Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yes, Article 1, Section 8 enumerates the Terms general welfare and continues with explanations and qualifications; only the right wing, never gets it.*sigh* Well.. "how we get things" has nothing to do with what the Constitution says! The congress has passed laws and courts have upheld MANY unconstitutional things, should I list some of those to refresh your memory?How did we get, wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are nowhere enumerated in our Constitution. Providing for the general welfare is explicitly enumerated. The general welfare is not the specific welfare. You cannot win claiming any specifics, for the general welfare.It is about definitions, dear. There is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause."Badfare" isn't even a fucking word.
Can you not explain what Madison understood "general welfare" to mean?
No, the Constitution isn't about arbitrary definitions you pull outta your ass. It took years of deliberation and careful thought in every single line. The Federalist Papers serve as an outline and expanded explanation. If want to know what something in the Constitution means, you look to the Federalist Papers, not the dictionary. In Federalist #41, Madison explains how "general welfare" cannot possibly mean what modern liberal progressives claim. If it did, Madison asserts, there would be no purpose in enumerating powers or even the rest of the Constitution itself.
"General welfare" is specifically referring to the listed things in Article I Sec. 8. Nothing else is authorized or implied and no further powers are granted. So regardless of what a dictionary says, if it's not in Article I Sec. 8, it's not "general welfare." And this is explained by the man who wrote the damn thing.
The "general welfare" clause has been highly debated through the years but you have to go back to what the author explained he meant. That is found in Federalist #41. The "general welfare" IS specific welfare, it's outlined fully in Article I Sec. 8.
dear, our federal Constitution is a social Contract, with Terms, enforcible at law.Yes, Article 1, Section 8 enumerates the Terms general welfare and continues with explanations and qualifications; only the right wing, never gets it.*sigh* Well.. "how we get things" has nothing to do with what the Constitution says! The congress has passed laws and courts have upheld MANY unconstitutional things, should I list some of those to refresh your memory?How did we get, wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are nowhere enumerated in our Constitution. Providing for the general welfare is explicitly enumerated. The general welfare is not the specific welfare. You cannot win claiming any specifics, for the general welfare.It is about definitions, dear. There is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause.
No, the Constitution isn't about arbitrary definitions you pull outta your ass. It took years of deliberation and careful thought in every single line. The Federalist Papers serve as an outline and expanded explanation. If want to know what something in the Constitution means, you look to the Federalist Papers, not the dictionary. In Federalist #41, Madison explains how "general welfare" cannot possibly mean what modern liberal progressives claim. If it did, Madison asserts, there would be no purpose in enumerating powers or even the rest of the Constitution itself.
"General welfare" is specifically referring to the listed things in Article I Sec. 8. Nothing else is authorized or implied and no further powers are granted. So regardless of what a dictionary says, if it's not in Article I Sec. 8, it's not "general welfare." And this is explained by the man who wrote the damn thing.
The "general welfare" clause has been highly debated through the years but you have to go back to what the author explained he meant. That is found in Federalist #41. The "general welfare" IS specific welfare, it's outlined fully in Article I Sec. 8.
Well, I don't know about "right wing" anymore... Constitutional Conservatives get it, understand it and defend it rigorously. The progressives are who DON'T get it, whether right or left.
And Art. I Sec. 8 doesn't "enumerate the terms" it enumerates the powers granted to congress. Congress either has the power to do something or it's left to the states and people respectively. At least, that's how it was intended to be.
dear, our federal Constitution is a social Contract, with Terms, enforcible at law.Yes, Article 1, Section 8 enumerates the Terms general welfare and continues with explanations and qualifications; only the right wing, never gets it.*sigh* Well.. "how we get things" has nothing to do with what the Constitution says! The congress has passed laws and courts have upheld MANY unconstitutional things, should I list some of those to refresh your memory?How did we get, wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are nowhere enumerated in our Constitution. Providing for the general welfare is explicitly enumerated. The general welfare is not the specific welfare. You cannot win claiming any specifics, for the general welfare.No, the Constitution isn't about arbitrary definitions you pull outta your ass. It took years of deliberation and careful thought in every single line. The Federalist Papers serve as an outline and expanded explanation. If want to know what something in the Constitution means, you look to the Federalist Papers, not the dictionary. In Federalist #41, Madison explains how "general welfare" cannot possibly mean what modern liberal progressives claim. If it did, Madison asserts, there would be no purpose in enumerating powers or even the rest of the Constitution itself.
"General welfare" is specifically referring to the listed things in Article I Sec. 8. Nothing else is authorized or implied and no further powers are granted. So regardless of what a dictionary says, if it's not in Article I Sec. 8, it's not "general welfare." And this is explained by the man who wrote the damn thing.
