U.S. General Accounting Office sounds alarm on America’s insolvency

[Sun Devil 92]

Please show me where it specifically enforces morality.

There is nothing in statute that claims the preamble as it's basis, so you can spare us that stupidity.

One specific instance where morality is enforced.

Don't have time to write the volumes needed. Why don't you just list what doesn't involve morality? That's a much shorter list, since it will have zero entries. Most of the 'stupid' people tend to be like yourself, unable to accept morals and principles as important. I didn't say a thing about the Preamble, so you're already dissembling.

Mixed you up with a different moron in this thread.

The power to collect taxes has no basis in morality.

Next question.

yes, it does; it involves, faith, in the execution of the law.

A little early to be drinking.

People abide the law.....not some moral obligation.

there are no morals in faithful execution of the law?

There is nothing moral about abiding a law.

You break the law, they send you to jail, not to Sunday School.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Our constitution does not enforce "morality" in any way shape or fashion.

Of course it does, and in fact a moral basis is the only way it works at all.

Please show me where it specifically enforces morality.

There is nothing in statute that claims the preamble as it's basis, so you can spare us that stupidity.

One specific instance where morality is enforced.

the moral implication is obvious;

our Constitution was Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers.

Well, no it isn't.

So why don't you explain it to us.

Or admit you can't.

yes, it does. you are merely clueless and Causeless, like any Ambassador of the Right Wing.

Making up more stuff.

You are really hurting......better put down the bottle.

 

[Doc1]

We have our Orders, from our Founding Fathers, in general.

What orders were those ?

We were given a constitution which formed a representative republic at the federal level only.

All else was left to the states to decide.

did you not read the preamble to our federal Constitution?

Yes, I read it.

The difference between you and I is that I understand it.

no. you are on the right wing. you only claim to understand it.

Well aren't you just the smartest little boy in the room?
Should we kneel at your feet?

 

[danielpalos]

did you not read the preamble to our federal Constitution?

There were nothing about orders there.

Look if you want to persist in trying to sell a fairy tale for an argument, go find a kiddies forum.

The preamble tells what the constitution was formed to do. The actual document tells us what it is doing.

And nowhere is there any mention of morality or a moral obligation. In fact, it is quite clear that those who framed this up were more interested in liberty than in yoking people to a strong central government that runs off of some kind of "moral" imperative.

They just got done booting people who did that.....out.

We have our standing Orders as citizens of our Republic.

You merely have lousy reading comprehension.

That's got to be one of the most laughable arguments so far this year.

We have......

I can't show you where there are any "orders".......but we have ........

i already Told you where it is.

Only one problem....it ain't there.

Yes, it is.

 

[danielpalos]

We have our Orders, from our Founding Fathers, in general.

What orders were those ?

We were given a constitution which formed a representative republic at the federal level only.

All else was left to the states to decide.

did you not read the preamble to our federal Constitution?

Yes, I read it.

The difference between you and I is that I understand it.

no. you are on the right wing. you only claim to understand it.

Well aren't you just the smartest little boy in the room?
Should we kneel at your feet?

only if you are a really hot chic, and look up and say, please.

 

[Doc1]

What orders were those ?

We were given a constitution which formed a representative republic at the federal level only.

All else was left to the states to decide.

did you not read the preamble to our federal Constitution?

Yes, I read it.

The difference between you and I is that I understand it.

no. you are on the right wing. you only claim to understand it.

Well aren't you just the smartest little boy in the room?
Should we kneel at your feet?

only if you are a really hot chic, and look up and say, please.

Well aren't you just the cleverest lil guy.
Cite your source or pound sound kid, until you do you're just one more internet liar.
Just put it right here in the forum in one of oh so bright posts.

 

[Picaro]

What orders were those ?

We were given a constitution which formed a representative republic at the federal level only.

All else was left to the states to decide.

did you not read the preamble to our federal Constitution?

There were nothing about orders there.

Look if you want to persist in trying to sell a fairy tale for an argument, go find a kiddies forum.

The preamble tells what the constitution was formed to do. The actual document tells us what it is doing.

And nowhere is there any mention of morality or a moral obligation. In fact, it is quite clear that those who framed this up were more interested in liberty than in yoking people to a strong central government that runs off of some kind of "moral" imperative.

