Republican drive to end social programs UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Flaylo]

The Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Now I like for the Republicans and Tea bastards to prove that social welfare programs are unconstitutional and to justify voting and lobbying eliminate them. One good example in Social Security although there are others.

Promote and Provide have two different meanings. You should look them up.

You may as well talk to a wall. FlailGo is as dumb as a brick.

Lobbying against general welfare and promoting it are two different things, why are Republicans not promoting?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Now I like for the Republicans and Tea bastards to prove that social welfare programs are unconstitutional and to justify voting and lobbying eliminate them. One good example in Social Security although there are others.

Promote and Provide have two different meanings. You should look them up.

You may as well talk to a wall. FlailGo is as dumb as a brick.

IN it's world we all work while it sits around and collects checks and complains we don't pay enough.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"promote the general Welfare".... As has already been pointed out for the terminally stupid... "Promote" not "Provide".

Might I, respectfully, suggest that those who do not understand the difference between those two words, get a fucking dictionary and learn it.

So when Republicans lobby to cut off funding for social welfare to help the poor, are they promoting the general welfare of the people? No, their actions contradict the Constitution.

contradiction? Yes lets talk about contradiction example 1.
Would forcing something on the people that they do not want be insuring domestic Tranquility

Run joe run

 

[Flaylo]

"promote the general Welfare".... As has already been pointed out for the terminally stupid... "Promote" not "Provide".

Might I, respectfully, suggest that those who do not understand the difference between those two words, get a fucking dictionary and learn it.

So when Republicans lobby to cut off funding for social welfare to help the poor, are they promoting the general welfare of the people? No, their actions contradict the Constitution.

contradiction? Yes lets talk about contradiction example 1.
Would forcing something on the people that they do not want be insuring domestic Tranquility

True, like the Patriot Act the Repukes sponsored? How about when you Repukes force your shitty religion on homosexuals and say they can't marry?

 

[California Girl]

I am vaguely entertained by the thought that in the OP we have someone who claims to be defending the Constitution.... and he doesn't appear to understand the document that he has sworn to defend.... but... I seem to remember him also stating that his job was to 'defend us (meaning we, the people).... so he doesn't seem to understand his oath either.

One therefore could, logically, conclude that he is one seriously dumb fuck.

Oh, and he lies - constantly. In fact, it appears to be the only thing he is constant about.

 

[Flaylo]

Promote and Provide have two different meanings. You should look them up.

You may as well talk to a wall. FlailGo is as dumb as a brick.

IN it's world we all work while it sits around and collects checks and complains we don't pay enough.

I earn my money as a soldier you asshat, I do more before 6 am than you do in eight hours.

 

[California Girl]

So when Republicans lobby to cut off funding for social welfare to help the poor, are they promoting the general welfare of the people? No, their actions contradict the Constitution.

You're a lying little misogynist.

You refusal to answer is an answer, thank you.

Which bit of my original answer was above your intellectual capacity? pity you. You are really making yourself look a fucking idiot on this thread... but you're probably used to that... you do it in every thread you start... and those you participate in.

Lying little misogynist, that is all you are.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So when Republicans lobby to cut off funding for social welfare to help the poor, are they promoting the general welfare of the people? No, their actions contradict the Constitution.

contradiction? Yes lets talk about contradiction example 1.
Would forcing something on the people that they do not want be insuring domestic Tranquility

True, like the Patriot Act the Repukes sponsored? How about when you Repukes force your shitty religion on homosexuals and say they can't marry?

and the patriot act obama expanded and voted for the first time. Spin it I can spin it right back at you.

 

[California Girl]

You may as well talk to a wall. FlailGo is as dumb as a brick.

IN it's world we all work while it sits around and collects checks and complains we don't pay enough.

I earn my money as a soldier you asshat, I do more before 6 am than you do in eight hours.

Prove it.

 

[Flaylo]

I am vaguely entertained by the thought that in the OP we have someone who claims to be defending the Constitution.... and he doesn't appear to understand the document that he has sworn to defend.... but... I seem to remember him also stating that his job was to 'defend us (meaning we, the people).... so he doesn't seem to understand his oath either.

One therefore could, logically, conclude that he is one seriously dumb fuck.

Oh, and he lies - constantly. In fact, it appears to be the only thing he is constant about.

Why don't you get a douche and jump on a trampoline all kind of ways to clear you mind before you speak to me?

 

[Flaylo]

IN it's world we all work while it sits around and collects checks and complains we don't pay enough.

I earn my money as a soldier you asshat, I do more before 6 am than you do in eight hours.

Prove it.

Why don't you get a job first before questioning me?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You may as well talk to a wall. FlailGo is as dumb as a brick.

IN it's world we all work while it sits around and collects checks and complains we don't pay enough.