The "general welfare" clause has been highly debated through the years but you have to go back to what the author explained he meant. That is found in Federalist #41. The "general welfare" IS specific welfare, it's outlined fully in Article I Sec. 8.
Well, I don't know about "right wing" anymore... Constitutional Conservatives get it, understand it and defend it rigorously. The progressives are who DON'T get it, whether right or left.
And Art. I Sec. 8 doesn't "enumerate the terms" it enumerates the powers granted to congress. Congress either has the power to do something or it's left to the states and people respectively. At least, that's how it was intended to be.
lol. it is a direct refutation of this propagana and rhetoric: And Art. I Sec. 8 doesn't "enumerate the terms" it enumerates the powers granted to congress. Congress either has the power to do something or it's left to the states and people respectively. At least, that's how it was intended to be.dear, our federal Constitution is a social Contract, with Terms, enforcible at law.Yes, Article 1, Section 8 enumerates the Terms general welfare and continues with explanations and qualifications; only the right wing, never gets it.*sigh* Well.. "how we get things" has nothing to do with what the Constitution says! The congress has passed laws and courts have upheld MANY unconstitutional things, should I list some of those to refresh your memory?How did we get, wars on crime, drugs, and terror; they are nowhere enumerated in our Constitution. Providing for the general welfare is explicitly enumerated. The general welfare is not the specific welfare. You cannot win claiming any specifics, for the general welfare.
The "general welfare" clause has been highly debated through the years but you have to go back to what the author explained he meant. That is found in Federalist #41. The "general welfare" IS specific welfare, it's outlined fully in Article I Sec. 8.
Well, I don't know about "right wing" anymore... Constitutional Conservatives get it, understand it and defend it rigorously. The progressives are who DON'T get it, whether right or left.
And Art. I Sec. 8 doesn't "enumerate the terms" it enumerates the powers granted to congress. Congress either has the power to do something or it's left to the states and people respectively. At least, that's how it was intended to be.
Now you're just rambling platitudes. All government is a social contract, and of course the Constitution (being the law) is enforceable by law. What the fuck are you trying to say? Nothing???
lol. it is a direct refutation of this propagana and rhetoric: And Art. I Sec. 8 doesn't "enumerate the terms" it enumerates the powers granted to congress. Congress either has the power to do something or it's left to the states and people respectively. At least, that's how it was intended to be.dear, our federal Constitution is a social Contract, with Terms, enforcible at law.Yes, Article 1, Section 8 enumerates the Terms general welfare and continues with explanations and qualifications; only the right wing, never gets it.*sigh* Well.. "how we get things" has nothing to do with what the Constitution says! The congress has passed laws and courts have upheld MANY unconstitutional things, should I list some of those to refresh your memory?
The "general welfare" clause has been highly debated through the years but you have to go back to what the author explained he meant. That is found in Federalist #41. The "general welfare" IS specific welfare, it's outlined fully in Article I Sec. 8.
Well, I don't know about "right wing" anymore... Constitutional Conservatives get it, understand it and defend it rigorously. The progressives are who DON'T get it, whether right or left.
And Art. I Sec. 8 doesn't "enumerate the terms" it enumerates the powers granted to congress. Congress either has the power to do something or it's left to the states and people respectively. At least, that's how it was intended to be.
Now you're just rambling platitudes. All government is a social contract, and of course the Constitution (being the law) is enforceable by law. What the fuck are you trying to say? Nothing???
Providing for the general welfare is a Contractual term; not something the right wing can, deny and disparage on whim by having, nothing but repeal.
It is a social Contract Term.lol. it is a direct refutation of this propagana and rhetoric: And Art. I Sec. 8 doesn't "enumerate the terms" it enumerates the powers granted to congress. Congress either has the power to do something or it's left to the states and people respectively. At least, that's how it was intended to be.dear, our federal Constitution is a social Contract, with Terms, enforcible at law.Yes, Article 1, Section 8 enumerates the Terms general welfare and continues with explanations and qualifications; only the right wing, never gets it.
Well, I don't know about "right wing" anymore... Constitutional Conservatives get it, understand it and defend it rigorously. The progressives are who DON'T get it, whether right or left.
And Art. I Sec. 8 doesn't "enumerate the terms" it enumerates the powers granted to congress. Congress either has the power to do something or it's left to the states and people respectively. At least, that's how it was intended to be.
Now you're just rambling platitudes. All government is a social contract, and of course the Constitution (being the law) is enforceable by law. What the fuck are you trying to say? Nothing???
Providing for the general welfare is a Contractual term; not something the right wing can, deny and disparage on whim by having, nothing but repeal.
It's not a contractual term, according to the author, it's a literary device.
