.

 

[antagon]

Finish the motherfucking sentence you absolute moron....

PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES.....

And the words "united states" in the sentence are not 'an addition'.. they are part of the original wording and have specific meaning with them in the sentence.... just as a sentence that says general purpose company vehicle does not mean that every person in the company gets personal use or benefit from that vehicle

moving on to your constitutional hack work....

finish the £$%@! sentence!!!

We the people...
...to ourselves and our Posterity (people)... the United States...(note that it is capitalized: a reference to the name of the country ordained by the constitution, not the states each and severally)...and if there's still doubt...of America...the US of A.

well, thats settled. shocking that someone would actually argue that point as you have.

 

[antagon]

ive stated many times that morality and charity is a side-issue to the economic facility in social programs, but delving into the morals....

As for elderly and handicapped, they can become wards of the state as well..l

...you're fucked up man! dude has no legs, you won't let dude get a wheelchair?.. unless he's debased to being treated like an orphan or a crook? and grandma too? get a grip, man. you really got to interact with people more.

what a joke our country would be if granny and no-legs were having to beg off you or i as we went about our day... lest they be cast into concentration camps as 'wards of the state'.

 

[DiamondDave]

ive stated many times that morality and charity is a side-issue to the economic facility in social programs, but delving into the morals....

As for elderly and handicapped, they can become wards of the state as well..l

...you're fucked up man! dude has no legs, you won't let dude get a wheelchair?.. unless he's debased to being treated like an orphan or a crook? and grandma too? get a grip, man. you really got to interact with people more.

what a joke our country would be if granny and no-legs were having to beg off you or i as we went about our day... lest they be cast into concentration camps as 'wards of the state'.

No.. just because 'dude' is in a wheelchair, does not mean 'dude' is helpless.. dude can work a phone job, dude can be a network tech, dude can be basically everything but a few things requiring legs

Grandma can also provide.. unless grandma is commit-able because she has dementia, etc.. grandma and dude also have families (in most cases)

Those supporting entitlements choose to see people with disabilities or the elderly as helpless... that is what I consider fucked up

 

[DiamondDave]

Finish the motherfucking sentence you absolute moron....

PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES.....

And the words "united states" in the sentence are not 'an addition'.. they are part of the original wording and have specific meaning with them in the sentence.... just as a sentence that says general purpose company vehicle does not mean that every person in the company gets personal use or benefit from that vehicle

moving on to your constitutional hack work....

finish the £$%@! sentence!!!

We the people...
...to ourselves and our Posterity (people)... the United States...(note that it is capitalized: a reference to the name of the country ordained by the constitution, not the states each and severally)...and if there's still doubt...of America...the US of A.

well, thats settled. shocking that someone would actually argue that point as you have.

Are you seriously this retarded...

Try and take things in the complete form and IN CONTEXT... the preamble is the people DOING something.. you see the words, it is a formality greeting of introduction to what is being presented.... they are stating that the people (but note, not every person in the country did this, the people who wrote the document) ordain what is to follow.... MUCH MUCH MUCH different that the document saying what the government is going to do, specifically giving charge in the statement (again the whole statement) of 'provide for the general welfare of the united states'

 

[DiamondDave]

entitlements are capitalist infrastructure.

my body, food, health, etc. are not interwoven with these programs directly, however, many of my clients' are.

what do you mean 'public domain'?

Entitlements are not infrastructure.. a road is infrastructure.. an entity such as the post office is infrastructure.. a school is infrastructure... and all of those things are indeed public domain or otherwise stated public property

Your body is yours.. nobody else has a right to take possession of it for you... your house is not public domain where the government or other citizens can claim dominion over it or have free access to it .... your responsibility for what is yours stays with you, not to others in the citizenry and not to the government.. if you are a ward of the court or a ward of the state, I can understand the government taking care of your needs as you are inherently controlled by or in the care of the government... but your freedoms give YOU the responsibility for your own care, upkeep, well being, etc....

You simply are not owed something for your personal upkeep, at the expense of someone else's freedoms, just because you fucking exist.. if you are not public property, you do not get government assistance for your personal need

ah.

here you are sweating over the constitution when its your economics fundamentals thats wanting.

entitlements are soft infrastructure. this idea's been addressed in all the macro econ ive been subjected to. they include many more pieces of infrastructure such as the legal system, education system, central banking system, etc. all of them have hard (tangible) infrastructure supporting them. these are essential government roles in a top-tier economy part of your 'public domain'. (??? i know that as an intellectual property term).

on entitlements, i argued several times already that their implementation is a prerequisite to achieving a first-world economy and a substantial middle class altogether.

you've ignored that arguement.

nevertheless there's no country in history to defy that truth, although you're welcome to try to.

your minimalist infrastructure proposal is all the developing world puts forward. while their economies may grow faster than ours, they dont have the per-capita efficiency of ours...

shit, i sound like a broken record.

study your econ, son. you're dismissed.