I earn my money as a soldier you asshat, I do more before 6 am than you do in eight hours.

Please stop you do dis honor to those who wear and have worn the uniform of Americas service.

 

[Si modo]

"promote the general Welfare".... As has already been pointed out for the terminally stupid... "Promote" not "Provide".

Might I, respectfully, suggest that those who do not understand the difference between those two words, get a fucking dictionary and learn it.

So when Republicans lobby to cut off funding for social welfare to help the poor, are they promoting the general welfare of the people? No, their actions contradict the Constitution.

contradiction? Yes lets talk about contradiction example 1.
Would forcing something on the people that they do not want be insuring domestic Tranquility

In Flayloland, he would call GEICO to find out.

 

[California Girl]

Shit, you again. Do you actually have something to contribute instead of quasi-feminism?

You just provided support for what she just said.

Oh great, another feminazi.

Interesting that, when anyone on the right uses that word, they get called a misogynist. Suits you, sir.

 

[California Girl]

I earn my money as a soldier you asshat, I do more before 6 am than you do in eight hours.

Prove it.

Why don't you get a job first before questioning me?

Not only am I gainfully employed, thanks... I can buy your ass twice and not notice it. Loser.

 

[Barb]

Are you saying you are for the government giving tax cuts but only if the government can dictate how those tax cuts are used? In this case for "job creation".

I'm saying that if the tax cuts are targeted for job creation (or whatever the target), their receipt should be contingent on meeting that (or those) targets.
Do you think companies that receive targeted incentives should skip off without meeting the requirements of receivership?

If someone was caught running a bed and breakfast from their section 8 housing, you would have issue with that, yes?

Why should corporations get anything from the US government while expatriating production and jobs to some other country? Why should a trans or multinational corporation be entitled to chapter eleven protection from a community they have no stake but an office and an answering machine in, no concern or loyalty towards, and to whom they contribute nothing to? These incentives and protections traditionally had at least an expectation of reciprocity attached to them. It is high time and then some those expectations were codified into strict policy.

So you're ok with the government telling you how to spend your money. Interesting, but not suprising being that it comes from a liberal minded person.

Your strawman is lame.

A tax cut is a reduction in taxes. The government is not giving you anything.

So you think that the corporations have no onus of reciprocity to the very economic structure and infrastructure that created the environment that these companies profit from. Not surprising, being as it comes from, well, you.

Section 8 housing is a reduction in rent. Show me how they don't equate beyond size and scale (a hint here, much less is spent on section 8 than is lost through corporate giveaways). What if the person (or hell, persons, they could form an unofficial cooperative) used the gains made through their bed and breakfast (s) to go fishing off the south of France, or to buy a few choice pieces of real estate in a neighboring state? Nice that you dodge the question chapter eleven protection as well.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So when Republicans lobby to cut off funding for social welfare to help the poor, are they promoting the general welfare of the people? No, their actions contradict the Constitution.

contradiction? Yes lets talk about contradiction example 1.
Would forcing something on the people that they do not want be insuring domestic Tranquility

In Flayloland, he would call GEICO to find out.

I am sure he would call the Government Employees Insureance COmpany

 

[Si modo]

Shit, you again. Do you actually have something to contribute instead of quasi-feminism?

You just provided support for what she just said.

Oh great, another feminazi.

You're a Rush fan. Who'da thunk it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'm saying that if the tax cuts are targeted for job creation (or whatever the target), their receipt should be contingent on meeting that (or those) targets.
Do you think companies that receive targeted incentives should skip off without meeting the requirements of receivership?

If someone was caught running a bed and breakfast from their section 8 housing, you would have issue with that, yes?

Why should corporations get anything from the US government while expatriating production and jobs to some other country? Why should a trans or multinational corporation be entitled to chapter eleven protection from a community they have no stake but an office and an answering machine in, no concern or loyalty towards, and to whom they contribute nothing to? These incentives and protections traditionally had at least an expectation of reciprocity attached to them. It is high time and then some those expectations were codified into strict policy.

So you're ok with the government telling you how to spend your money. Interesting, but not suprising being that it comes from a liberal minded person.

Your strawman is lame.

A tax cut is a reduction in taxes. The government is not giving you anything.

So you're ok with big businesses pocketing the tax cut money while you proportionally pay more taxes for your hard work? Fucking idiot, wipe your ass.

Businesses big or small can do whatever the hell they want with their money. I doubt you pay any federal income tax and I'm willing to bet I pay more taxes per year than you make.

Nine times out of ten, businesses invest their money back into their business.

 

[California Girl]

You just provided support for what she just said.

Oh great, another feminazi.

You're a Rush fan. Who'da thunk it.

I must spread rep.... dammmmmmit!