It is a social Contract Term.lol. it is a direct refutation of this propagana and rhetoric: And Art. I Sec. 8 doesn't "enumerate the terms" it enumerates the powers granted to congress. Congress either has the power to do something or it's left to the states and people respectively. At least, that's how it was intended to be.dear, our federal Constitution is a social Contract, with Terms, enforcible at law.Well, I don't know about "right wing" anymore... Constitutional Conservatives get it, understand it and defend it rigorously. The progressives are who DON'T get it, whether right or left.
And Art. I Sec. 8 doesn't "enumerate the terms" it enumerates the powers granted to congress. Congress either has the power to do something or it's left to the states and people respectively. At least, that's how it was intended to be.
Now you're just rambling platitudes. All government is a social contract, and of course the Constitution (being the law) is enforceable by law. What the fuck are you trying to say? Nothing???
Providing for the general welfare is a Contractual term; not something the right wing can, deny and disparage on whim by having, nothing but repeal.
It's not a contractual term, according to the author, it's a literary device.
Our supreme law of the land was ratified via the political process as that form of social Contract and Constitution for our Body politic.
That is fundamental.
This IS, social-ism:
Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number Two
That Is Social-ism; y'all only have propaganda and rhetoric, not valid arguments.It is a social Contract Term.lol. it is a direct refutation of this propagana and rhetoric: And Art. I Sec. 8 doesn't "enumerate the terms" it enumerates the powers granted to congress. Congress either has the power to do something or it's left to the states and people respectively. At least, that's how it was intended to be.dear, our federal Constitution is a social Contract, with Terms, enforcible at law.
Now you're just rambling platitudes. All government is a social contract, and of course the Constitution (being the law) is enforceable by law. What the fuck are you trying to say? Nothing???
Providing for the general welfare is a Contractual term; not something the right wing can, deny and disparage on whim by having, nothing but repeal.
It's not a contractual term, according to the author, it's a literary device.
Our supreme law of the land was ratified via the political process as that form of social Contract and Constitution for our Body politic.
That is fundamental.
This IS, social-ism:
Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number Two
Again... maybe you're being intentionally dense or maybe it's natural for you... but ANY AND ALL government is a social contract! So claiming words in a document which lays out our government are terms of social contract is about as useful as claiming they are English words. It doesn't help define the meaning of the words.
I don't know why you want to post an excerpt from Fed #2 and proclaim it "social-ism" ...other than to demonstrate your abject ignorance of what the Marxist political ideology of Socialism actually is. Perhaps you're that shallow and dumb, if so, you need to get some education. If you're not that shallow and dumb then you're trying to be deceptive and dishonest.
Fed #2 makes the brilliant point that the more power the people cede to government the more personal freedom they sacrifice. This is precisely why our government's powers are enumerated and limited. This is yet another strong argument for why "general welfare" cannot mean what progressives claim. Why would they make such a statement then turn around and contradict it by granting government unlimited power to determine what's in our general welfare?
And let's clarify something else here while we're on the topic... "promote the general welfare" doesn't mean the same thing as "ensure or provide general welfare."
...
That Is Social-ism; y'all only have propaganda and rhetoric, not valid arguments.It is a social Contract Term.lol. it is a direct refutation of this propagana and rhetoric: And Art. I Sec. 8 doesn't "enumerate the terms" it enumerates the powers granted to congress. Congress either has the power to do something or it's left to the states and people respectively. At least, that's how it was intended to be.Now you're just rambling platitudes. All government is a social contract, and of course the Constitution (being the law) is enforceable by law. What the fuck are you trying to say? Nothing???
Providing for the general welfare is a Contractual term; not something the right wing can, deny and disparage on whim by having, nothing but repeal.
It's not a contractual term, according to the author, it's a literary device.
Our supreme law of the land was ratified via the political process as that form of social Contract and Constitution for our Body politic.
That is fundamental.
This IS, social-ism:
Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number Two
Again... maybe you're being intentionally dense or maybe it's natural for you... but ANY AND ALL government is a social contract! So claiming words in a document which lays out our government are terms of social contract is about as useful as claiming they are English words. It doesn't help define the meaning of the words.
I don't know why you want to post an excerpt from Fed #2 and proclaim it "social-ism" ...other than to demonstrate your abject ignorance of what the Marxist political ideology of Socialism actually is. Perhaps you're that shallow and dumb, if so, you need to get some education. If you're not that shallow and dumb then you're trying to be deceptive and dishonest.
Fed #2 makes the brilliant point that the more power the people cede to government the more personal freedom they sacrifice. This is precisely why our government's powers are enumerated and limited. This is yet another strong argument for why "general welfare" cannot mean what progressives claim. Why would they make such a statement then turn around and contradict it by granting government unlimited power to determine what's in our general welfare?
