danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #41
Ad hominems are also usually considered fallacies. Ran out of logic and reason so soon?You can thumbs down all day long- it won't change the facts or the evidence, stupid.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad hominems are also usually considered fallacies. Ran out of logic and reason so soon?You can thumbs down all day long- it won't change the facts or the evidence, stupid.
Our welfare clause in general- that's simple English- you fail again. Promoting is not providing. Not even generally speaking- simple English.Diversions and red herrings are usually considered fallacies. Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce clause in particular with which to promote the general welfare. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. We need solutions not right wingers who merely doth protest too much.
I addressed the common defense, stupid. Go back and read what I posted-Those rules are recent and did not apply back then. Besides, if what you allege concerning the general welfare must also apply to the common Defense.
Both promote and provide are used in reference to the general welfare. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.Our welfare clause in general- that's simple English- you fail again. Promoting is not providing. Not even generally speaking- simple English.Diversions and red herrings are usually considered fallacies. Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce clause in particular with which to promote the general welfare. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. We need solutions not right wingers who merely doth protest too much.
The only way one can address an idiot who he feels he is superior is to address him properly- and I do.Ad hominems are also usually considered fallacies. Ran out of logic and reason so soon?
It has to be the same for both or none.I addressed the common defense, stupid. Go back and read what I posted-Those rules are recent and did not apply back then. Besides, if what you allege concerning the general welfare must also apply to the common Defense.
Only if you have no more Point and no more valid arguments.The only way one can address an idiot who he feels he is superior is to address him properly- and I do.Ad hominems are also usually considered fallacies. Ran out of logic and reason so soon?
Indeed, but you're making them, stupid, not me, stupid.There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
What you allege makes no sense.Indeed, but you're making them, stupid, not me, stupid.There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.
Go away kid, I'm tired of fucking with your stupidity.
Both promote and provide are used in reference to the general welfare. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.Our welfare clause in general- that's simple English- you fail again. Promoting is not providing. Not even generally speaking- simple English.Diversions and red herrings are usually considered fallacies. Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce clause in particular with which to promote the general welfare. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. We need solutions not right wingers who merely doth protest too much.
lol. That quote supports my opinion not right wingers' opinion. Right wingers are simply ignorant of the Terms. Our public policies are to promote and provide for the general welfare not the general malfare. For the Good and not the Bad.Both promote and provide are used in reference to the general welfare. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.Our welfare clause in general- that's simple English- you fail again. Promoting is not providing. Not even generally speaking- simple English.Diversions and red herrings are usually considered fallacies. Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce clause in particular with which to promote the general welfare. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. We need solutions not right wingers who merely doth protest too much.
It is amazing you seem to want to write the constitution yourself.
Which you can't......
As has been shown time and time again.....
Starting with Madison in Federalist 41:
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “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,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it…. But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?
*************************
Do you need us to further explain this one to you.
Or do you think you, somehow, have the position to dismiss Madison ?
lol. That quote supports my opinion not right wingers' opinion. Right wingers are simply ignorant of the Terms. Our public policies are to promote and provide for the general welfare not the general malfare. For the Good and not the Bad.Both promote and provide are used in reference to the general welfare. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine.Our welfare clause in general- that's simple English- you fail again. Promoting is not providing. Not even generally speaking- simple English.Diversions and red herrings are usually considered fallacies. Our welfare clause is General and we have a Commerce clause in particular with which to promote the general welfare. There is no provision for excuses in our federal doctrine. We need solutions not right wingers who merely doth protest too much.
It is amazing you seem to want to write the constitution yourself.
Which you can't......
As has been shown time and time again.....
Starting with Madison in Federalist 41:
Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “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,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it…. But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?
*************************
Do you need us to further explain this one to you.
Or do you think you, somehow, have the position to dismiss Madison ?