Your argument of necessity has been ignored as it is completely false.... handouts to the lazy, the wanty, etc do not advance a county to 1st tier economic status.. and you do not become or get middle class my having it handed to you... the middle class are earners... the entitlements create a leech class

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Congress is made up of representatives from the States. Therefore if congress makes a law to provide for the general welfare, it is the States making the law, through their duly elected representatives.

That is in fact the nature of a representative republic.

And that's how the States ratified the Constitution

And the words "Provide for the General Welfare" were included in that ratified document.

Like Inigo Montoya said, "I don't think those words mean what you think they mean"

You really think the Constitution mean Congress can put everyone on welfare? You have the Constitution as wrong as Obama.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

See Libruls are rewriting American history as we speak. The Constitution had a procedure for adapting it to the times; called an "Amendment" Can you say Amendment? Want to give slaves the vote over the objection of Democrats, use an Amendment! Want women to vote? Dat's right! An Amendment!

However, since the 60's that power has been upended and usurped by a Librul/Statist/Marxist SCOTUS.

And if you want to change the General Welfare clause, get an amendment.

Maybe you can change it to something like "Provide for some of the General Welfare" and then describe the cases it applies to.

Sans that amendment, the General Welfare clause means what it says.

LOL

Yeah, the Founders meant to put everybody on the Welfare Roles because the Constitution says "provide for the general welfare"

Maybe they only meant welfare for Generals?

Libruls aren't just fucking assholes, they're lying fucking assholes

 

[antagon]

Entitlements are not infrastructure.. a road is infrastructure.. an entity such as the post office is infrastructure.. a school is infrastructure... and all of those things are indeed public domain or otherwise stated public property

Your body is yours.. nobody else has a right to take possession of it for you... your house is not public domain where the government or other citizens can claim dominion over it or have free access to it .... your responsibility for what is yours stays with you, not to others in the citizenry and not to the government.. if you are a ward of the court or a ward of the state, I can understand the government taking care of your needs as you are inherently controlled by or in the care of the government... but your freedoms give YOU the responsibility for your own care, upkeep, well being, etc....

You simply are not owed something for your personal upkeep, at the expense of someone else's freedoms, just because you fucking exist.. if you are not public property, you do not get government assistance for your personal need

ah.

here you are sweating over the constitution when its your economics fundamentals thats wanting.

entitlements are soft infrastructure. this idea's been addressed in all the macro econ ive been subjected to. they include many more pieces of infrastructure such as the legal system, education system, central banking system, etc. all of them have hard (tangible) infrastructure supporting them. these are essential government roles in a top-tier economy part of your 'public domain'. (??? i know that as an intellectual property term).

on entitlements, i argued several times already that their implementation is a prerequisite to achieving a first-world economy and a substantial middle class altogether.

you've ignored that arguement.

nevertheless there's no country in history to defy that truth, although you're welcome to try to.

your minimalist infrastructure proposal is all the developing world puts forward. while their economies may grow faster than ours, they dont have the per-capita efficiency of ours...

shit, i sound like a broken record.

study your econ, son. you're dismissed.

Your argument of necessity has been ignored as it is completely false.... handouts to the lazy, the wanty, etc do not advance a county to 1st tier economic status.. and you do not become or get middle class my having it handed to you... the middle class are earners... the entitlements create a leech class

thanks for playing, buddy. my arguement's not been ignored. it is in place in all first world nations, period. get an econ textbook, highschool mode, its in place there, too. youve got the mechanism all wrong, maybe because youre jealous of welfare recipients and pensioners or something.

i dont envy anyone on the dole. i'm proud of my role in the economy and its rewards... and im glad i have a clue how it works to save me from picking on the lazy, needy, elderly, young....

youre dismissed, to.

 

[antagon]

And the words "united states" in the sentence are not 'an addition'.. they are part of the original wording and have specific meaning with them in the sentence.... just as a sentence that says general purpose company vehicle does not mean that every person in the company gets personal use or benefit from that vehicle

moving on to your constitutional hack work....

finish the £$%@! sentence!!!

We the people...
...to ourselves and our Posterity (people)... the United States...(note that it is capitalized: a reference to the name of the country ordained by the constitution, not the states each and severally)...and if there's still doubt...of America...the US of A.

well, thats settled. shocking that someone would actually argue that point as you have.

Are you seriously this retarded...

Try and take things in the complete form and IN CONTEXT... the preamble is the people DOING something.. you see the words, it is a formality greeting of introduction to what is being presented.... they are stating that the people (but note, not every person in the country did this, the people who wrote the document) ordain what is to follow.... MUCH MUCH MUCH different that the document saying what the government is going to do, specifically giving charge in the statement (again the whole statement) of 'provide for the general welfare of the united states'

im sorry, man, i dont want to argue your dumbass symmantics over the preamble.

theres no need for contextual analysis. it is stated very plainly.

the whole statement in the preamble isnt even 'provide for the general welfare of the united states' how you put it.