And let's clarify something else here while we're on the topic... "promote the general welfare" doesn't mean the same thing as "ensure or provide general welfare."
...
It is about Terms. Providing for the general welfare is a Term. It does not mean or imply, providing for the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the common offense.
Resorting to Marx is special pleading. Socialism must start with a social Contract. It is, social-ism.That Is Social-ism; y'all only have propaganda and rhetoric, not valid arguments.It is a social Contract Term.lol. it is a direct refutation of this propagana and rhetoric: And Art. I Sec. 8 doesn't "enumerate the terms" it enumerates the powers granted to congress. Congress either has the power to do something or it's left to the states and people respectively. At least, that's how it was intended to be.
Providing for the general welfare is a Contractual term; not something the right wing can, deny and disparage on whim by having, nothing but repeal.
It's not a contractual term, according to the author, it's a literary device.
Our supreme law of the land was ratified via the political process as that form of social Contract and Constitution for our Body politic.
That is fundamental.
This IS, social-ism:
Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number Two
Again... maybe you're being intentionally dense or maybe it's natural for you... but ANY AND ALL government is a social contract! So claiming words in a document which lays out our government are terms of social contract is about as useful as claiming they are English words. It doesn't help define the meaning of the words.
I don't know why you want to post an excerpt from Fed #2 and proclaim it "social-ism" ...other than to demonstrate your abject ignorance of what the Marxist political ideology of Socialism actually is. Perhaps you're that shallow and dumb, if so, you need to get some education. If you're not that shallow and dumb then you're trying to be deceptive and dishonest.
Fed #2 makes the brilliant point that the more power the people cede to government the more personal freedom they sacrifice. This is precisely why our government's powers are enumerated and limited. This is yet another strong argument for why "general welfare" cannot mean what progressives claim. Why would they make such a statement then turn around and contradict it by granting government unlimited power to determine what's in our general welfare?
And let's clarify something else here while we're on the topic... "promote the general welfare" doesn't mean the same thing as "ensure or provide general welfare."
...
It is about Terms. Providing for the general welfare is a Term. It does not mean or imply, providing for the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the common offense.
No, when I refer to Socialism, it means the ideology of Karl Marx and others, not some cobbled together bullshit you pulled outta your ass and tried to compare with the Constitution. Unlike you or most commie quislings, I've actually read Karl Marx and anything I espouse regarding Socialism isn't propaganda, it comes straight from the horse's mouth.
"Provide for the general welfare" IS a term... it's English as well. It's also part of a "social contract" known as The Constitution which is the law of the land and enforceable by law. It was written into the Constitution by a man named James Madison who also wrote Federalist #41 and explained what was meant by the term. There is a lengthy list of things it doesn't mean or imply, including the modern progressive definition.
Resorting to Marx is special pleading. Socialism must start with a social Contract. It is, social-ism.That Is Social-ism; y'all only have propaganda and rhetoric, not valid arguments.It is a social Contract Term.It's not a contractual term, according to the author, it's a literary device.
Our supreme law of the land was ratified via the political process as that form of social Contract and Constitution for our Body politic.
That is fundamental.
This IS, social-ism:
Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number Two
Again... maybe you're being intentionally dense or maybe it's natural for you... but ANY AND ALL government is a social contract! So claiming words in a document which lays out our government are terms of social contract is about as useful as claiming they are English words. It doesn't help define the meaning of the words.
I don't know why you want to post an excerpt from Fed #2 and proclaim it "social-ism" ...other than to demonstrate your abject ignorance of what the Marxist political ideology of Socialism actually is. Perhaps you're that shallow and dumb, if so, you need to get some education. If you're not that shallow and dumb then you're trying to be deceptive and dishonest.
Fed #2 makes the brilliant point that the more power the people cede to government the more personal freedom they sacrifice. This is precisely why our government's powers are enumerated and limited. This is yet another strong argument for why "general welfare" cannot mean what progressives claim. Why would they make such a statement then turn around and contradict it by granting government unlimited power to determine what's in our general welfare?
And let's clarify something else here while we're on the topic... "promote the general welfare" doesn't mean the same thing as "ensure or provide general welfare."
...
It is about Terms. Providing for the general welfare is a Term. It does not mean or imply, providing for the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the common offense.
No, when I refer to Socialism, it means the ideology of Karl Marx and others, not some cobbled together bullshit you pulled outta your ass and tried to compare with the Constitution. Unlike you or most commie quislings, I've actually read Karl Marx and anything I espouse regarding Socialism isn't propaganda, it comes straight from the horse's mouth.