They just got done booting people who did that.....out.

We have our standing Orders as citizens of our Republic.

You merely have lousy reading comprehension.

That's got to be one of the most laughable arguments so far this year.

We have......

I can't show you where there are any "orders".......but we have ........

i already Told you where it is.

He isn't capable of recognizing it; he thinks he's one of those 'self made men' and that 'Social Darwinism' is a real thing. He read it over at Free Republic and in a Ron Paul speech.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

There were nothing about orders there.

Look if you want to persist in trying to sell a fairy tale for an argument, go find a kiddies forum.

The preamble tells what the constitution was formed to do. The actual document tells us what it is doing.

And nowhere is there any mention of morality or a moral obligation. In fact, it is quite clear that those who framed this up were more interested in liberty than in yoking people to a strong central government that runs off of some kind of "moral" imperative.

They just got done booting people who did that.....out.

We have our standing Orders as citizens of our Republic.

You merely have lousy reading comprehension.

That's got to be one of the most laughable arguments so far this year.

We have......

I can't show you where there are any "orders".......but we have ........

i already Told you where it is.

Only one problem....it ain't there.

Yes, it is.

Then you'll have no problem pointing it out.

Wait, you won't point it out...why ?

Because it isn't there.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

We have our Orders, from our Founding Fathers, in general.

What orders were those ?

We were given a constitution which formed a representative republic at the federal level only.

All else was left to the states to decide.

did you not read the preamble to our federal Constitution?

Yes, I read it.

The difference between you and I is that I understand it.

no. you are on the right wing. you only claim to understand it.

When you can expand my understanding, I'll be here.

What is funny is your allusion to wings.

You are clearly on the left. By definition, the left has an arrogant point of view that things are they way THEY see them. They also tend to attack those who disagree despite claiming to be incredibly tolerant.

What they are....is full of s**t.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

did you not read the preamble to our federal Constitution?

There were nothing about orders there.

Look if you want to persist in trying to sell a fairy tale for an argument, go find a kiddies forum.

The preamble tells what the constitution was formed to do. The actual document tells us what it is doing.

And nowhere is there any mention of morality or a moral obligation. In fact, it is quite clear that those who framed this up were more interested in liberty than in yoking people to a strong central government that runs off of some kind of "moral" imperative.

They just got done booting people who did that.....out.

We have our standing Orders as citizens of our Republic.

You merely have lousy reading comprehension.

That's got to be one of the most laughable arguments so far this year.

We have......

I can't show you where there are any "orders".......but we have ........

i already Told you where it is.

He isn't capable of recognizing it; he thinks he's one of those 'self made men' and that 'Social Darwinism' is a real thing. He read it over at Free Republic and in a Ron Paul speech.

I don't recall reading anything, but I will say that Ron Paul understands more about the Constitution than the entire left wing of the democratic party combined.

 

[danielpalos]

We have our standing Orders as citizens of our Republic.

You merely have lousy reading comprehension.

That's got to be one of the most laughable arguments so far this year.

We have......

I can't show you where there are any "orders".......but we have ........

i already Told you where it is.

Only one problem....it ain't there.

Yes, it is.

Then you'll have no problem pointing it out.

Wait, you won't point it out...why ?

Because it isn't there.

it is in the preamble. do you know what that is?

 

[danielpalos]

We have our Orders, from our Founding Fathers, in general.

What orders were those ?

We were given a constitution which formed a representative republic at the federal level only.

All else was left to the states to decide.

did you not read the preamble to our federal Constitution?

Yes, I read it.

The difference between you and I is that I understand it.

no. you are on the right wing. you only claim to understand it.

When you can expand my understanding, I'll be here.

What is funny is your allusion to wings.

You are clearly on the left. By definition, the left has an arrogant point of view that things are they way THEY see them. They also tend to attack those who disagree despite claiming to be incredibly tolerant.

What they are....is full of s**t.

just abstract bs? why not a valid argument instead of so much diversion?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That's got to be one of the most laughable arguments so far this year.

We have......

I can't show you where there are any "orders".......but we have ........

i already Told you where it is.

Only one problem....it ain't there.

Yes, it is.

Then you'll have no problem pointing it out.

