The ONLY viable candidate in this election

[OKTexas]

Next question. What are his views on poor houses and who should fund them?

Each individual state should decide if and how much funding. Just as the constitution outlines (see...I told you he respect the U.S. Constitution).

The constitution leaves plenty of leeway regarding social safety nets. Why did you avoid my first question?

Actually if you read it, it doesn't. They were State responsibilities.

 

[HappyJoy]

Next question. What are his views on poor houses and who should fund them?

Each individual state should decide if and how much funding. Just as the constitution outlines (see...I told you he respect the U.S. Constitution).

The constitution leaves plenty of leeway regarding social safety nets. Why did you avoid my first question?

Actually if you read it, it doesn't. They were State responsibilities.

What were state responsibilities? General welfare?

 

[HnL]

It is absolutely not too late to dump Trump and Clinton. This is the only candidate in the 2016 election who will respect and defend the U.S. Constitution and who is sane, rational, articulate, and educated. Both Donald Trump and Hitlery Clinton are life-long progressive Democrats who are hungry for power and wealth and who have zero respect for the U.S. Constitution. Garry Johnson is a certified whack-a-doo who is immature and stoned. Jill Stein is a full-fledged communist who will also disregard the U.S. Constitution. Darrell Castle is the only real candidate. He is the only one who isn't an embarrassment to the United States.

Castle 2016 - Darrell Castle for President

He is a fucking birther and he thinks Angela Merkel is Hitler's daughter.

He is flat out nuts.

 

[OKTexas]

Next question. What are his views on poor houses and who should fund them?

Each individual state should decide if and how much funding. Just as the constitution outlines (see...I told you he respect the U.S. Constitution).

The constitution leaves plenty of leeway regarding social safety nets. Why did you avoid my first question?

Actually if you read it, it doesn't. They were State responsibilities.

What were state responsibilities? General welfare?

Yep, everything except what was mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 2 thru 9.

 

[HappyJoy]

Next question. What are his views on poor houses and who should fund them?

Each individual state should decide if and how much funding. Just as the constitution outlines (see...I told you he respect the U.S. Constitution).

The constitution leaves plenty of leeway regarding social safety nets. Why did you avoid my first question?

Actually if you read it, it doesn't. They were State responsibilities.

What were state responsibilities? General welfare?

Yep, everything except what was mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 2 thru 9.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you on multiple occasions. And yes, you're going to disagree with the Supreme Court, but who the fuck cares? You are only you.

 

[OKTexas]

Each individual state should decide if and how much funding. Just as the constitution outlines (see...I told you he respect the U.S. Constitution).

The constitution leaves plenty of leeway regarding social safety nets. Why did you avoid my first question?

Actually if you read it, it doesn't. They were State responsibilities.

What were state responsibilities? General welfare?

Yep, everything except what was mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 2 thru 9.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you on multiple occasions. And yes, you're going to disagree with the Supreme Court, but who the fuck cares? You are only you.

That just proves that the supreme court is just as likely to ignore the document that created them as any politician, and people like you allow them to do so. Now run along child and talk about something you actually know something about, like dancing with the stars or some other reality show.

 

[HappyJoy]

The constitution leaves plenty of leeway regarding social safety nets. Why did you avoid my first question?

Actually if you read it, it doesn't. They were State responsibilities.

What were state responsibilities? General welfare?

Yep, everything except what was mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 2 thru 9.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you on multiple occasions. And yes, you're going to disagree with the Supreme Court, but who the fuck cares? You are only you.

That just proves that the supreme court is just as likely to ignore the document that created them as any politician, and people like you allow them to do so. Now run along child and talk about something you actually know something about, like dancing with the stars or some other reality show.

What it comes down to is you think only things that past constitutional muster according to you are constitutional. The challenge is your personal opinion doesn't mean squat. Elect people who agree with you who appoint judges who then can bend the Constitution in your direction. That is your role, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually if you read it, it doesn't. They were State responsibilities.

What were state responsibilities? General welfare?

Yep, everything except what was mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 2 thru 9.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you on multiple occasions. And yes, you're going to disagree with the Supreme Court, but who the fuck cares? You are only you.

That just proves that the supreme court is just as likely to ignore the document that created them as any politician, and people like you allow them to do so. Now run along child and talk about something you actually know something about, like dancing with the stars or some other reality show.

What it comes down to is you think only things that past constitutional muster according to you are constitutional. The challenge is your personal opinion doesn't mean squat. Elect people who agree with you who appoint judges who then can bend the Constitution in your direction. That is your role, nothing more, nothing less.

Only things that comport with the written word of the Constitution are constitutional, not opinion, fact. And we are working on electing people who will actually follow their oath to support and defend it, as written.

 

[HappyJoy]

It is absolutely not too late to dump Trump and Clinton. This is the only candidate in the 2016 election who will respect and defend the U.S. Constitution and who is sane, rational, articulate, and educated. Both Donald Trump and Hitlery Clinton are life-long progressive Democrats who are hungry for power and wealth and who have zero respect for the U.S. Constitution. Garry Johnson is a certified whack-a-doo who is immature and stoned. Jill Stein is a full-fledged communist who will also disregard the U.S. Constitution. Darrell Castle is the only real candidate. He is the only one who isn't an embarrassment to the United States.

Castle 2016 - Darrell Castle for President

He is a fucking birther and he thinks Angela Merkel is Hitler's daughter.

He is flat out nuts.

Is that so far fetched?


I kid, it's fucking insane.

 

[HappyJoy]

What were state responsibilities? General welfare?

Yep, everything except what was mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 2 thru 9.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you on multiple occasions. And yes, you're going to disagree with the Supreme Court, but who the fuck cares? You are only you.