"Provide for the general welfare" IS a term... it's English as well. It's also part of a "social contract" known as The Constitution which is the law of the land and enforceable by law. It was written into the Constitution by a man named James Madison who also wrote Federalist #41 and explained what was meant by the term. There is a lengthy list of things it doesn't mean or imply, including the modern progressive definition.
To provide for the general welfare means, just that; it does not mean to provide for the general warfare nor the common offense.
.
It has become a regular habit for some media contributors to blame millennials for the death of many businesses and other profitable institutions. This blame focuses on millennials because they refuse to spend there limited incomes to benefit the billionaires and other corporate fat cats.
The American people have listened to conservatives tout the benefits of Reagan’s snake oil known as “Trickle Down” for the last four decades. Reliable numbers charting the success of Reagan’s snake oil have proven consistently, that during these years, the wealthiest top 0.1% (that’s one tenth of one percent) have flourished beyond all expectations.
Unfortunately, those same reliable numbers prove the bottom 90%, and especially the lowest half of American families haven’t fared well, at all.
But, in the years when Reagan first started selling his snake oil, in younger, baby boomer families, both spouses began working, so the negative impact of his trickle-down-snake-oil was slow to be noticed by the masses. The generation that fought in WWII and produced the baby-boomers were already established financially, so they too were also slow to notice as their buying power decreased.
The WWII generation did have one advantage (if you can call it that) over the baby boomers they bore. The WWII generation lived through the Great Depression. Their families were forced to learn to make do with less, appreciate the value of money, and live within their limited means.
This was not the case with the “boomers”. As conservative policies slowly began to strangle wages, destroy unions, and create an environment hostile to working people, easy credit became available to provide the money needed by the boomers to buy the trappings of middle class, which were rapidly becoming more and more expensive.
Living expenses, whether for necessities or luxuries, increased at a rate much more quickly than incomes. The bubble burst in the middle of 2008, the final year of Dubya’s tax-cuts-for-the-very-rich, and borrow-money-for-two-needless-wars administration.
During the initial months of the Great Republican Recession, countless baby boomers lost their jobs, homes, cars, life savings, retirement accounts, etc. The following years of slow economic recovery resulting from the congressional Republicans many efforts to make Obama a one-term-president, saw economic conditions so bad, many of these boomers would never recover.
All this financial tragedy had little effect on the wealthiest top 0.1%, but it was a lesson to the millennial generation. Like their grandparents during the Great Depression, they watched while their parents [boomers] struggled financially. Savings ran out, as did long-term unemployment benefits, and eventually, the income from part-time jobs was barely enough to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads.
This generation-wide experience forced most millennials to develop a financial mindset that is currently being blamed for the dying retail industry, the slowing restaurant business, the bind being felt by automakers, unimpressive sales of new homes, and the loss of many jobs.
But blaming all this on millennials is Bullsh!t.
Unlike the suckers who believe in Reagan’s snake oil, these young people refuse to spend their meager incomes on the billionaires' over-priced crap. The same over-priced crap their boomer parents went deeply into debt to own, so as to live the middle class lifestyle, which was beyond the financial means of most.
No, the blame for the economic catastrophe of Reagan’s snake oil falls squarely on the suckers in the baby boomer generation. For four decades, they happily handed the vast majority of the wealth to the top 0.1%, in the mistaken belief the billionaires’ massive profits from ever-rising prices, substantial Republican tax cuts, the outsourcing these tax cuts helped finance, and the stagnant wages enjoyed by low and middle income families would finally be trickled down upon them.
That ain’t happened yet, and millennials know it never will. They understand they must live for the moment, and the few enjoyable experiences they are able to afford. Fu*k the businesses that are dying. The millennials are not to blame for the CEO baby boomers who were too stupid to understand Reagan’s snake oil would eventually cause their worlds to come crashing down around them.
Millennials can read the handwriting on the wall. They know Reagan’s “Trickle Down” snake oil is a scam to keep wealth moving upward, and always has been. They can also understand that, until the stupid, conservative baby boomers die out, there is little they can do to help themselves. The stupid members of the boomer generation still have too much power. “Trickle Down” will continue, for now.
'Psychologically scarred' millennials are killing dozens of industries — and it's their parents' fault
_______________________________________________________________________________________
View attachment 131176
.
I started my career within 2 weeks of Reagan taking office. I came from a lower middle class family with no money and lots of debt. Mortgage interest rates were 18% car loans were over 20% thanks to Carternomics. 8 years later I was kicking ass and taking names thanks to the turnaround Reagan brought about. Call it whatever you want, Reaganomics worked for anyone willing to work.
Well that's just great! Hey everyone Mike says he did fine so everyone did great!