Wait, you won't point it out...why ?

Because it isn't there.

it is in the preamble. do you know what that is?

You can't point out where in the preamble.

Sorry...you lose.

Loser.

 

[danielpalos]

There were nothing about orders there.

Look if you want to persist in trying to sell a fairy tale for an argument, go find a kiddies forum.

The preamble tells what the constitution was formed to do. The actual document tells us what it is doing.

And nowhere is there any mention of morality or a moral obligation. In fact, it is quite clear that those who framed this up were more interested in liberty than in yoking people to a strong central government that runs off of some kind of "moral" imperative.

They just got done booting people who did that.....out.

We have our standing Orders as citizens of our Republic.

You merely have lousy reading comprehension.

That's got to be one of the most laughable arguments so far this year.

We have......

I can't show you where there are any "orders".......but we have ........

i already Told you where it is.

He isn't capable of recognizing it; he thinks he's one of those 'self made men' and that 'Social Darwinism' is a real thing. He read it over at Free Republic and in a Ron Paul speech.

I don't recall reading anything, but I will say that Ron Paul understands more about the Constitution than the entire left wing of the democratic party combined.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

 

[danielpalos]

i already Told you where it is.

Only one problem....it ain't there.

Yes, it is.

Then you'll have no problem pointing it out.

Wait, you won't point it out...why ?

Because it isn't there.

it is in the preamble. do you know what that is?

You can't point out where in the preamble.

Sorry...you lose.

Loser.

too lazy, Person on the fantastical, right wing?

why complain about the poor.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

We have our standing Orders as citizens of our Republic.

You merely have lousy reading comprehension.

That's got to be one of the most laughable arguments so far this year.

We have......

I can't show you where there are any "orders".......but we have ........

i already Told you where it is.

He isn't capable of recognizing it; he thinks he's one of those 'self made men' and that 'Social Darwinism' is a real thing. He read it over at Free Republic and in a Ron Paul speech.

I don't recall reading anything, but I will say that Ron Paul understands more about the Constitution than the entire left wing of the democratic party combined.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Yeah...apparently not.

I mean with Clinton in the WH and the house/senate in the hands of the democrats....

Oh wait......

Sucks to be you.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Only one problem....it ain't there.

Yes, it is.

Then you'll have no problem pointing it out.

Wait, you won't point it out...why ?

Because it isn't there.

it is in the preamble. do you know what that is?

You can't point out where in the preamble.

Sorry...you lose.

Loser.

too lazy, Person on the fantastical, right wing?

why complain about the poor.

You taking meth too ?

Get some help.

 

[danielpalos]

That's got to be one of the most laughable arguments so far this year.

We have......

I can't show you where there are any "orders".......but we have ........

i already Told you where it is.

He isn't capable of recognizing it; he thinks he's one of those 'self made men' and that 'Social Darwinism' is a real thing. He read it over at Free Republic and in a Ron Paul speech.

I don't recall reading anything, but I will say that Ron Paul understands more about the Constitution than the entire left wing of the democratic party combined.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Yeah...apparently not.

I mean with Clinton in the WH and the house/senate in the hands of the democrats....

Oh wait......

Sucks to be you.

i don't need to resort to fallacy; i have good arguments.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is.

Then you'll have no problem pointing it out.

Wait, you won't point it out...why ?

Because it isn't there.

it is in the preamble. do you know what that is?

You can't point out where in the preamble.

Sorry...you lose.

Loser.

too lazy, Person on the fantastical, right wing?

why complain about the poor.

You taking meth too ?

Get some help.

just clueless and Causeless; i got it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

i already Told you where it is.

He isn't capable of recognizing it; he thinks he's one of those 'self made men' and that 'Social Darwinism' is a real thing. He read it over at Free Republic and in a Ron Paul speech.

I don't recall reading anything, but I will say that Ron Paul understands more about the Constitution than the entire left wing of the democratic party combined.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics or the law.

Yeah...apparently not.

I mean with Clinton in the WH and the house/senate in the hands of the democrats....

Oh wait......

Sucks to be you.

i don't need to resort to fallacy; i have good arguments.

Good arguments.....

I say...therefore it is.

That's a great left wing argument. All your left wing butt-buddies buy into it.

You are a fraud.