That just proves that the supreme court is just as likely to ignore the document that created them as any politician, and people like you allow them to do so. Now run along child and talk about something you actually know something about, like dancing with the stars or some other reality show.

What it comes down to is you think only things that past constitutional muster according to you are constitutional. The challenge is your personal opinion doesn't mean squat. Elect people who agree with you who appoint judges who then can bend the Constitution in your direction. That is your role, nothing more, nothing less.

Only things that comport with the written word of the Constitution are constitutional, not opinion, fact. And we are working on electing people who will actually follow their oath to support and defend it, as written.

I find it funny as hell that people don't recognize that there are many interpretations of what is constitutional and completely do not understand the concept of needing a central body to sort it out.

 

[OKTexas]

Yep, everything except what was mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 2 thru 9.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you on multiple occasions. And yes, you're going to disagree with the Supreme Court, but who the fuck cares? You are only you.

That just proves that the supreme court is just as likely to ignore the document that created them as any politician, and people like you allow them to do so. Now run along child and talk about something you actually know something about, like dancing with the stars or some other reality show.

What it comes down to is you think only things that past constitutional muster according to you are constitutional. The challenge is your personal opinion doesn't mean squat. Elect people who agree with you who appoint judges who then can bend the Constitution in your direction. That is your role, nothing more, nothing less.

Only things that comport with the written word of the Constitution are constitutional, not opinion, fact. And we are working on electing people who will actually follow their oath to support and defend it, as written.

I find it funny as hell that people don't recognize that there are many interpretations of what is constitutional and completely do not understand the concept of needing a central body to sort it out.

Try reading a book called Men In Black, then you might get a clue.

 

[P@triot]

What were state responsibilities? General welfare?

First of all dumb-ass...."General Welfare" is not welfare like ignorant progressives believe. But being that none of you have ever actually read the U.S. Constitution, it's not at all surprising that you are clueless about that.

The "General Welfare" clause referred to the 18 enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the states. It had nothing to do with the welfare of people, stupid. Here is Thomas Jefferson himself...

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

Thomas Jefferson knows more about the U.S. Constitution than you and your precious little Supreme Court which has been stacked with political activists rather than justices. It's painful having to educate you ignorant progressives.

 

[P@triot]

I find it funny as hell that people don't recognize that there are many interpretations of what is constitutional and completely do not understand the concept of needing a central body to sort it out.

I find it tragic as hell that ignorant progressives (such as yourself) one day arbitrarily declared that words have no meaning and thus a written contract is meaningless.

The Constitution is written in black and white, says exactly what it says, and is not open to "interpretation". If that's the case - why even have laws or legal contracts if the words mean nothing and can be altered by opinion with an agenda?!? Idiot.

 

[HappyJoy]

What were state responsibilities? General welfare?

First of all dumb-ass...."General Welfare" is not welfare like ignorant progressives believe. But being that none of you have ever actually read the U.S. Constitution, it's not at all surprising that you are clueless about that.

The "General Welfare" clause referred to the 18 enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the states. It had nothing to do with the welfare of people, stupid. Here is Thomas Jefferson himself...

“Congress had not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provide for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action” - Thomas Jefferson (June 6, 1817)

“[We] disavow, and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the [Constitution], in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare–which construction would make that of itself a complete government, without limitation of powers.… The plain sense and obvious meaning were that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others. – Thomas Jefferson (December 24, 1825)

Thomas Jefferson knows more about the U.S. Constitution than you and your precious little Supreme Court which has been stacked with political activists rather than justices. It's painful having to educate you ignorant progressives.

Nobody said 'general welfare' refers only to welfare.

 

[HappyJoy]

I find it funny as hell that people don't recognize that there are many interpretations of what is constitutional and completely do not understand the concept of needing a central body to sort it out.

I find it tragic as hell that ignorant progressives (such as yourself) one day arbitrarily declared that words have no meaning and thus a written contract is meaningless.

The Constitution is written in black and white, says exactly what it says, and is not open to "interpretation". If that's the case - why even have laws or legal contracts if the words mean nothing and can be altered by opinion with an agenda?!? Idiot.

Of course it's open to interpretation, it's silly to think it isn't. For example, you;re not a constitutional scholar and you have no constitutional right to decide what is constitutional or not. So, who gets to make that decision?

 

[P@triot]

For example, you;re not a constitutional scholar and you have no constitutional right to decide what is constitutional or not. So, who gets to make that decision?

The constitution.

For example - it says that the federal government was delegated 18 enumerated powers by the states. So that means the federal government was delegated 18 enumerated powers by the states.

See how fuck'n easy that was?

 

[P@triot]

Of course it's open to interpretation, it's silly to think it isn't.

No...really...it's not. It's a special kind of stupid to think it is. When you sign a contract for a builder to build your home - do you acknowledge their authority to "interpret" it and change everything on you?

 

[HappyJoy]

For example, you;re not a constitutional scholar and you have no constitutional right to decide what is constitutional or not. So, who gets to make that decision?

The constitution.

For example - it says that the federal government was delegated 18 enumerated powers by the states. So that means the federal government was delegated 18 enumerated powers by the states.

See how fuck'n easy that was?

Yes and the judicial branch gets to define those powers. It's ridiculous that the far right thinks any fat ass with a hungry man meal and a tv tray are constitutional scholars.

 

[Darkwind]

No. We'll stick with Ms. Clinton.

regardless of the number of innocents she kills.

 

[HappyJoy]

No. We'll stick with Ms. Clinton.

regardless of the number of innocents she kills.

The FEMA camps will fix you, try not to resist as you only make it harder on yourself.