Dude; you have no context, Only special pleading. Socialism does not mean, Only one thing.Resorting to Marx is special pleading. Socialism must start with a social Contract. It is, social-ism.That Is Social-ism; y'all only have propaganda and rhetoric, not valid arguments.It is a social Contract Term.
Our supreme law of the land was ratified via the political process as that form of social Contract and Constitution for our Body politic.
That is fundamental.
This IS, social-ism:
Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.--The Federalist Number Two
Again... maybe you're being intentionally dense or maybe it's natural for you... but ANY AND ALL government is a social contract! So claiming words in a document which lays out our government are terms of social contract is about as useful as claiming they are English words. It doesn't help define the meaning of the words.
I don't know why you want to post an excerpt from Fed #2 and proclaim it "social-ism" ...other than to demonstrate your abject ignorance of what the Marxist political ideology of Socialism actually is. Perhaps you're that shallow and dumb, if so, you need to get some education. If you're not that shallow and dumb then you're trying to be deceptive and dishonest.
Fed #2 makes the brilliant point that the more power the people cede to government the more personal freedom they sacrifice. This is precisely why our government's powers are enumerated and limited. This is yet another strong argument for why "general welfare" cannot mean what progressives claim. Why would they make such a statement then turn around and contradict it by granting government unlimited power to determine what's in our general welfare?
And let's clarify something else here while we're on the topic... "promote the general welfare" doesn't mean the same thing as "ensure or provide general welfare."
...
It is about Terms. Providing for the general welfare is a Term. It does not mean or imply, providing for the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the common offense.
No, when I refer to Socialism, it means the ideology of Karl Marx and others, not some cobbled together bullshit you pulled outta your ass and tried to compare with the Constitution. Unlike you or most commie quislings, I've actually read Karl Marx and anything I espouse regarding Socialism isn't propaganda, it comes straight from the horse's mouth.
"Provide for the general welfare" IS a term... it's English as well. It's also part of a "social contract" known as The Constitution which is the law of the land and enforceable by law. It was written into the Constitution by a man named James Madison who also wrote Federalist #41 and explained what was meant by the term. There is a lengthy list of things it doesn't mean or imply, including the modern progressive definition.
To provide for the general welfare means, just that; it does not mean to provide for the general warfare nor the common offense.
I'm not "resorting" to Marx, merely explaining what is meant by "Socialism" in context. Again, any and all forms of government are social contracts. All governments are not Socialist. We seem to be going in circles and I don't have time for this game. "General welfare" means what Madison says it means. He wrote it so I'll go with his explanation over yours.
By your definition, capitalism is socialism due to it being the way we organize our economy. That is just stupid.Dude; you have no context, Only special pleading. Socialism does not mean, Only one thing.Resorting to Marx is special pleading. Socialism must start with a social Contract. It is, social-ism.That Is Social-ism; y'all only have propaganda and rhetoric, not valid arguments.Again... maybe you're being intentionally dense or maybe it's natural for you... but ANY AND ALL government is a social contract! So claiming words in a document which lays out our government are terms of social contract is about as useful as claiming they are English words. It doesn't help define the meaning of the words.
I don't know why you want to post an excerpt from Fed #2 and proclaim it "social-ism" ...other than to demonstrate your abject ignorance of what the Marxist political ideology of Socialism actually is. Perhaps you're that shallow and dumb, if so, you need to get some education. If you're not that shallow and dumb then you're trying to be deceptive and dishonest.
Fed #2 makes the brilliant point that the more power the people cede to government the more personal freedom they sacrifice. This is precisely why our government's powers are enumerated and limited. This is yet another strong argument for why "general welfare" cannot mean what progressives claim. Why would they make such a statement then turn around and contradict it by granting government unlimited power to determine what's in our general welfare?
And let's clarify something else here while we're on the topic... "promote the general welfare" doesn't mean the same thing as "ensure or provide general welfare."
...
It is about Terms. Providing for the general welfare is a Term. It does not mean or imply, providing for the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the common offense.
No, when I refer to Socialism, it means the ideology of Karl Marx and others, not some cobbled together bullshit you pulled outta your ass and tried to compare with the Constitution. Unlike you or most commie quislings, I've actually read Karl Marx and anything I espouse regarding Socialism isn't propaganda, it comes straight from the horse's mouth.
"Provide for the general welfare" IS a term... it's English as well. It's also part of a "social contract" known as The Constitution which is the law of the land and enforceable by law. It was written into the Constitution by a man named James Madison who also wrote Federalist #41 and explained what was meant by the term. There is a lengthy list of things it doesn't mean or imply, including the modern progressive definition.
To provide for the general welfare means, just that; it does not mean to provide for the general warfare nor the common offense.
I'm not "resorting" to Marx, merely explaining what is meant by "Socialism" in context. Again, any and all forms of government are social contracts. All governments are not Socialist. We seem to be going in circles and I don't have time for this game. "General welfare" means what Madison says it means. He wrote it so I'll go with his explanation over yours.
And socialism is derived from social-ism--relating to society or its organization.
Our social Contract and Constitution, Organizes our society into a republican form of Government.
By your definition, capitalism is socialism due to it being the way we organize our economy. That is just stupid.Dude; you have no context, Only special pleading. Socialism does not mean, Only one thing.Resorting to Marx is special pleading. Socialism must start with a social Contract. It is, social-ism.That Is Social-ism; y'all only have propaganda and rhetoric, not valid arguments.
It is about Terms. Providing for the general welfare is a Term. It does not mean or imply, providing for the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the common offense.
No, when I refer to Socialism, it means the ideology of Karl Marx and others, not some cobbled together bullshit you pulled outta your ass and tried to compare with the Constitution. Unlike you or most commie quislings, I've actually read Karl Marx and anything I espouse regarding Socialism isn't propaganda, it comes straight from the horse's mouth.
"Provide for the general welfare" IS a term... it's English as well. It's also part of a "social contract" known as The Constitution which is the law of the land and enforceable by law. It was written into the Constitution by a man named James Madison who also wrote Federalist #41 and explained what was meant by the term. There is a lengthy list of things it doesn't mean or imply, including the modern progressive definition.
To provide for the general welfare means, just that; it does not mean to provide for the general warfare nor the common offense.
I'm not "resorting" to Marx, merely explaining what is meant by "Socialism" in context. Again, any and all forms of government are social contracts. All governments are not Socialist. We seem to be going in circles and I don't have time for this game. "General welfare" means what Madison says it means. He wrote it so I'll go with his explanation over yours.
And socialism is derived from social-ism--relating to society or its organization.
Our social Contract and Constitution, Organizes our society into a republican form of Government.
Why do you lie about Trickle Down? Or is it you're too stupid to understand how the economy works?
Marx defined socialism for the industrial age. It developed through his criticism of the capitalist mode of production. The socialist mode of production places the means of production with the workers. The state as we know it would necessarily have to be dissolved because it was built up to support the capitalist system. You are not fully read on Marx if you think he promoted state control over industry. The excerpt below is taken from Marx's criticism of the party platform of the German Workers Party.By your definition, capitalism is socialism due to it being the way we organize our economy. That is just stupid.Dude; you have no context, Only special pleading. Socialism does not mean, Only one thing.Resorting to Marx is special pleading. Socialism must start with a social Contract. It is, social-ism.No, when I refer to Socialism, it means the ideology of Karl Marx and others, not some cobbled together bullshit you pulled outta your ass and tried to compare with the Constitution. Unlike you or most commie quislings, I've actually read Karl Marx and anything I espouse regarding Socialism isn't propaganda, it comes straight from the horse's mouth.
"Provide for the general welfare" IS a term... it's English as well. It's also part of a "social contract" known as The Constitution which is the law of the land and enforceable by law. It was written into the Constitution by a man named James Madison who also wrote Federalist #41 and explained what was meant by the term. There is a lengthy list of things it doesn't mean or imply, including the modern progressive definition.
To provide for the general welfare means, just that; it does not mean to provide for the general warfare nor the common offense.
I'm not "resorting" to Marx, merely explaining what is meant by "Socialism" in context. Again, any and all forms of government are social contracts. All governments are not Socialist. We seem to be going in circles and I don't have time for this game. "General welfare" means what Madison says it means. He wrote it so I'll go with his explanation over yours.
And socialism is derived from social-ism--relating to society or its organization.
Our social Contract and Constitution, Organizes our society into a republican form of Government.
Socialism is a specific economic and social ideology espoused by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx. It is highlighted by State ownership of the means of production and denunciation of private property. The ultimate stated objective is the achievement of Communism. This ideology has such a failed historic record that new age Socialists are forced to use deception to promote it. Here, we have them using an old tactic of trying to convince others that we're ALL Socialists, we just call it something else.
Sometimes they will claim that our system is a combination of Socialism and Capitalism because they will claim things such as the military, police and fire services are "Socialist" but this is patently false. We're NOT a mixture, as Socialism seeks to destroy Free Market Capitalism. It cannot exist in the same environment. There are simply things that a free society has willingly determined are most effectively handled as a collective. It's not that they are more efficiently handled, it's that they are more effective. We've determined the trade-off in efficiency is worth it in the case of the military, police and fire services because it's more effective.
To illustrate what I mean, let's consider what would be the result of fire and police services operating as private free market agents. It would be much more efficient, as any unnecessary costs would be eliminated but that means certain areas where the market couldn't afford the services or was too sparse, there would be no service because there would be no profit. Obviously, since these services are essential, we must focus on effectiveness instead of efficiency and profitability. But this is all by choice of free people, it's NOT Socialist.
Marx defined socialism for the industrial age. It developed through his criticism of the capitalist mode of production. The socialist mode of production places the means of production with the workers. The state as we know it would necessarily have to be dissolved because it was built up to support the capitalist system. You are not fully read on Marx if you think he promoted state control over industry. The excerpt below is taken from Marx's criticism of the party platform of the German Workers Party.By your definition, capitalism is socialism due to it being the way we organize our economy. That is just stupid.Dude; you have no context, Only special pleading. Socialism does not mean, Only one thing.Resorting to Marx is special pleading. Socialism must start with a social Contract. It is, social-ism.
To provide for the general welfare means, just that; it does not mean to provide for the general warfare nor the common offense.
I'm not "resorting" to Marx, merely explaining what is meant by "Socialism" in context. Again, any and all forms of government are social contracts. All governments are not Socialist. We seem to be going in circles and I don't have time for this game. "General welfare" means what Madison says it means. He wrote it so I'll go with his explanation over yours.
And socialism is derived from social-ism--relating to society or its organization.
Our social Contract and Constitution, Organizes our society into a republican form of Government.
Socialism is a specific economic and social ideology espoused by Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx. It is highlighted by State ownership of the means of production and denunciation of private property. The ultimate stated objective is the achievement of Communism. This ideology has such a failed historic record that new age Socialists are forced to use deception to promote it. Here, we have them using an old tactic of trying to convince others that we're ALL Socialists, we just call it something else.
Sometimes they will claim that our system is a combination of Socialism and Capitalism because they will claim things such as the military, police and fire services are "Socialist" but this is patently false. We're NOT a mixture, as Socialism seeks to destroy Free Market Capitalism. It cannot exist in the same environment. There are simply things that a free society has willingly determined are most effectively handled as a collective. It's not that they are more efficiently handled, it's that they are more effective. We've determined the trade-off in efficiency is worth it in the case of the military, police and fire services because it's more effective.
To illustrate what I mean, let's consider what would be the result of fire and police services operating as private free market agents. It would be much more efficient, as any unnecessary costs would be eliminated but that means certain areas where the market couldn't afford the services or was too sparse, there would be no service because there would be no profit. Obviously, since these services are essential, we must focus on effectiveness instead of efficiency and profitability. But this is all by choice of free people, it's NOT Socialist.
That the workers desire to establish the conditions for co-operative production on a social scale, and first of all on a national scale, in their own country, only means that they are working to revolutionize the present conditions of production, and it has nothing in common with the foundation of co-operative societies with state aid. But as far as the present co-operative societies are concerned, they are of value only insofar as they are the independent creations of the workers and not protégés either of the governments or of the bourgeois.
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- III
The more I learn of Marx the more clear it becomes just how misrepresented he is. And the reasons for the misrepresentations more obvious.
That is your definition, not mine; you nailed it, pretty well.By your definition, capitalism is socialism due to it being the way we organize our economy. That is just stupid.Dude; you have no context, Only special pleading. Socialism does not mean, Only one thing.Resorting to Marx is special pleading. Socialism must start with a social Contract. It is, social-ism.That Is Social-ism; y'all only have propaganda and rhetoric, not valid arguments.
It is about Terms. Providing for the general welfare is a Term. It does not mean or imply, providing for the general badfare, nor the general warfare, nor even the common offense.
No, when I refer to Socialism, it means the ideology of Karl Marx and others, not some cobbled together bullshit you pulled outta your ass and tried to compare with the Constitution. Unlike you or most commie quislings, I've actually read Karl Marx and anything I espouse regarding Socialism isn't propaganda, it comes straight from the horse's mouth.
"Provide for the general welfare" IS a term... it's English as well. It's also part of a "social contract" known as The Constitution which is the law of the land and enforceable by law. It was written into the Constitution by a man named James Madison who also wrote Federalist #41 and explained what was meant by the term. There is a lengthy list of things it doesn't mean or imply, including the modern progressive definition.
To provide for the general welfare means, just that; it does not mean to provide for the general warfare nor the common offense.
I'm not "resorting" to Marx, merely explaining what is meant by "Socialism" in context. Again, any and all forms of government are social contracts. All governments are not Socialist. We seem to be going in circles and I don't have time for this game. "General welfare" means what Madison says it means. He wrote it so I'll go with his explanation over yours.
And socialism is derived from social-ism--relating to society or its organization.
Our social Contract and Constitution, Organizes our society into a republican form of Government.
